Hey... 24-35 F2.0 is a specialty, an extremely wide and constant aperture lens. Whether the 20-50/whatever slow variable lens sounds like a kit but is waaaay too limited for an average consumer wanting a single lens do it allI disagree. I think it's a great wide to normal range. I understand some have issues with short zoom ranges such as the Sigma 24-35 but it is a very good lens imho. This might be as well.
Why so? good DOF for varied depth scenes - f8+ and wide enough to capture the whole scene or nip it in a bit.If interesting was very, very NOT interesting
Got to be one of the worst aperture and zoom rangers I've heard of in recent memory.
What's next, a 50-87 f5.6-6.3. No IS.
They are presumably not trying to interest a discerning expert like you. Consumers presumably trust that a Canon lens is good and will take good pictures.It wouldn't have good optics, so I'm not interested.
When I read that my mature EF mind agrees but my infantile RF mind wonders if that's no longer true.20mm f/4 for FF at the short end won't be all that small. It may be light and relatively small, but likely not anything close to a pancake. A 20 to 24 mm crop lens can be small and also 35-40mm FF, but not so easy with 20mm FF and zoom and IS take space as well.
It could be collapsible like some of the M lenses, but the objective will still have to be a reasonable size to make 20mm work well. 28-50 could be much smaller, but not nearly as flexible. I like the range. The 11-22 on the M is a delightful lens and this new lens translates to 12.5-31.25mm, which would be better for general purpose use but still cover the wide end well. It is worth noting that the 11-22 is collapsible, but it is still one of the biggest and heaviest of the M series lenses. If this lens has the kind of IQ that the 11-22 has, it will be wildly popular. In fact, that could be the trigger that gets me to buy an R body.When I read that my mature EF mind agrees but my infantile RF mind wonders if that's no longer true.