Canon RF 14-28mm f/2.8L IS USM Z Up Next?

[EOS 4 Life]

Yep, I get that it would be a Z lens but what would be substantially different from the RF15-35/2.8? VCM motor = tick but otherwise?

The Z lenses do not have VCM.
The external zoom, the power zoom, and being part of a set would be the main advantage.
Videographers would get the same look, have the same balance, and the lenses would have identical operability.
It is a harder sell to photographers, but that extra mm wider and internal zoom might mean a lot to some folks.

 

[neuroanatomist]

It is a harder sell to photographers, but that extra mm wider and internal zoom might mean a lot to some folks.

There's no optical reason for all of the CN-E T1.3-1.5 primes to have the same 114mm front diameter, yet they do because that's what the buyers need.

 

[Ozarker]

I believe the Z lenses are all internal zoom. I don't do video, but internal zoom always gets my vote. It's the cool factor.

 

[john1970]

I believe the Z lenses are all internal zoom. I don't do video, but internal zoom always gets my vote. It's the cool factor.

Internal zooms generally have a shorter throw as well so one can more quickly zoom the lens which is useful for sports. I am not sure how important this is however on a wide angle zoom?

 

[EOS 4 Life]

Internal zooms generally have a shorter throw as well so one can more quickly zoom the lens which is useful for sports. I am not sure how important this is however on a wide angle zoom?

It is more important because it is one less thing to break

 

[john1970]

It is more important because it is one less thing to break

Not being argumentative, but I don't follow the logic. Whether a zoom in internal or external it is still one more thing to break vs. a fixed prime lens. With that said, I also prefer internal zooms as well.

 

[neuroanatomist]

It is more important because it is one less thing to break

Was going to ask a similar question to @john1970 – why internal zooms less likely to break than external zooms?

 

[will4m]

A 14-28mm f/2.8 would be a hard sell against the 15-35mm f/2.8. I have the other 2 Z lenses and the power zoom accessory, so I'd love to round out the series and would consider selling my 15-35 to do so, even if it meant a larger/heavier/more expensive lens. But 14-28mm is just too short of a zoom range to justify a lens with a servo zoom imho – would much rather see something closer to a 3x zoom, even if it meant not going as wide. (My dream would be a 15-45mm f/2.8 Z. Even though it would start as wide as the existing 15-35, like the 24-105Z it would have the selling point that it zooms further than its non-Z counterpart.)

But what I am really waiting for is something in the Z range that gets out to ~800mm. Maybe the 300-800mm f/8 internal zoom that there was a patent for a few months back. Servo zoom in that range would be fantastic for lightweight nature/sports!

 

[Daniel Lindblom]

I wonder if the design will be the same as the RF 24-105 F2.8 Z and RF 70-200 F2.8 Z.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

Not being argumentative, but I don't follow the logic. Whether a zoom in internal or external it is still one more thing to break vs. a fixed prime lens. With that said, I also prefer internal zooms as well.

Sure, but internal zooms are harder to break.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Sure, but internal zooms are harder to break.

Not necessarily (though it seems that the RF 200-800 may be a bit delicate). Regarding the RF 70-200/2.8, Uncle Rog said:

On every other 70-200mm lenses we’ve disassembled, there are multiple metal parts that we can bend with our fingers. There’s not a damn thing we can bend with our fingers in this bad boy.

I suppose just like extending zooms having more dust problems than non-extending lenses (another myth debunked by Roger Cicala), the Internet knows what it knows. No evidence required.

 

[Exploreshootshare]

On every other 70-200mm lenses we’ve disassembled, there are multiple metal parts that we can bend with our fingers. There’s not a damn thing we can bend with our fingers in this bad boy.

Sounds absolutely great!
I’d love to know if this statement applies to the RF 70-200mm F4 as well.