Canon working on another f/2 zoom lens for the RF mount [CR1]

Nov 11, 2018
3
3
Can anyone tell me why canon is creating heavy, bulky lenses on a smaller mirrorless body? The mirrorless rf system is heavier than a dslr ef-s system. Wasn't mirrorless supposed to be the lighter system?
Mirrorless can be lighter or not, but it doesn’t have to be. I’m shoot an 80D partly because of its compromise in size, as well as features. I’m looking forward to having a full frame body that I can put a lightweight lens on if I want or a heavy lens if I need. I’m still on the sidelines because the R and RP don’t quite offer enough incentive to upgrade.

With regards to the new lens, I expect this to be a UWA lens. They will chop one side of the range, probably the wide end like they did with the 28-70. I’d guess they can get a 16-35 f/2 to fit with the same 95mm filters. Maybe it will be 17, but that would make most of us happy. There aren’t many current full frame options below 20mm faster than f/2.8.
 

dominic_siu

EOS R, RF2870, RF1535, RF70200
Aug 31, 2018
45
44
To be honest, the only comparisons I’ve seen between fast RF primes and the 28-70 have been people shooting test charts. This is not a substitute for real world evaluation. In charts, the 28-70 does not compare well in terms of sharpness.
I have been using RF2870 since it’s launch, I can say it is superb even wide open.
 

6degrees

RF 85mm F1.2
Sep 6, 2018
111
77
Any of these would be fantastic:

16-28mm F2
135-200mm F2

70-135mm F2 is meaningless with RF 85mm F1.2 in hand.
 
Last edited:

Pape

EOS 7D MK II
Dec 31, 2018
552
336
mirrorless lenses are heavy cause canon prepares for next generation sensors 32mp crop 100mpixel Full frame and probably double sharper ones inside 3 year. those demand f2
sorry about this message ,i just like dream :p
Canon is lens making company ,if it cant compete with computing and sensor read out speed they better move to higher mpixels where better lenses are needed and leave competitors what cant afford change to behind. Even it makes computer problems more bigger.
Heard about 64mpixel phone sensor ,sounds mad if phones pass slr cameras with basic photographing image quality.
 
Last edited:

Antono Refa

EOS 6D MK II
Mar 26, 2014
954
194

Pape

EOS 7D MK II
Dec 31, 2018
552
336
1. Why would those demand f/2?

2. Canon made a 120MP APS-H sensor nearly a decade ago., which is now a commercial product. To judge by this video, lenses are already there. If there was a big market for such resolution, Canon would have put this sensor in a DSLR already.
1 You want buy lense what is totally usefull 10 year later too. There could be 100mp crop sensor 10 year later and smaller than f2 may be difraction afffected. but yeah i was wrong on that thing speed boosters will solve that problem.
2
if that 120mp would be suitable and affordable for slr cameras we would seen it on camera already. its too expensive or it just too slow for most peoples with nowadays computers.Or too bad DR. And it doesnt sound good idea add one more format when got rid APS-H
 
Last edited:

Architect1776

Defining the poetics of space through Architecture
Aug 18, 2017
583
565
118
Williamsport, PA
Unrelated to this f2 rumor, but I wonder if the RF mount would make a f4 100-400 in the current form factor possible. I would think they could at least hold the f4.5 longer before dropping to f5.6. I have both the 100-400 II and the 200-400. It is a huge increase in size/weight to go from the f4.5-f5.6 to a constant f4 through the zoom range. I can’t remember if the RF Mount helps more on wide angle or telephoto. It would be a win even if they could knock 1/2 stop off the range.
I believe the RF mount allows for more creativity in the wider angle lenses. Long lenses need length (That is why they are called long lenses?) but the wide ones with no mirror in the way have more creativity Look at the 2 old Canon 19mm FL lenses. There were 2 versions and they look totally different as one was for use with the reflex mirror and the other with the mirror locked up and a separate viewfinder. PS these lenses are still highly sought after and relatively expensive.
 

Hector1970

EOS 6D MK II
Mar 22, 2012
1,136
322
Maybe I'm the wrong sort of customer but I don't see the great value of these F2 Zooms.
They appear as if they will be bulky and heavy.
I have a 50 1.2 II and an 85 1.2 II.
Using these lens I've never consciously made a decision of picking F2.0 over F2.8
Yes 1.2 or 1.4 or 1.2 or 2.8.
It depends on what you use lens for. Other people probably have different uses to me.
For instance I've a 16-35mm F4. It's sharp. Its nice and light and I have no need for F2.8 as a) I use a tripod b) I'm often looking for depth of field.
I'm really glad I didn't get the 16-35mm F2.8 II or III. It feels much heavier. A 16-35mm F2 would be even heavier.
If I'm doing Astro I use a prime Sigma 14mm F1.8

For sport to keep shutters speed up yes a wider aperture is helpful but I find the 70-200 mm 2.8 II very good for my needs and towards the outside weight of comfortable handholdability. I also use a 100-400 II which is a good compromise of weight versus aperture.
I use a 300 2.8 II which I can handhold but can cause injury with extended use.

I wouldn't see the pursuit of F2 over F2.8 as important.
F1.2 over F2.8 I could understand more as it does make a visual difference (but I wouldn't want a zoom which would be massive).

So maybe Canon will do an F2 trinity but I wouldn't think it would sell well. It would be more a show what we can do set of lens.
I'm not sure why but 28mm is a focal length that irritates me.
I have a 28mm prime and a Fuji X100S which has a wide angle adapter that makes it 28mm.
It's not wide enough and not long enough. 24mm and 35mm I've no issue with but 28mm for some reason to me is neither here nor there.
So I'll never buy a 28-70mm - even though it does get great reviews.
 
  • Like
Reactions: navastronia

YuengLinger

EOS 5D MK IV
Dec 20, 2012
2,856
1,099
Southeastern USA
Maybe I'm the wrong sort of customer but I don't see the great value of these F2 Zooms.
They appear as if they will be bulky and heavy.
I have a 50 1.2 II and an 85 1.2 II.
Using these lens I've never consciously made a decision of picking F2.0 over F2.8
Yes 1.2 or 1.4 or 1.2 or 2.8.
It depends on what you use lens for. Other people probably have different uses to me.
For instance I've a 16-35mm F4. It's sharp. Its nice and light and I have no need for F2.8 as a) I use a tripod b) I'm often looking for depth of field.
I'm really glad I didn't get the 16-35mm F2.8 II or III. It feels much heavier. A 16-35mm F2 would be even heavier.
If I'm doing Astro I use a prime Sigma 14mm F1.8

For sport to keep shutters speed up yes a wider aperture is helpful but I find the 70-200 mm 2.8 II very good for my needs and towards the outside weight of comfortable handholdability. I also use a 100-400 II which is a good compromise of weight versus aperture.
I use a 300 2.8 II which I can handhold but can cause injury with extended use.

I wouldn't see the pursuit of F2 over F2.8 as important.
F1.2 over F2.8 I could understand more as it does make a visual difference (but I wouldn't want a zoom which would be massive).

So maybe Canon will do an F2 trinity but I wouldn't think it would sell well. It would be more a show what we can do set of lens.
I'm not sure why but 28mm is a focal length that irritates me.
I have a 28mm prime and a Fuji X100S which has a wide angle adapter that makes it 28mm.
It's not wide enough and not long enough. 24mm and 35mm I've no issue with but 28mm for some reason to me is neither here nor there.
So I'll never buy a 28-70mm - even though it does get great reviews.
To an extent, I agree with you, Hector. The weight of the lenses is an issue. Personally I'd prefer f/2.8 with IS.

However, I have no doubt Canon will be introducing IBIS, and that they have gone to f/2 zooms and the bulky RF primes with that in mind. Once an effective (about 4 stops or better) IBIS is introduced, I wouldn't mind the weight. And then I'd appreciate the extra stop of light.
 
Last edited:

SecureGSM

2 x 5D IV
Feb 26, 2017
1,919
855
A lot of event shooters ( me including) shoot at around 28mm shooting people indoors.
24mm creates a very strong perspective distortions over people faces. Backing off into 28mm territory reduce amount of distortion greatly and affords distortion correction in post.

I do not believe 70-200 f2.0 was feasible from Canon. This would be a large and very heavy lens.
A shorted range would not work as 80-200 range is important : 85, 105, 135, 180, 200. Each one is all important.
 

Rajinder Shukla

I'm New Here
Nov 26, 2018
15
1
83
FR 12-35mm f2.8L IS USM, FR 24-240mm f4L IS USM and RF 100-400mm f4L IS USM.
All these 3 lenses must be a single continuous aperture lenses for future EOS R Mirrorless cameras. Variable Aperture is a big NOT WELCOME. To me RF 12-35mm f2.8L Non Bulbous Lens is a highly desirable.