Canon RF 28-70mm f/2L USM II mentioned [CR2]

Sporgon

5% of gear used 95% of the time
CR Pro
Nov 11, 2012
4,722
1,542
Yorkshire, England
Heineken??? Cow piss! Where do you see a lens analogy?
Sorry, I don't get it...
And no, I've never needed f1,2 lenses. :unsure:
I’ve got that wrong !!
In the ‘80s there was a very popular and funny Carlsberg TV advert in the UK based upon the slogan “Carlsberg - probably the best lager in the World”.
Not Heineken - sorry !
 
  • Haha
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0

Del Paso

M3 Singlestroke
CR Pro
Aug 9, 2018
3,384
4,299
I just bought one 3 weeks ago....:)
And I love it! Got it at a very good price, so I sold the 35 IS non-L.
I'm still using the 5 DIV, and have no plans to sell it, despite having an EOS R, and intend to buy an R5 II as soon as it can be bought. 6 full years, not one single incident. I'll continue using it, also in case the new toy suffers from freezing and because the EF 100-400 is almost glued on. :giggle:
 
Last edited:
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0
Sep 20, 2020
3,151
2,453
Not sure I understand what you mean?
My point was simply: saying that we do not need a new fast RF 35L because there is already a great EF 35mm f/1.4L II may be logical, but it does not do Canon much good, financially speaking
I am not arguing with your point.
My point is that Canon also needs to consider the possibility of too many people sticking with the EF 35 L and not buying a new lens.
There may not be enough of a profit motive for a new one.
I would like to see a new RF 35 L but I can't even promise that I will buy one.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

roby17269

R5, H5X + IQ1-80, DJI Mini & Mavic 3 Pro, GoPro 10
Feb 26, 2014
454
563
New York
rdmfashionphoto.com
I am not arguing with your point.
My point is that Canon also needs to consider the possibility of too many people sticking with the EF 35 L and not buying a new lens.
There may not be enough of a profit motive for a new one.
I would like to see a new RF 35 L but I can't even promise that I will buy one.
Understood and you may very well be right, although a) the same could have been said for other lenses (e.g. 100 macro) and b) (to no one's surprise :ROFLMAO: ) I do hope you're wrong
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
Nov 13, 2023
109
216
How would #2 benefit Canon? They are in the business of selling lenses (and cameras and other stuff). If someone buys a lens and then never upgrades that is not good for Canon.
Do you think that most people getting EF lenses are buying them new? Otherwise people sticking to EF lenses or buying them second hand are not bringing Canon much revenues.

They have to introduce new lenses to induce people to upgrade (at least for people moving from EF to RF).
Now it is entirely possible that a fast 35L was de-prioritized compared to 50, 85 and 135 because the EF equivalent 35 1.4L II was more recent than the EF equivalents of the other 3.
But still, 35mm is a classic focal length and one of the most represented in all systems.

In any case, it doesn't matter to Canon that I want it badly. I still want it though :ROFLMAO:
Sorry if my point was not clear. The point is that for my reasons stated, certain lenses like an RF 35mm L are low priority. They are low priority because those with an EF 35mm L lens are happy with theirs, especially if a new lens will show little or no optical improvement. They are low priority because Canon probably understands that many folks will indeed buy a used EF 35mm L lens rather than a new RF version. I think it is pretty clear that Canon understands these two factors, which is why many of the RF lenses are NOT just remakes of an existing EF lens. The RF 100-500 L is not just a new 100-400 L because Canon knows that the difference would not have been great enough for higher numbers of people to buy it when they can either; a) keep their existing 100-400 L, or b) buy a used EF 100-400 L. The same strategy applies to other primes, where the "RF replacement" is now a zoom. Or where a lens that used to be f2/8 max is now f/2. Lots of folks on forums may be out there buying RF lenses just because they are new, but that is almost certainly the exception, not the rule. Most people buy what they can get for the best price, in my opinion.

Of course there are exceptions, but clearly other lenses are being made that are higher priority than a lens that offers nothing new over it's EF counterpart.
 
Upvote 0

roby17269

R5, H5X + IQ1-80, DJI Mini & Mavic 3 Pro, GoPro 10
Feb 26, 2014
454
563
New York
rdmfashionphoto.com
Sorry if my point was not clear. The point is that for my reasons stated, certain lenses like an RF 35mm L are low priority. They are low priority because those with an EF 35mm L lens are happy with theirs, especially if a new lens will show little or no optical improvement. They are low priority because Canon probably understands that many folks will indeed buy a used EF 35mm L lens rather than a new RF version. I think it is pretty clear that Canon understands these two factors, which is why many of the RF lenses are NOT just remakes of an existing EF lens. The RF 100-500 L is not just a new 100-400 L because Canon knows that the difference would not have been great enough for higher numbers of people to buy it when they can either; a) keep their existing 100-400 L, or b) buy a used EF 100-400 L. The same strategy applies to other primes, where the "RF replacement" is now a zoom. Or where a lens that used to be f2/8 max is now f/2. Lots of folks on forums may be out there buying RF lenses just because they are new, but that is almost certainly the exception, not the rule. Most people buy what they can get for the best price, in my opinion.

Of course there are exceptions, but clearly other lenses are being made that are higher priority than a lens that offers nothing new over it's EF counterpart.
Understood. But that's one of the reasons I believe the 35 will be 1.2... to differentiate itself from the EF predecessor.

Also there have been other cases such as the RF 50 and 85 1.2 that (I believe) have been good sellers (relatively speaking) because they differentiated on quality and AF speed but did not have "new" features.

So I am still hoping :rolleyes:
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
I own the lens, and do not think the auto focus is lazy what ever that means?
Shooting on the R5 and R3. The lens is wonderfully heavy, due to all that glasss and I love the lens. Then again, I hand hold my 600 f/4 :)
I absolutely understand, but I did post my concerns with using this lens on a Facebook group and had a surprising amount of people who agreed with me
 
Upvote 0