A pair of 24-70mm f/2.8L IS lenses coming in 2019? [CR2]

Talys

Canon 6DII
Feb 16, 2017
1,885
136
Vancouver, BC
#61
They will likely be smaller and lighter. Sony's f/4 16-35 is smaller (1" shorter) and lighter (by 100g), and it performs better than the Canon version. That is significant.
It's only on the wide angle lenses that you see a little bit of length difference; as the FL increases to general purpose and telephoto lengths, there is no size benefit at all, and 100g is a variance that you see from Sony to Canon EF lenses one way or the other, keeping in mind that the internals are not the same; one uses STM and the other has mechanical focus, the manufacture materials, especially on the f/4's can be quite different.

Specifically on the wide angle trinity zooms, the size/weight of a 16-35 (whether f/4 or f/2.8) was never an issue. for me. I mean, I could hold one all day on a full size DSLR body and never tire; even so, I'm not really sure why I would such a wide lens. Starting at 24-70 and especially at 70-200, where I am likely to get a lot more hours holding it at eye level, the f/2.8 get heavier and larger than f/4 lenses, to the point where I often prefer the f/4 for weight reasons.

If there were a way to make a 70-200/2.8 IS , without any sacrifices, in the size and weight of a 70-200/4 IS, I would preorder one in a heartbeat even if it cost four times today's price for 70-200/2.8, but I literally think this is impossible without a revolution in optics.
 
Aug 1, 2017
107
43
#62
Canon double's down on Lens IS over IBIS.

Seems like the overall market has already decided that it would prefer IBIS. Canon should be out there making the case for IS over IBIS if that is the way they are going. I get that IS may be the best solution for telephoto lenses but why is it better for a 24-70 f2.8 and if it is why did they just release a 24-70 f2.8 without it.

... edited to delete some bitching
 
Last edited:
Likes: fullstop

tron

EOS 5DS R
Nov 8, 2011
3,722
118
#63
Canon double's down on Lens IS over IBIS.

Seems like the overall market has already decided that it would prefer IBIS. Canon should be out there making the case for IS over IBIS if that is the way they are going. I get that IS may be the best solution for telephoto lenses but why is it better for a 24-70 f2.8 and if it is why did they just release a 24-70 f2.8 without it.

... edited to delete some bitching
Maybe the reason they try to avoid it is described by your nickname!
 
Likes: Apfelmark

Random Orbits

EOS 6D Mark II
Mar 14, 2012
2,098
33
#64
Canon double's down on Lens IS over IBIS.

Seems like the overall market has already decided that it would prefer IBIS. Canon should be out there making the case for IS over IBIS if that is the way they are going. I get that IS may be the best solution for telephoto lenses but why is it better for a 24-70 f2.8 and if it is why did they just release a 24-70 f2.8 without it.

... edited to delete some bitching
Lens IS is better than IBIS. But the best is having both lens IS and IBIS working together. The Canon body with IBIS will come, and when it does, it'll be great because so many Canon lenses already have IS.
 
Likes: Hesbehindyou

lenspacker

Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II USM
Sep 7, 2018
5
2
#67
it´s a dilemma - - on the one hand I try to start with the new R-system and with the new designed lenses. On the other hand, I can`t use the R-lenses on my old 5d and 1d - bodies - - so I prefer to buy the lens with the old system and use an adapter for the R-system. But what is the future - in this case I have a lot of ef-lenses and no R-lenses - and i have to use an adapter for the next 10... years. At the moment I`m not happy with these options....
 
Likes: FramerMCB
Sep 19, 2010
1,267
41
Ottawa Ontario
#68
Lens IS is better than IBIS. But the best is having both lens IS and IBIS working together. The Canon body with IBIS will come, and when it does, it'll be great because so many Canon lenses already have IS.
Lens IS is not better than IBIS, especially when the lens doesn't have IS, and Canon continues to release lenses without IS. I suspect that Canon is still working on IBIS but have not got it right yet.
IBIS can compensate for rotation, keeping the horizon stable for instance. Lens IS cannot do that.
 

jonbenz

Canon EOS 6D/70D
May 31, 2018
3
0
#69
I was expecting all the new lenses comming to this new mount were at least one stop faster (with all this buzz/engineering-justification for dropping EF mount). Otherwise, it seems to me just a very expensive (paint job/aesthetics) updated EF version.
 
Sep 29, 2015
104
3
#70
the 24-70 2.8 is the missing lens in my lineup because 1: I don't particularly use that focal length zoom range and 2: waiting for an IS version. If Canon releases both an RF and EF version I would be torn on which version to get. I really want to love the EOS R but the video specs just don't do it for me. I can deal with the 4K crop (I have the 10-18 EFS lens) and fine with just 4k30 (I have a 1DX2 that can do 4K60) but what really is a bummer is no 1080p120. I can almost make do with the 720p1080 but there is no autofocus with that mode on the EOS R.

I went to a Canon demo and did handle an EOS R and I really love the ergonomics and functionality of the new camera. But again the video specs are lack luster. I may just wait for the next version or buy an A7III or possibly round out my lens lineup a bit better (35 1.4 and 85 1.4 are calling for me)
 

jonbenz

Canon EOS 6D/70D
May 31, 2018
3
0
#72
So, you expected nothing but bigger, heavier lenses? That seems pretty limited.
I understand that there is not as easy as it sounds, but for instance, they made a new mount expensier bigger heavier lens with the same speed (RF 50mm 1.2L vs EF 50mm 1.2L). And for that they are charging 900$ more. Ok, it is far much better optically but what would you expect from an updated 12 years old formula and tech?

I think they wouldn't charge that much if it were released in EF mount (just an opinion).

I'm not an optical engineer and really don't know how big and heavy it would result a zoom lens 24-70 2.0 L. I guess we all dream about one of these with at least the same size it already has.

Regards
 
Nov 10, 2016
29
7
#73
I understand that there is not as easy as it sounds, but for instance, they made a new mount expensier bigger heavier lens with the same speed (RF 50mm 1.2L vs EF 50mm 1.2L). And for that they are charging 900$ more. Ok, it is far much better optically but what would you expect from an updated 12 years old formula and tech?

I think they wouldn't charge that much if it were released in EF mount (just an opinion).

I'm not an optical engineer and really don't know how big and heavy it would result a zoom lens 24-70 2.0 L. I guess we all dream about one of these with at least the same size it already has.

Regards
The RF 28-70mm F/2.0 has 95mm filter threads. It would have been even larger if it was a 24-70mm. That's big glass.

I agree that a new EF 50mm f/1.2L would not have seen a $900 uptick in pricing but the RF 50mm f/1.2L is not the same lens with a different mount. I believe the RF 50mm f/1.2L is Canon making a statement as to the future of the RF mount and EOS R. The sharper glass of the RF mount will take advantage of 75-100 MP sensors. Maybe an RF 24-70mm f/2.8 will go back to a 77mm filter thread and still be sharper than the EF 24-70mm f2.8L. Even if an RF 24-70 f/2.8 keeps the 82mm filter thread, it would be worth it if it had IS.
 

jd7

EOS Rebel SL2
Feb 3, 2013
603
33
#74
Well compared to the Otus aside from adding AF the Canon is also a bit cheaper. Over the Art, I guess the AF is more reliable, and maybe other things like sealing and build quality? Also over both it has 1/3 stop more aperture, although that makes little practical difference. Surely we're pushing the very edge of what's possible at 50mm now - it's good there are several options providing excellent sharpness etc. But expecting the new Canon 50mm to be much better again than these newer lenses (rather than the old 50mm f/1.2 which it seems to trounce) is probably unrealistic.
I could believe the Canon RF 50L may have an edge in build quality over the Sigma Art - the Canon L gear does seem to be generally very well built. That said, I have never had a reason to question the build quality of either of my two Art lenses (or my Sigma 85 EX) and I don't really know. As for AF, I haven't been unhappy with the AF on my Sigma Arts but I know some people seem to have problems with their copies so not sure what to think about AF. Anyway, will be interesting to see how the Sigma lenses go with the on sensor AF system in the EOS R.

As for it being unrealistic to expect something much better than lenses like the 50 Art and Otus 55, that may be right but the point is I'm not seeing the RF 50L as demonstrating the new RF mount offering a significant IQ advantage over the EF mount. And while the RF 28-70/2L is offering something we haven't seen in the EF mount, I am not aware of anyone making a 1.5kg 28-70 EF mount lens at all, so I wonder what would be possible if someone wanted to make it. Obviously it's early days yet and maybe other RF lenses will show the RF mount does allow higher IQ, I'm just saying I don't feel excited about the RF 50L by what I've seen so far.
 
Last edited:

Talys

Canon 6DII
Feb 16, 2017
1,885
136
Vancouver, BC
#75
As for it being unrealistic to expect something much better than lenses like the 50 Art and Otus 55, that may be right but the point is I'm not seeing the RF 50L as demonstrating the new RF mount offering a significant IQ advantage over the EF mount. And while the RF 28-70/2L is offering something we haven't seen in the EF mount, I am not aware of anyone making a 1.5kg 28-70 EF mount lens at all, so I wonder what would be possible if someone wanted to make it. Obviously it's early days yet and maybe other RF lenses will show the RF mount does allow higher IQ, I'm just saying I don't feel excited about the RF 50L by what I've seen so far.
I don't see why anyone would expect a new lens mount mean better image quality. The only thing that you get is a shorter FFD, and I don't think that any camera manufacturer or lens manufacturer has ever said that longer FFDs hinder image quality. Other than the distance to the sensor, RF has no impact at all on what's possible for image quality. They can add a hundred more contacts or take them all out, and the image that hits the sensor won't be any different. At the end of the day, the optics are independent of the electronics.

That said, I think it's ok for us to expect Nikon and Canon to launch some awesome new lenses in conjunction with these splashy new bodies, and with Tokyo 2020 around the corner. I mean, why not, right?

Also, with regards to the current EF50L 1.2, I don't think anyone really assumed that Canon couldn't build a sharper lens. Just, for various reasons (a legitimate one being, I think, most photographers buying an f/1.2 lens aren't looking for pixel-peeping sharpness in that lens).

Incidentally, I will guess that Canon has a nice new 70-200/2.8 design that they're holding back for an RF launch, though I would expect it to not be meaningfully lighter or smaller than the current EF version.
 
Jun 6, 2012
202
20
#76
A dude did a vdieo about IBIS from Sony vs Lens IS
from Canon and the results were almost identical. At the end the dude said IBIS is better because it works any lens
 

jd7

EOS Rebel SL2
Feb 3, 2013
603
33
#77
I don't see why anyone would expect a new lens mount mean better image quality. The only thing that you get is a shorter FFD, and I don't think that any camera manufacturer or lens manufacturer has ever said that longer FFDs hinder image quality. Other than the distance to the sensor, RF has no impact at all on what's possible for image quality. They can add a hundred more contacts or take them all out, and the image that hits the sensor won't be any different. At the end of the day, the optics are independent of the electronics.
Guess you were late to the party :) See page 9 Canon's EOS R system white paper
http://www.canonrumors.com/eosr/canon_eos_r_white_paper.pdf

To be fair they seem to be concentrating on the edges of the image area more than the centre ... but looking at the TDP lens tests I don't see the RF 50/1.2L dominating in the corners either.

Also, with regards to the current EF50L 1.2, I don't think anyone really assumed that Canon couldn't build a sharper lens. Just, for various reasons (a legitimate one being, I think, most photographers buying an f/1.2 lens aren't looking for pixel-peeping sharpness in that lens).
I am happy with the IQ from Art but I've always liked the rendering of the EF 50/1.2L too. I certainly don't think sharpness is the only thing that matters.
 
Last edited:
Aug 30, 2018
4
1
#78
My Leica Summilux 35mm 1.4 is TINY compared to all these Canon beasts (including the 35L 1.4), and doesn't seem to have all that much glass. So it must be more a matter of the AF and IS motors, etc.
While the af motors take up some space, Leica has different design parameters when designing lenses, they optimize for optics and compactness with little regard to cost or production time. Canon could probably make a smaller 35mm f/1.4 but will the public spend 2-3x as much for that lens? You can get a 24-70ii and a 70-200ii for the price of the Summuilux.

Roger over at lensrentals gets into it a bit in the comments on this article
 
Likes: tmroper
Jan 23, 2014
55
1
#79
2020 folks! When it comes to the R mount keep 2020 in mind. Then think Japan. Then put it all together and you say, Oh the Olympics are in JAPAN in 2020! So when will they be releasing a D style body for the R mount? It's 2019 in a few months so this looks like it will be right in their wheelhouse. I would expect a high MP version within a year, especially to take advantage of the great pop in filter adapter!
 
Likes: SilverBox
Jun 29, 2016
32
4
#80
For most people, myself for example, a series of zoom lenses: 11-24mm, 24-105mm, 100-400mm covers a full range, That might appeal enough to convert to the R series.
 
Likes: Romz26