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

joestopper

Rrr...
Feb 4, 2020
173
156
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.
I believe that the entire f/2 trinity will priced within +-500 apart from each other. Look at f/2.8 trinity how close the prices are.
 

davidespinosa

I'm New Here
Feb 12, 2020
23
19

Thanks !
The 135mm looks promising.
But I bet the 24mm turned into the 35mm f/1.2, at least for the moment.
 
  • Like
Reactions: highdesertmesa

MadScotsman

EOS R / RP
Sep 9, 2019
43
81
I demand a 70-200 f/2L with dual card slots.
TWO card slots?

What a joke.

If the image wasn't saved on at least THREE cards simultaneously it obviously wasn't worth taking in the first place.

I'm a REAL professional, and would never insult my customer and fail them by putting their images at risk on a mere TWO card slots.

I REFUSE to by any new lens if it's not AT LEAST three slots.

This is why pros don't take Canon seriously.
 

SteveC

M6 mk II
Sep 3, 2019
570
400
TWO card slots?

What a joke.

If the image wasn't saved on at least THREE cards simultaneously it obviously wasn't worth taking in the first place.

I'm a REAL professional, and would never insult my customer and fail them by putting their images at risk on a mere TWO card slots.

I REFUSE to by any new lens if it's not AT LEAST three slots.

This is why pros don't take Canon seriously.
You can probably cram at least ten cards into the RF drop in filter adapter, if you remove the filter.

The cards will make direct physical contact with the sensor, increasing their throughput.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MadScotsman

SwissFrank

EOS RP
Dec 9, 2018
342
146
I guess I'm not into the idea of a 70-135/2 for fashion:

You have a lot of control over distance to subject. The difference between a head-and-shoulders at 70 and 135 is only a half-dozen steps I think.

And if you're looking for bokeh, you really want aperture (e.g., in millimeters) instead of f-stop. 135/2 is a lot like 100/1.4 or 85/1.2 or 200/2.8. 70/2 is only a 35mm aperture, about the same as a 50/1.4 wide open. Sure, bokeh, but not fashion-shooting bokeh.

Finally the zoom is surely a lot heavier, not fun for shooting a long time with.

I suspect we'll have a special 135mm DS to match the 85mm DS and that will be the fashion line.
 

SwissFrank

EOS RP
Dec 9, 2018
342
146
For me the big problem with an f/2 trinity is... what is the point?

In the old days, an f/2.8 trinity made sense as at least they could all be autofocused using all focus points, but that's not a worry any more. Aperture could be literally anything nowadays.

at least an f/2.8 used to be equally bright in the viewfinder, but again that's no longer a worry. With the electronic viewfinder, aperture could again be literally anything.

There's no reason to make a set to have some sort of "complementary look" because f/2 at these small apertures may have so much DOF it might as well be f/16. To really get the bokeh of 70/2, you need a 35mm aperture, which would be 50/1.4, 35/1, 35/0.7, or 17.5/0.5.

And there's no requirement to all be f/2 to be usable under a given shooting condition, because the reciprocal rule lets you hand-hold FAR longer at extreme wide-angles. You'd get the hand-holdability of 70/2 with 35/2.8 or 17.5/4. And they also reduce subject motion linearly.

And they're not similar in weight and control placement to the point that you'd have any benefit to the lenses "feeling" the same.

If there's any benefit to different zooms having the same maximum f-stop I'm sorry but I'm just not seeing it.

I think the main reason to do a 14-28/2.0 is simply because they could probably give you an f/2.0 zoom without using much glass, so it'd be relatively small and cheap compared to the 28-70/2.0 or a hypothetical 70-135/2.0.
 
  • Like
Reactions: davidespinosa

highdesertmesa

EOS 80D
Apr 17, 2017
106
93
Placitas, NM
www.flickr.com
For me the big problem with an f/2 trinity is... what is the point?

In the old days, an f/2.8 trinity made sense as at least they could all be autofocused using all focus points, but that's not a worry any more. Aperture could be literally anything nowadays.

at least an f/2.8 used to be equally bright in the viewfinder, but again that's no longer a worry. With the electronic viewfinder, aperture could again be literally anything.

There's no reason to make a set to have some sort of "complementary look" because f/2 at these small apertures may have so much DOF it might as well be f/16. To really get the bokeh of 70/2, you need a 35mm aperture, which would be 50/1.4, 35/1, 35/0.7, or 17.5/0.5.

And there's no requirement to all be f/2 to be usable under a given shooting condition, because the reciprocal rule lets you hand-hold FAR longer at extreme wide-angles. You'd get the hand-holdability of 70/2 with 35/2.8 or 17.5/4. And they also reduce subject motion linearly.

And they're not similar in weight and control placement to the point that you'd have any benefit to the lenses "feeling" the same.

If there's any benefit to different zooms having the same maximum f-stop I'm sorry but I'm just not seeing it.

I think the main reason to do a 14-28/2.0 is simply because they could probably give you an f/2.0 zoom without using much glass, so it'd be relatively small and cheap compared to the 28-70/2.0 or a hypothetical 70-135/2.0.
"I don't get it, so how could anyone else possibly want it?"

Thankfully Canon isn't listening to you.
 

sanj

EOS 5D MK IV
Jan 22, 2012
3,399
204
For me the big problem with an f/2 trinity is... what is the point?

In the old days, an f/2.8 trinity made sense as at least they could all be autofocused using all focus points, but that's not a worry any more. Aperture could be literally anything nowadays.

at least an f/2.8 used to be equally bright in the viewfinder, but again that's no longer a worry. With the electronic viewfinder, aperture could again be literally anything.

There's no reason to make a set to have some sort of "complementary look" because f/2 at these small apertures may have so much DOF it might as well be f/16. To really get the bokeh of 70/2, you need a 35mm aperture, which would be 50/1.4, 35/1, 35/0.7, or 17.5/0.5.

And there's no requirement to all be f/2 to be usable under a given shooting condition, because the reciprocal rule lets you hand-hold FAR longer at extreme wide-angles. You'd get the hand-holdability of 70/2 with 35/2.8 or 17.5/4. And they also reduce subject motion linearly.

And they're not similar in weight and control placement to the point that you'd have any benefit to the lenses "feeling" the same.

If there's any benefit to different zooms having the same maximum f-stop I'm sorry but I'm just not seeing it.

I think the main reason to do a 14-28/2.0 is simply because they could probably give you an f/2.0 zoom without using much glass, so it'd be relatively small and cheap compared to the 28-70/2.0 or a hypothetical 70-135/2.0.
Shooting at ISO 1600 and not 3200 is the point. Amongst others.
 

privatebydesign

Would you take advice from a cartoons stuffed toy?
Jan 29, 2011
8,250
1,601
120
Shooting at ISO 1600 and not 3200 is the point. Amongst others.
Just playing devils advocate here ...

Nowadays what difference does that make, iso 3,200 from basically every modern camera is more than usable for pretty much everything, f2 often doesn't give you the dof you need.

I can see a use for both f2 and f2.8 zooms but the size weight and cost of these f2 zooms makes even faster primes even more appealing.
 

tron

EOS 5D SR
Nov 8, 2011
4,444
705
That can be a serious piece of a lens collection. I would be highly tempted but for my f/2.8L zooms (EF and RF) and the Sigma 14 1.8. But as unfocused said primes would be quite appealing. How about a 14 1.4L for example? :)
Come on Canon you Can! (Pun intended since that was a previous decade moto by the way)