Is a Canon RF 14-28mm f/2L USM on the way? [CR1]

Aug 22, 2010
1,634
332
49
Uk
www.GMCPhotographics.co.uk
I think for me, the f2 range are nice, but too big and heavy. Too much of a compromise between primes and zooms to justify swapping my fast primes and f2.8 zooms. I run with both depending on lighting conditions at wedding venues. I also find the focal ranges to be a bit limiting. I would prefer the wide to be 14-35mm. The extra length on the long end is exceptionally useful. The 28mm end of the 28-70/f2 is way shorter than the 24mm end that I enjoy with my f2.8 zoom. Making this far less versatile as a one lens walkabout. The rumours of a 70-135mm f2 are again a little short and I can't see much more value over a 135mm f2 prime. A 16-35/f2.8, 50 f1.2, 85 f1.2 and a 135mm f2 are way more versatile than the f2 trinity.
Plus the issues of the Eos R body, poor UI and quirky AF implementation...leaves me still very cold for the current Canon mirror less set up. Hopefully the R5 will rectify this?
In the mean time....I'm still rocking a pair of 5DmkIII's, a full set of ef fast primes and a full set of ef 2.8 zoomsters....
 

Etienne

EOS 6D MK II
Sep 19, 2010
1,387
186
Ottawa Ontario
I was pretty impressed at first then I realized that all these zooms are just 2X. That means Canon is finally catching up to Sigma who have had their 18-35 and 50-100 1.8s for years. The Canon FF lenses will deliver more being FF lenses but the lens designs aren't that radical any more.
Seriously dude?
Those sigma lenses are APS-C. They are not even remotely in the same category as these Canon f/2 zooms.
 

Etienne

EOS 6D MK II
Sep 19, 2010
1,387
186
Ottawa Ontario
I recently purchased the f2.8 trinity and am very content with my purchases. The f2 zooms are an engineering marvel, but for me they are too heavy to handle for daily use. I thought the 82 mm filters on the f2.8 were large until I saw the 95 mm filters on the f2. Wow!!
I tend to agree. It's nice to know the f/2 zooms are out there should the need arise, but I doubt I'll go that route in the end.
My choices will likely be, when available: 16-35 f/4 IS, 50 f/1.4 or the rumored 40 f/1.8, and the 100-500 or the 70-200 f/2.8 IS. I'm probably the odd one out in that I'm not really into the standard zooms. I prefer a standard prime and zooms on the wide and tele for a compact kit.
 

CanonFanBoy

Really O.K. Boomer
Jan 28, 2015
4,705
2,625
Irving, Texas
Except that focal overlap is there for a reason. A 24-70 isn't really a 24-70...it's closer to 25.5 to 65mm in reality. A 70-200 isn't really a 70-200...it's actually a 75-190mm. So where zooms are concerned....they often fall a bit short or long at either end of their claimed focal scale. Primes are general a lot more accurate, but again this focal length figure shifts according to the point of focus. Focus breathing causes the focal length to change too. Again....zooms tend to fare worse than primes in this regards. I once owned a Sigma 120-300 f2.8 OS (not for long I might add). Along side my canon 70-200 f2.8, I found that it underexposed by 1/3 of a stop...indicating that it wasn't really an 2.8 optic. The 120mm was a lot longer than that, closer to 135mm in my estimates. The 300mm end was way shorter too. If I brought the focus to MFD....then it wasn't much longer than my 70-200. I recon 240mm max. There was so little reason on keeping that lens compared to the vastly lighter, faster focssing and sharper 70-200mm f2.8 LIS II. I sold the Sigma and a few other bits to fund a S/H ef 400mm F2.8 LIS, which quite frankly was in a different league and it was the last Sigma lens I bought.
Maybe so, but those reasons are not a concern for me. The only overlap I am talking about is 16-35/24-70 which is 11mm. There may not be a logical reason for this being an issue. That's not the point in my case. ;)
 

twoheadedboy

EOS R Fanboi
Jan 3, 2018
64
78
Kenosha, WI
This looks great, but I would really also like a 20mm and/or 14mm f/1.4 IS (or f/1.2 to go with the 50 and 85) fixed focal length tripod killer to refresh those lenses in the EF line. Honestly I'd probably be happier with an 18mm and be fine with zooms wider than that but I'm just basing off what Canon has already produced in that area. Then again I'd also like Canon to make a 28mm f/1.4, had to resort to the Sigma for that (which is a great lens, don't get me wrong, just prefer Canon glass). The fact that they have two f/2 zooms, an f/4, and a variable aperture zoom on the way that hit this focal length, plus a great 35mm f/1.8, plus will certainly need a 24mm for folks who prefer that focal length, means I'm probably never getting that, or not for many years.
 

yoms

EOS T7i
Jul 4, 2012
78
34
  1. 1mm between 15 and 14mm is significant
  2. f2 will l help for bokeh for those of us shooting at MFD and f/2. I've already seen some amazing RF 15-35 wide open at 15mm + MFD shots, so this should be even better.
  3. You only lose the 1-2 stops above the default 5 stops with IBIS. An f/2 zoom with 5 stops of IBIS will be incredible
  4. We won't know if the front element will be filterable or not. If not, it might be designed to accept a rear drop-in filter.
Can't tell you what your use case would be, but I think I can find a few :)

For those saying you lose 28-35mm with the f/2: while true, at least there won't be overlap in the f/2 trinity, which I personally like.
1. No it isn't. See this focal length simulator simulator. Also I didn't say 14mm is useless in comparison to 15mm, but the trade-off for losing 7mm on the other side is meh.

2. No it won't. At 14mm f/2.0 focused at 1 meter, image is still sharp 1.43m behind the subject. Check this calculator. How many extra meters would you need to have a creamy bokeh? Impossible.

3. We don't know yet. How can you assume the IS of the RF 15-35mm only accounts for 1-2 stop(s) of the overall combo IS + IBIS for a yet to be released R5 camera? Also f/2.8 + 2 extra stops IS is superior to f/2.0 without these 2 extra stops for static subject shooting.

4. If not filterable, it'll most certainly have a rear drop-in filter which is nice to have, but still meh. The base filter kit for landscape is composed of ND and CPOL filters. You can't combine filters or rotate your CPOL filter with a rear drop-in system.

------------

5. For astro, you're better off with a fixed focal length like the Sigma 14mm

6. For concert and low-light photography in general, I understand the benefit of 1 stop extra. But honestly, given Canon sensors perform well at high ISO and given the high MP count of the R5 sensor (more MP do compensate for noise actually), shooting concert/low-light situations at f/2.8 is a no brainer. If you're only shooting that with your UWA zoom, then ok. Otherwise, the trade-off isn't worthwhile.

Don't get me wrong, choices are always nice to have. I mean go for it Canon! But had it started at 11mm like the EF version, it would have been a significant differentiator from the RF 15-35mm.
 
TBH, after we see the price...
... and size...
... and weight of such a thing...
... we'll all realize that there would be a much bigger demand for an f/4 version.
I get it that a few people always want the absolutely biggest aperture lens for everything, but the percentage of ultra-wide angle photography that would benefit from f/2 over, say f/2.8, is extraordinary tiny.
 

BeenThere

EOS 6D MK II
Sep 4, 2012
918
265
TBH, after we see the price...
... and size...
... and weight of such a thing...
... we'll all realize that there would be a much bigger demand for an f/4 version.
I get it that a few people always want the absolutely biggest aperture lens for everything, but the percentage of ultra-wide angle photography that would benefit from f/2 over, say f/2.8, is extraordinary tiny.
Agree, and especially true for a zoom where some other compromises must be made.
 

sanj

EOS 5D MK IV
Jan 22, 2012
3,399
204
The quality of the zoom lens is fantastic now. The primes are better. But I prefer the flexibility of a zoom over the slight advantage of the primes. Having said that I will get the RF 50 mm when I get the R5. :)
 

highdesertmesa

EOS 80D
Apr 17, 2017
106
93
Placitas, NM
www.flickr.com
1. No it isn't. See this focal length simulator simulator. Also I didn't say 14mm is useless in comparison to 15mm, but the trade-off for losing 7mm on the other side is meh.

2. No it won't. At 14mm f/2.0 focused at 1 meter, image is still sharp 1.43m behind the subject. Check this calculator. How many extra meters would you need to have a creamy bokeh? Impossible.

3. We don't know yet. How can you assume the IS of the RF 15-35mm only accounts for 1-2 stop(s) of the overall combo IS + IBIS for a yet to be released R5 camera? Also f/2.8 + 2 extra stops IS is superior to f/2.0 without these 2 extra stops for static subject shooting.

4. If not filterable, it'll most certainly have a rear drop-in filter which is nice to have, but still meh. The base filter kit for landscape is composed of ND and CPOL filters. You can't combine filters or rotate your CPOL filter with a rear drop-in system.

------------

5. For astro, you're better off with a fixed focal length like the Sigma 14mm

6. For concert and low-light photography in general, I understand the benefit of 1 stop extra. But honestly, given Canon sensors perform well at high ISO and given the high MP count of the R5 sensor (more MP do compensate for noise actually), shooting concert/low-light situations at f/2.8 is a no brainer. If you're only shooting that with your UWA zoom, then ok. Otherwise, the trade-off isn't worthwhile.

Don't get me wrong, choices are always nice to have. I mean go for it Canon! But had it started at 11mm like the EF version, it would have been a significant differentiator from the RF 15-35mm.
  1. Maybe 14 vs 15mm isn't enough of a difference for you. Nikon's 14-24 – why not just make it a 15-24 and higher IQ? Because many people want and or need 14mm.
  2. 1 meter? That's hardly MFD, which was what I specified. Try 28cm, and the 14-24 might have a slightly better MFD at that. If you're not a wide-open MFD shooter, then not sure why you'd be commenting on this point. At 1m, yes, who cares.
  3. RF 15-35 has (up to) five stops of IS. Rumored additive effect of IBIS is supposed to top out around 6.5 to 7 stops. Perhaps with wide angles, we'll see more benefit in the IS+IBIS vs telephotos. Yes, for still subjects the f/2.8 is great. But f/2 buyers are often event shooters, so the f/2 is an advantage for many.
  4. Meh or not, the current Canon 14mm prime has a rear drop in filter. It's the price you pay for 14mm. Canon may surprise us with a filterable 14-24, but surely it will be 95-105mm. This is one drawback of all large aperture lenses and understandable it would be a big drawback to many buyers.
Not sure that we're really at odds here – I think we're just describing different use cases in which we see benefit or no benefit.
 

highdesertmesa

EOS 80D
Apr 17, 2017
106
93
Placitas, NM
www.flickr.com
TBH, after we see the price...
... and size...
... and weight of such a thing...
... we'll all realize that there would be a much bigger demand for an f/4 version.
I get it that a few people always want the absolutely biggest aperture lens for everything, but the percentage of ultra-wide angle photography that would benefit from f/2 over, say f/2.8, is extraordinary tiny.
You would consider event shooters an extraordinarily tiny demographic? Combined with getting 14mm over 15mm, f/2 will be worth it to some. Canon's obviously run the sales projections on all their low run, high cost RF lenses in the works. This isn't a Z-mount Noct by any stretch.

An f/4 version may not differentiate a 14-24 enough over the rumored RF 10-24 f/4 and RF 15-35 f/4 IS.
 
  • Like
Reactions: navastronia

Mr Majestyk

EOS RP
Feb 20, 2016
214
87
So Sony rumours claims the Sony 14-24 f/2.8 GM will cost $4K, which would put this at about $6K based on that pricing. It won't be that dear but it will be dearer than the 28-70 f/2. Much much harder to do highly optically corrected f/2 ultrawide angle zoom.