A Never Before Seen Lens Coming From Canon

[Del Paso]

My hypothetical 24-70 f2 is defective. the focal length is stuck at 35 and the aperture goes all the way to 1.2.

Throw it away, have it repaired or make a donation to @roby17269. He'll help you get rid of the crap!

 

[navastronia]

I imagine most of us would, but whether or not that's possible, who knows. I suspect the "choice" for Canon will be a 24-70 that's about the same weight or a 28-70 that's about as light as Sony's version.

Whether or not it's possible is a question for Canon's engineers. I'm just here to say what I'm hoping for.

 

[SvO2]

I guess it depends on how much this hypothetical 24-70 f/2 will be allowed by Canon to cost. The use of extremely expensive glass could lower weight and increase compactness. But would we be ready to pay the price?
Anyway, at present time, we are only speaking of a rumor...

I don't know if that's really a given. Generally speaking the heavier a Canon lens is, the more it costs.

In fact, it's going the other way and using things like PMo lenses that would allow Canon to make things lighter. But I don't think that would otherwise meet the characteristics they're going for with their L lenses. I suppose there's also DO tech, but that's more helpful on the telephoto end of things.

 

[Del Paso]

I don't know if that's really a given. Generally speaking the heavier a Canon lens is, the more it costs.

In fact, it's going the other way and using things like PMo lenses that would allow Canon to make things lighter. But I don't think that would otherwise meet the characteristics they're going for with their L lenses. I suppose there's also DO tech, but that's more helpful on the telephoto end of things.

Yet, more and heavier glass doesn't necessarily mean better lenses. Less and lighter (thinner) glass can be better, but can also cost a little fortune.
In the end, a commercial lens is always a compromise depending on what a customer wants, accepts and is or not ready to pay for.
Customers already complain when a superb lens like the Rf 85 f/1,2 costs Euro 3650, what would they say if, for 300 gr. less, they'd be charged-say-50% more?

 

[roby17269]

Throw it away, have it repaired or make a donation to @roby17269. He'll help you get rid of the crap!

a zoom? ewww

 

[EricN]

Yet, more and heavier glass doesn't necessarily mean better lenses. Less and lighter (thinner) glass can be better, but can also cost a little fortune.
In the end, a commercial lens is always a compromise depending on what a customer wants, accepts and is or not ready to pay for.
Customers already complain when a superb lens like the Rf 85 f/1,2 costs Euro 3650, what would they say if, for 300 gr. less, they'd be charged-say-50% more?

I would pay 50% if they included a parachute

 

[LuckyOne]

I would love to see something like a 16/18/20/24 -125/135/185/200 f2.8 non L lens with reasonable, but not exceptional, build quality and good but not amazing IQ that I could pair with my R6MII when the R6MIII comes out and I upgrade my second body for my other lenses.

My main body is a R5MII as the sensor size lets me crop quite a bit.

I love my 15-35, 24-105Z and 70-200Z f2.8 lenses but they are a pain to travel with unless I am trying to do something very specific that only they can deliver.

A reasonably priced single general travel lens to cover much of the total focal lengths of my three primary and favourite lenses at a fraction of the combined total weight, cost and total size of my three favourite lenses would be an instant buy for me.

A 150/180/200 - 600 f5.6 L lens would also be my dream replacement for my f4.5 - f7.1 100-500 lens for specific use cases on my annual safari trips.

I know that Sony and Nikon currently have lenses closer to my "dream" lenses but I am not going to give up on Canon. I love Canon's colour science and AF and am willing to be very patient for them to build the lenses that I want.

 

[EricN]

Because you're cropping, maybe you can live without thw two wider zooms. the 16mm 2.8 stm is opticly about on par with the 14mm 2.8L ii. And the nifty fifty is also not bad. You could get away with just those plus your 70 - 200 saving quite a lot of size weight and money.

 

[Del Paso]

Because you're cropping, maybe you can live without thw two wider zooms. the 16mm 2.8 stm is opticly about on par with the 14mm 2.8L ii. And the nifty fifty is also not bad. You could get away with just those plus your 70 - 200 saving quite a lot of size weight and money.

No no no!
In my opinion, the 14L II is a much better lens, I used mine very often, and even the corners were quite sharp. Ant then, I bought the RF 15-35...
No need to say what happened...
Anyway, I absolutely disliked the 16mm I once tested.

 

[EricN]

No no no!
In my opinion, the 14L II is a much better lens, I used mine very often, and even the corners were quite sharp. Ant then, I bought the RF 15-35...
No need to say what happened...
Anyway, I absolutely disliked the 16mm I once tested.

I might have a poor copy of the 14 or maybe an exceptional copy of the 16?

 

[trexphotos]

It'll probably end up being some constant f/11 lens or something

This actually made Me curl up in the fetal position.

 

[neonlight]

Maybe an L grade RF-S?
Would like to see a 17-55 f 2.8L upgrade from the EF version. Or perhaps a 15-60 which would be a better match to the FF 24-105 field of view. But not if it degrades sharpness.

 

[john1970]

Not being cynical, but are not all new lens released by Canon never seen before (by the public)? It is the very definition of a new lens.

 

[SvO2]

I'm pretty sure they mean some focal length / aperture combination that hasn't been done before. But yes, it could theoretically just mean literally any new lens.

 

[Eloniel]

Any more information on this never before lens ? Even a vague announcement date ?

 

[Ozarker]

Any more information on this never before lens ? Even a vague announcement date ?

I assume it is the RF 24-105mm f/2.8L?
It isn't a 70-135f/2L

 

[Eloniel]

I assume it is the RF 24-105mm f/2.8L?
It isn't a 70-135f/2L

Why do you say that ?
The RF 24-105 f2.8 L IS USM Z was announced 2 years ago while this article was written in July this year.

 

[Ozarker]

Why do you say that ?
The RF 24-105 f2.8 L IS USM Z was announced 2 years ago while this article was written in July this year.

Well, I can't help the order of things.

 

[EricN]

Well, I can't help the order of things.

Why not? I thought you had the infinity stones!

 

[cy20250430]

Any more information on this never before lens ? Even a vague announcement date ?

This was probably referring to the new 45mm F1.2 STM. Don't you think so?