Canon to Merge Two Lenses Into an RF 24-70mm f/2L IS?

[neuroanatomist]

I can't see this happening if they want to compete against the 50-150 f2.0 from Sony which is way less expensive.

150/2 = 75
200/2.8 = 71.4

200/2 = 100

There's a big difference in the amount of glass needed to achieve 200/2 compared to 150/2 (the latter being similar to 200/2.8). Physics.

Also, what makes you think Canon's goal is to compete against any particular Sony product?

 

[Eloniel]

150/2 = 75
200/2.8 = 71.4

200/2 = 100

There's a big difference in the amount of glass needed to achieve 200/2 compared to 150/2 (the latter being similar to 200/2.8). Physics.

Also, what makes you think Canon's goal is to compete against any particular Sony product?

That's another reason for it to not happen and the lens to stop at 150-180.

Canon will want it's own f2.0 trinity, at this point it's even a question of reputation against Sony that is building it's own.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Canon will want it's own f2.0 trinity, at this point it's even a question of reputation against Sony that is building it's own.

Yes, I see. Canon must hurry up and match Sony’s f/2 lenses. Their reputation is on the line. I mean, it took Sony what…6 years to come out with a 28-70/2 after Canon launched theirs. But Canon must catch up, or else. Mmmmmmkay.

 

[scyrene]

Also, what makes you think Canon's goal is to compete against any particular Sony product?

This is what I always wonder. "Compete" means one thing to forum dwellers and I think something rather different to the companies involved.

 

[ctk]

People really think camera gear development is like a tennis match. Even the most GAS afflicted spec sheet chaser is not switching back and forth between systems on every new update. Those folks just deep fry their credit cards and buy everything that comes out.

I went from Nikon to Sony to Canon and now am back with Sony. As much as I admire and envy some of the strides Canon RF has made since I bailed, I really have no appetite or reason to switch again. I feel like Canon, Sony and to a lesser degree Nikon and Panasonic FF MILC systems have more than enough for the vast majority of enthusiasts.

 

[neuroanatomist]

A 70-200 f2.0 compatible with teleconverter would be a threat to the 100-300 F2.8 so I assume the it will not be compatible with teleconverter.

So Canon shouldn’t make a 70-200mm f/2 because with a 1.4x TC that’s a 98-280mm f/2.8 and that’s ’a threat’ to the 100-300mm f/2.8.

Shhhhh. Don’t tell Canon that a 400mm f/2.8 with a 1.4x TC is a 560mm f/4. If they ever figure that out, they’ll understand the threat that poses to a 600mm f/4, and they’ll never make such a lens.

Or maybe that ‘threat’ is why, while Canon made 7 versions of a 400/2.8, they’ve only made 5 versions of a 600/4.

This is what I always wonder. "Compete" means one thing to forum dwellers and I think something rather different to the companies involved.

Forum dwellers thinking they understand the camera market better than manufacturers is a never-ending source of amusement.

 

[Eloniel]

So Canon shouldn’t make a 70-200mm f/2 because with a 1.4x TC that’s a 98-280mm f/2.8 and that’s ’a threat’ to the 100-300mm f/2.8.

Shhhhh. Don’t tell Canon that a 400mm f/2.8 with a 1.4x TC is a 560mm f/4. If they ever figure that out, they’ll understand the threat that poses to a 600mm f/4, and they’ll never make such a lens.

Or maybe that ‘threat’ is why, while Canon made 7 versions of a 400/2.8, they’ve only made 5 versions of a 600/4.


Forum dwellers thinking they understand the camera market better than manufacturers is a never-ending source of amusement.

It's a threat if the 70-180/200 is at 4000€ vs the 100-300 at 10000€.
They can't really make a 70-180/200 at 10000 because the Sony alternative is really really less expensive.

So they don't have a lot of margin to design this f2.0 telezoom, of course optically, weight and size but also to have a cohesive lense in the lineup that can compete against Sony.

 

[neuroanatomist]

It's a threat if the 70-180/200 is at 4000€ vs the 100-300 at 10000€.
They can't really make a 70-180/200 at 10000 because the Sony alternative is really really less expensive.

So they don't have a lot of margin to design this f2.0 telezoom, of course optically, weight and size but also to have a cohesive lense in the lineup that can compete against Sony.

Once again...why do you think Canon has to 'compete against Sony' in this segment, lens-for-lens? Did you spend 6 years saying that Sony had to maintain their reputation and compete against Canon's RF 28-70/2? I doubt it. Where are the sub-$1000 600mm and 800mm lenses from Sony? Why don't they have to 'compete with Canon' in that segment?

Canon has led the ILC market for 23 years and counting. I'm certain they know more about what lenses to design and sell than you, me, or anyone else on this or any other Internet forum. But feel free to keep on making sweeping statements about what Canon has to do to 'be competitive'. Lol.

 

[MISTAKENIDENTITY]

Sounds cool. I hope I don't die before it is released!

 

[snapshot]

That's another reason for it to not happen and the lens to stop at 150-180.

Canon will want it's own f2.0 trinity, at this point it's even a question of reputation against Sony that is building it's own.

i keep wishing i had a compelling reason to buy a 200 F/2. the problem i see with constant aperture zooms is how big the front element is, and how such are large front element should deliver an even wider aperture for the wide angle end of the zoom range. if you buy a 70-200 F/2 and shoot a bunch at 100 you might have been better off with a 100 F/1.4.

my notion of canon's reputation is: I buy tools from them, the tools work as expected for a long time and if i have trouble canon will try to help. i know lots of canon shooters and this is the reputation they have. a reputation goes way beyond the catalog of products being offered. the products being offered change, but canon's reputation for quality has been consistent since i purchased by first EF-L lens in 1998.

 

[JustGunner]

Weight and size will be interesting. Before the Sony 28-70 f2 came out there were rumours for it to be a 24-70 f2 but they opted to make it a 28-70 f2 because of weight. But the Sony 28-70 f2 is lighter than the Canon version.
I'm really curious how heavy it will be. The rumours article says there will be significant weight savings.

Whenever there's weight saving, there's going to be some sort of compromise in design. The Sony lens is significantly lighter because it relies quite a bit on digital distortion correction, and while the Canon 28-70 F2 came out some 7yrs ago, it was less of a thing. That is why you literally have a lot more glasses in the Canon lens @F2.0 than the Sony counterpart.

Then there is the IS, even Sony doesn't dare to add the feature to their F2.0 lens, which shows you that it will almost be impossible to achieve a good balance between price + weight + performance of a 24-70 F2.0 IS lens.

 

[ctk]

Whenever there's weight saving, there's going to be some sort of compromise in design. The Sony lens is significantly lighter because it relies quite a bit on digital distortion correction, and while the Canon 28-70 F2 came out some 7yrs ago, it was less of a thing. That is why you literally have a lot more glasses in the Canon lens @F2.0 than the Sony counterpart.

Then there is the IS, even Sony doesn't dare to add the feature to their F2.0 lens, which shows you that it will almost be impossible to achieve a good balance between price + weight + performance of a 24-70 F2.0 IS lens.

I would be shocked and amazed if this thing had IS. I dont see too many R8/RP/R50 buyers grabbing this thing.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

So Canon shouldn’t make a 70-200mm f/2 because with a 1.4x TC that’s a 98-280mm f/2.8 and that’s ’a threat’ to the 100-300mm f/2.8.

Shhhhh. Don’t tell Canon that a 400mm f/2.8 with a 1.4x TC is a 560mm f/4. If they ever figure that out, they’ll understand the threat that poses to a 600mm f/4, and they’ll never make such a lens.

Or maybe that ‘threat’ is why, while Canon made 7 versions of a 400/2.8, they’ve only made 5 versions of a 600/4.


Forum dwellers thinking they understand the camera market better than manufacturers is a never-ending source of amusement.

I totally agree. You can make a 400mm f2.8 similar to a 600mm f4 with tele converters. The difference is that the 400 has a shorter min focus distance and is a smaller and lighter lens than the big 600. Both options will out resolve our current full frame snesors. Both can make an excellent approximate 800mm f5.6 with teleconverters. What the 400 can't do is make a great 1200mm that the 600mm can do with a 2x tc. The Big 600 can't make a short 400mm or do f2.8. So yes there's a lot of overlap, but ultimatly, one is wider the other is longer. I would never buy both a 600 and a 400, but would weight up the benfits of each and choose the best for for me.

Likewise your lovely RF 100-300mm is great with telecoverters, something like a theoretical 70-200mm f2 might be able to step into the RF 100-300's native range with converters, but it certainly won't be able to produce a sharp 200-600mm lens with teleconverters. If a 600mm is the goal, there are better ways to do this. Having a 100-300 f2.8 and a 600 f4 is a perfect set up for many.

 

[Ozarker]

It's a seriously fun lens!

Thread 'RF 10-20mm f/4L IS STM'

Nov 5, 2023

Received the lens two days ago. Hectic weekend with two kids, and my wife working until nearly dark. And this new lens has learning curves for capture and for processing.

You'll see three versions of the same shot of the tub, a tub which is not round but oval. (This one's distortion really surprised me.) The file names are descriptive, but, just for clarity, "LRC no correction" shows how the image looked when opened in Lightroom Classic. "LRC w correction" shows a modified RF 14-35mm f/4 lens-correction applied to the 10-22mm. The modification was to move the distortion slider on the...

• YuengLinger
• Replies: 46
• Forum: Canon RF Lenses

• 

Thank you, Neuro.

 

[Ozarker]

So Canon shouldn’t make a 70-200mm f/2 because with a 1.4x TC that’s a 98-280mm f/2.8 and that’s ’a threat’ to the 100-300mm f/2.8.

Shhhhh. Don’t tell Canon that a 400mm f/2.8 with a 1.4x TC is a 560mm f/4. If they ever figure that out, they’ll understand the threat that poses to a 600mm f/4, and they’ll never make such a lens.

Or maybe that ‘threat’ is why, while Canon made 7 versions of a 400/2.8, they’ve only made 5 versions of a 600/4.


Forum dwellers thinking they understand the camera market better than manufacturers is a never-ending source of amusement.

Wait for the AI revolution to make everyone even more "expert". People will be drawn in deeper.