Pray God Roby17269 doesn't read you!With a bit of luck, Canon manages to release these updated lenses before the RF 35mm f/1.2L
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Pray God Roby17269 doesn't read you!With a bit of luck, Canon manages to release these updated lenses before the RF 35mm f/1.2L
100-200mm f/2 will be as large and as heavy as the EF 200 f/2. It would be a limited market.I read their interview when released 10-20mm f4.
They said they considered 10-20mm f2.8
I really hope they can release.
Or can they make 100-200 f2?
I still think 70-150mm f2 is not long enough.
I would certainly be! A missing niche fast prime should have priority over a new version of an existing niche fast zoomThree thoughts:
1. Please Canon release the RF35mm F1.2 L ahead of this lens, otherwise a lot of people will be seriously pissed
While I enjoy my 10-20 f/4L, call me old fashioned, but I'd prefer more glass and less software corrections.2. Please Canon use the same magic you used when you released the RF 10-20mm F4 L compared to the EF 11-24mm F4 L
I dunno. The limited range is one of the reasons I do not have the 28-70 f/2L - a 70-150 f/2 would not entice me to take the place of my fast primes.3. Please released it alongside a 70-150mm F2 which already has the weight savings of a mkii version!
Analogous to the 300/2.8 becoming a 100-300/2.8, I could see a 70-200/2 that is bigger than the 200/2 but offers the convenience of a zoom. Like the combination of 24-105/2.8 and 100-300/2.8, a 70-200/2 would pair very well with the 28-70/2.100-200mm f/2 will be as large and as heavy as the EF 200 f/2. It would be a limited market.
Instead of a more use-limited RF 2/200...and it sure would be an optically stellar lens.Analogous to the 300/2.8 becoming a 100-300/2.8, I could see a 70-200/2 that is bigger than the 200/2 but offers the convenience of a zoom. Like the combination of 24-105/2.8 and 100-300/2.8, a 70-200/2 would pair very well with the 28-70/2.
True, though I think it would be a $6000+ lens (if not closer to the $9500 price point of the 100-300), which puts it out of the price range of most people, and puts it into the same target market as the EF 200/2.Analogous to the 300/2.8 becoming a 100-300/2.8, I could see a 70-200/2 that is bigger than the 200/2 but offers the convenience of a zoom. Like the combination of 24-105/2.8 and 100-300/2.8, a 70-200/2 would pair very well with the 28-70/2.
I'm pretty sure it would end up close to $10K like the 100-300/2.8. A $6000 lens (which is what the EF 200/2 launched at) is out of the price range for most people anyway, and I'm not sure that a 50-60% increase makes a big difference at that point.True, though I think it would be a $6000+ lens (if not closer to the $9500 price point of the 100-300), which puts it out of the price range of most people, and puts it into the same target market as the EF 200/2.
I dont´think there are a lot of potential buyers for a 100-200mm F2 when there is an excellent 100-300mm F2.8 option.Or can they make 100-200 f2?
I still think 70-150mm f2 is not long enough.
Unless you combine it with a 200-500, or when you don't need longer than 200mm and have use for F2.I dont´think there are a lot of potential buyers for a 100-200mm F2 when there is an excellent 100-300mm F2.8 option.
24mm would exponentially drive the size and weight i think. certainly if they did, it wouldn't weigh less.Whatever they do, the OG is still king, and it might get a lot cheaper.
I would have thought they would rather keep the size and weight, and push it to 24mm instead.
A patent application was mentioned in a recent post:Wasn't there a rumor of a RF 70-150 f2? I suspect that got nixed....I had hoped that would have come to reality.
The gimbal balance makes sense for video... I assume you don't mean fixed gimbals ie safari etc.Apart from sealing, there are other reasons for preferring and internal zoom, like gimbal or underwater works. But you already known that