- Aug 16, 2012
3 lbs. on the 28-70 f/2 was my guess.
Don't worry they will announce 24-70 2.8 RF28-70 is 3.15 pounds?
The weight saving idea went out the window.
The lens might need to be that big to be f/2, but it kind of misses the mark for the first go round of releases.
A compact f/2.8 might have been more appropriate.
Don't worry they will announce 24-70 2.8 RF
This lens is about making a statement. First to make a 28-70 F2 and we have so many capable lens makers nowaday.
Wedding photographers would love this lens especially if it's $2000-2500.
Very very true. Add to the DSLR benefits that their sensors gather much less dust due to mirror presence.Right, so the RF 35/1.8 IS a touch lighter than the EF 35/2 IS, and RF 24-105/4L IS is a bit lighter than the EF 24-105/4L IS II (although a fraction heavier than the EF 24-105/4L IS) ... and the RF 28-70/2L and RF 50 1.2L are fairly heavy lenses. Unsurprising for their specs given they are all FF lenses (and what we've seen other brands), but again it has me questioning whether FF mirrorless really has much of a weight or size advantage over DSLR ... and assuming it doesn't, what the big deal is about FF mirrorless.
I understand mirrorless may offer some other benefits over DSLR, but DSLR offers some benefits of FF mirrorless too (depending on what features you value, eg I am yet to see an EVF I like as much as an OVF although I realise others prefer EVF).
I will be interested to hear more about the EOS R and the RF lenses as information becomes available, but at this point personally I'm not feeling a likely buyer for the EOS R (at least any time soon).
Keep in mind that since there is no size advantage between the R 24-105 and your 24-105 version 1 the only advantage is due to smaller camera only.The 24-105 was first L lens on my first FF camera (the 5D MKII), and I really ended up using and liking that zoom range a lot. Looking back at old photos, I'm still amazed at how great it is (my copy at least), except for very wide shots. And I'm going to do this combo again with the R and the RF 24-105, be up and running, and see how things go.
Maybe Canon's idea is that, since the body is lighter but has similar sized grip, you can get away with a heavier lens as the net total is only 400g heavier, rather than 800g heavier.
28-70... 3 pounds for a lens that will go on a tiny camera with a skinny grip? How are you expected to grab the camera with one hand? The EF 24-70 -2.8 II is half the weight and it is heavy already. I have the unbalanced problem with the Sony A7r iii and the 24-70 being too heavy for the body and it's only 2 pounds!
It could be a switch. It could be an artifact.Sorry if this has been covered before... the 50mm seems to have a switch on the bottom that seems to indicate an IS lens, no?