Canon officially launches the RF 28-70mm f/2.8 IS STM

[justaCanonuser]

The STM on the 35mm F1.8 can be noisy and slow to focus in low light. Canon seems to have improved the STM though quite a bit. Ask people who use the RF 10-20mm L. I'm guessing this same improved STM unit is used in the 28-70mm F2.8 as well.

I have an EF 24-105mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM zoom that I use for video, because its STM drive produces no disturbing noise when using an external mike (USM drives do). All I can say is that this STM drive works quite well for standard settings, including walking and running people, even on my R7. Never used it for real action like speedy sorts of sports or birds in flight, though. Canon released that EF zoom lens back in 2014, so I wonder whether they implemented a cheaper STM drive in the RF 35mm f/1.8...

 

[Juangrande]

A nice surprise for the people looking for an “affordable” constant aperture standard zoom, as Canon will officially be announcing the RF 28-70mm f/2.8 IS STM tonight at midnight EDT. One of the big knocks on the RF lineup is the lack of good and affordable lenses. Here we'll have the first constant aperture non-L

See full article...

Going through everyone’s responses it seems everyone watched the video and ignored the article. I keep seeing guesses on the price and doubts about it having weather sealing. Well it says in the CR article $1099 and weather sealing similar to an L kens.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

FYI, the aspherical elements in the RF 28-70/2.8 they are moulded glass (GMo).

For anyone interested in the different types of aspherical lenses, here's a Canon article on them.

Thanks for this link. I knew the difference between gound glass Aspherical and GmO Aspherical elements. The other two types are new to me.

I'm guessing that the "L" moniker is a choice that Canon make that basically says...it's the best we can produce within the higher price point. Including R&D, marketing, hardware like IS and AF, robustness, weather sealing and optical formula. I'm guessing lenses like this RF 28-70/f2.8 and the RF 200-800mm aren't L lenses because Canon could have made them slightly superior (in some areas) if they had a bigger develeopment and target retail budget.

In the old days of the EF/EF-s mount things were much more clearer.
We had the Red ring for all L lenses and they were the best that Canon could make (and they were generally about 10-15 years ahead of the competition in terms of design, build and optics).
Then we had the Gold ring for the next best prosumer gear. Higher on the optics but lower on the build level. Often not quite as bright as the L lenses.
Then came the Silver ring for pretty much everything else. Generally, cheap, small, light, dim and disposable.

 

[Del Paso]

You will miss the 4mm at the wide end.

Not at all, since my light kit includes either the Leica M and 18mm, 20mm , or the RF 15-35 f/2,8, or the Zeiss EF 20mm.
and the EF 100-400.
What I've noticed is that, when hiking, my most used (by far) WA is the 35mm, and sometimes the 28mm. Very rarely a focal below. 28-70 + 100-400 is all I need for 95% (or even more) of my pictures.
I also usually carry the TSE 24mm...
Yes, I know, my definition of "light kit" sounds a bit strange.

 

[neuroanatomist]

The area of the print will be ~25% larger, but let me know when prints start being sold by the square inch,

Ironically, after reading this earlier today, I went to a framing shop to have some artwork framed. They also offer printing from digital images, and this was their pricing:



So…I’m letting you know. They’re being sold that way now.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Going through everyone’s responses it seems everyone watched the video and ignored the article. I keep seeing guesses on the price and doubts about it having weather sealing. Well it says in the CR article $1099 and weather sealing similar to an L kens.

You should read everyone's responses more carefully, specifically look at the time stamps on the posts. Many of those speculative comments were made in the ~8 hour period between the start of this thread (4p EDT yesterday) and the actual lens announcement (12a EDT today). The CR main post after the lens was formally announced links to this thread, as does the original pre-announcement main page post that started it:

The Canon RF 28-70mm f/2.8 IS STM is coming shortly

A nice surprise for the people looking for an “affordable” constant aperture standard zoom, as Canon will officially be announcing the RF 28-70mm f/2.8 IS STM tonight at midnight EDT. One of the big…

www.canonrumors.com

 

[Berowne]

Not at all, since my light kit includes either the Leica M and 18mm, 20mm , or the RF 15-35 f/2,8, or the Zeiss EF 20mm.
and the EF 100-400.
What I've noticed is that, when hiking, my most used (by far) WA is the 35mm, and sometimes the 28mm. Very rarely a focal below. 28-70 + 100-400 is all I need for 95% (or even more) of my pictures.
I also usually carry the TSE 24mm...
Yes, I know, my definition of "light kit" sounds a bit strange.

I remember that you have a Super-Elmar. Do you use it with a Leica M or do you adapt it to the Canon R?

 

[m4ndr4ke]

I'm guessing that the "L" moniker is a choice that Canon make that basically says...it's the best we can produce within the higher price point. Including R&D, marketing, hardware like IS and AF, robustness, weather sealing and optical formula. I'm guessing lenses like this RF 28-70/f2.8 and the RF 200-800mm aren't L lenses because Canon could have made them slightly superior (in some areas) if they had a bigger develeopment and target retail budget.

That's pretty much my "conclusion" as well. In this case, Canon has already made two better lenses, whether on zoom range or aperture, and they also equiped those two lenses with superior autofocus technology, so this one doesn't get the red ring.

 

[Eastern]

I agree, its hard to justify paying $1100 for this lens when for just $200 more you could purchase the 24-105 f4L lens.

Point well taken. I’m anxious though to see how the new RF 28-70 f/2.8 performs outside the lab compared to the 24-105 f/4 (which I own) and to the kit lens version RF 24-105. I have owned both of these lenses for close to a year and tested them against each other many times. I will sell one eventually, but I’ve found them to be identical in image quality. See also the CameraLabs comparison wherein the kit lens was found to be sharper than the f/4. Of course, that’s not the full story. L lens quality, weather sealed, the f/4 itself, build quality etc. shines on the f/4 but my images are no better on the f/4. Soooo…if the new RF 28-70 STM is indeed a better lens than the kit lens (as the Canon YouTube proclaims) well, then, cool.

 

[Exploreshootshare]

I have an EF 24-105mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM zoom that I use for video, because its STM drive produces no disturbing noise when using an external mike (USM drives do). All I can say is that this STM drive works quite well for standard settings, including walking and running people, even on my R7. Never used it for real action like speedy sorts of sports or birds in flight, though. Canon released that EF zoom lens back in 2014, so I wonder whether they implemented a cheaper STM drive in the RF 35mm f/1.8...

It seems like Canon has had two type of STM motors: lead-screw-type and gear-type
The second type is the noisy one. I can´t find any info on which type is used in the 35mm F1.8, but seems pretty obvious to me that it is the gear type kind.

"There are two types of STM in Canon lenses – lead-screw-type and gear-type. The lead-screw-type is super-quick and super-silent, whilst the gear-type is designed for compactness, to work in much smaller lenses. The gear-type does still produce a low level of residual noise, as a result of the gears which are doing the work."

Found here: https://www.eos-magazine.com/articles/eospedia/what-is/stm.html

Reading this, I wish Canon would use different designations for the two (now maybe three) different STM motors.

 

[Del Paso]

I remember that you have a Super-Elmar. Do you use it with a Leica M or do you adapt it to the Canon R?

Only with the M.
Most M lenses below 35mm show an ugly magenta cast on the sides of the picture if used on EOS mirrorless. Even some retrofocus ones. And M lenses below 35mm need the 6bit coding in any case, for the same reason. But I haven't carried out a test on the R5 II, could be better than onn the original EOS R.
By the way, my "normal" kit is:
Leica M with 18, 24, 28, 35 and 75mm, now R5 II with 60mm Macro Elmarit or RF 100, EF 100-400 +ext, 24mm TSE. Trinovid binos( 10X25) in an F-Stop Ajna or Mindshift Rotation 34L.
But: Since I'm not getting younger, I try to limit myself more and more. In October, in Austria, I'll put only the R5 II, the 15-35 f/2,8, the 60 macro and the 100-400 into the bag (and the 24 TSE ?). But I'm afraid I will miss the Summiluxes, not for the f/1,4, but for their fantastic quality...

 

[Del Paso]

It seems like Canon has had two type of STM motors: lead-screw-type and gear-type
The second type is the noisy one. I can´t find any info on which type is used in the 35mm F1.8, but seems pretty obvious to me that it is the gear type kind.

"There are two types of STM in Canon lenses – lead-screw-type and gear-type. The lead-screw-type is super-quick and super-silent, whilst the gear-type is designed for compactness, to work in much smaller lenses. The gear-type does still produce a low level of residual noise, as a result of the gears which are doing the work."

Found here: https://www.eos-magazine.com/articles/eospedia/what-is/stm.html

Reading this, I wish Canon would use different designations for the two (now maybe three) different STM motors.

You're right, it's getting increasingly difficult to tell all theses different "motors" apart.

 

[Del Paso]

The RF85mm STM is very smooth, reasonably quiet, but glacially slow. The RF50 STM is faster, but a lot louder.

My R8 seems to drive the RF50 STM a lot harder than my old R5, I haven’t tried it on the R5II yet. But that shows, to me, that even STM can improve, by having a more advanced body.

Mine is slow on the R, but noticeably faster on the R5 II. Yes, bodies have an impact on focusing speed!

 

[m4ndr4ke]

I can´t find any info on which type is used in the 35mm F1.8, but seems pretty obvious to me that it is the gear type kind.

Yes, it's gear type on the 16mm f/2.8, 28mm f/2.8, 35mm f/1.8, 50mm f/1.8.
Lead-screw on the 10-20 f/4 L, 28-70 f/2.8, 24mm f/1.8, 85mm f/2.

Mine is slow on the R, but noticeably faster on the R5 II. Yes, bodies have an impact on focusing speed!

That's Dual Pixel AF vs Dual Pixel AF II. On the original R5 is should be faster as well

 

[Del Paso]

Consider the source. This is the guy who suggested that Canon's legal threat to Viltrox caused a 3% drop in Canon's camera market share.

He nonetheless must be right because millions and millions say that all Canon products are cripplehammered.

 

[Exploreshootshare]

Mine is slow on the R, but noticeably faster on the R5 II. Yes, bodies have an impact on focusing speed!

I can second that for the R5

 

[bbasiaga]

A generally accepted norm for 'comfortable' viewing distance (of an image) is about 1.5-2 times the diagonal of the image. Given that the ‘average’ human eye (20/20) can see about 300 microradians of visual acuity and has a near point of 25 cm. That works out to 75 microns, or 338 pixels per inch, or one can approximate the PPI needed for a print viewed at distance x inch using PPI ~ 3327/x. For a 4x6 in image, the PPI at 11inch in viewing distance (the most stringent in the viewing distance range) works out to a PPI of about 302, which translates into about 2.2mpx for the 4x6 print. In fact, this 2.2mpx remains 'constant' even as the image size increases (because the 'comfortable' viewing distance also increases. I have arbitrarily set for myself an acceptable minimum mpx value of about 12mpx, so to be able to crop from 24mpx is reasonable, but a more aggressive cropping would require higher mpx, but there is a limit to how high it is comfortable for me, so I have settled for 30mpx as the 'sweet spot'.

The math has been done many times in many ways. But each time, it falls apart when you consider there are huge prints that don't conform to the math but look great. Many of these were taken before cameras had 'enough' MP, and before AI/Digital upscaling existed. I have a few 'impossible' prints hanging in my house at this moment. But to the extent that your point is 24mp is more than adequate, I agree.

Did no one read the official release in this thread? The lens is $1099 and had weather sealing similar to an L lens.

This thread is an amalgamation of of the original tease article before the announcement, and a couple of the posts on CR afterwards. A single thread about the 28-70 release. Some of those articles did not have all the information in them, at the time the posts you are quoting were made. Hopefully this helps you regain some confidence in the literacy of your forum mates.

Brian

 

[ashmadux]

Looking forward to seeing Brian's charts at the digital picture. That's all I need. DP review probably won't have something up for a long time.

This is one of the first times in recent memory that a release didn't come with nine videos from every YouTuber at once. From the usual suspects, Gordon seems to be the only one with a video up, Kai Wong was over in Japan headquarters. Petapixel had no video up either. And neither does Jared.

Really interesting.

 

[Halfmoon]

I always forget about the 100-400... Everyone that buys one seems to love it, especially if they can get it on sale or refurb.

It is a very nice and light lens and the images are not too shabby either... for that price point.. and I love the lightness....

I just acquired the 100-500mm, but there are slight differences between the 100-400 and 100-500 image quality... but I guess at 3x the cost, most people can overlook the differences if they are not too fuzzy... and everyone standard is different...

Handholding the 100-400mm is so easy and I ran into issues as I had not done enough gym work yet for the 100-500 for a long event.......

 

[Halfmoon]

Back to this lens, the MFT charts between this lens and the RF 24-70 f2.8 LIS are going to be marginal at best. At 24mm there is lettle between them and at 70mm I think only a particularly experinced and piccy R5 shooter would notice a slight difference in sharpness.

I does make me wonder what now qualifies for a L lens in Canon's mindset? It used to mean "Luxury" and employed exotic glass and a pro level of build. This new silver ring lens has three exotic elements, only one less that the L lens. It's also dust and weather resistant....a lot like the new RF 200-800mm lens...another "non" L lens.

From the interview, it seems like technology development has impacted this RF28-70mm F2.8 IS design a lot (size, weight, IS unit size, AF motor) and with the MFT so close to RF 24-70mm F2.8L IS, my conclusion is there should be an "RF 24-70mm F2.8L IS II" coming soon, that will be more compact and lighter than the current version, and MFT chart that should be better than this 28-70mm F2.8 IS..... If not, this will not make sense......