Canon RF 70-150mm f/2.8 IS STM Coming To Complete the Trilogy?

[Canon Rumors]

As we know, Canon surprised us with the RF 28-70mm f/2.8 IS STM in September and followed it up with an RF 16-28mm f/2.8 IS STM in January. That gave us two small and affordable constant aperture zoom lenses for full-frame cameras.

Read The Full Article

 

[Deleted member 395378]

Instead of opening the mount to third party lens manufacturers Canon tries to keep the cake all for them with mediocre lenses that nodoby asked for.

 

[OldDudePhotog]

I am not sure this makes a lot of sense for me, given the 70-200.

 

[Loswr]

Instead of opening the mount to third party lens manufacturers Canon tries to keep the cake all for them with mediocre lenses that nodoby asked for.

Instead of providing reasoned commentary, @Fixxxer tries to flavor the cake with vinegar with a post of mediocre thought.

By all accounts, the current f/2.8 non-L zooms are excellent lenses, with L-series level IQ, weather sealing, and a substantially lower cost than their L-series cousins.

 

[Loswr]

I am not sure this makes a lot of sense for me, given the 70-200.

RF 70-200/2.8L – $2700
RF 70-200/2.8L Z – $3000
RF 70-150/2.8 – $1000-1200

Similar IQ, same constant aperture. reduced focal range, MUCH lower cost. Makes absolute sense.

Edit: I either missed the “for me“ in your post or you edited it before I replied. Certainly agree that if one already has a 70-200/2.8, there would be a little point in buying this lens. That applies to me as well.

 

[SnowMiku]

Sounds like a good alternative to a 70-200 2.8 if you want to save space and weight.

 

[LCDVS00]

Well, maybe a bad news for me. I just bought 70200F4L.

 

[pierceography]

I would love to see a 70-1xx f/2L IS USM. That's take my money territory.

 

[eosuser1234]

Already blew my budget on a RF28-70mm F2 and RF100-500mm.

 

[Bob Howland]

Well, maybe a bad news for me. I just bought 70200F4L.

The F/4 trinity would be my choice. I own it in EF and those lenses work quite will well on the R6-2 and R7.

 

[Maximilian]

Will be interesting, what Canon can do about size, weight and price.

 

[bbasiaga]

This is not an oft-used focal range for me. But now that my kid is doing indoor things like choir and theatre I have used my f/4 70-200 more times in the last year than the last probably 10 years combined before that. Was thinking of a used EF vIII 2.8 model....maybe this would be better for me? Have some thinking to do.

 

[Loswr]

This is not an oft-used focal range for me. But now that my kid is doing indoor things like choir and theatre I have used my f/4 70-200 more times in the last year than the last probably 10 years combined before that. Was thinking of a used EF vIII 2.8 model....maybe this would be better for me? Have some thinking to do.

That was when my use of the 70-200/2.8 ramped up, and the reason I bought the 100-300/2.8. But one other lens to consider for that use case is the RF 135/1.8.

 

[LSXPhotog]

Instead of opening the mount to third party lens manufacturers Canon tries to keep the cake all for them with mediocre lenses that nodoby asked for.

“Mediocre lenses”? Seriously? You must not have actually used them — they’re incredibly good.

And as for “nobody asked for this”? I’d say just about everyone has been asking for affordable, compact f/2.8 lenses from Canon that are also weather sealed. Here they are and you’re not impressed. You’d rather have a Sigma lens? Why?

These lenses are excellent. I actually sold my RF 24-70 because the 28-70 offered impressive image quality and fit my needs better. I already carry the RF 24-105 f/2.8L Z in my work bag, so the 28-70 makes a lot of sense as a backup and for travel.

The purchase of the 16-28 and 28-70 allowed me to sell out of my entire interchangeable lens Fujifilm travel kit because now I finally had a better solution from Canon. The instant this final “trinity lens” drops, I’ll buy that too.

 

[Quack]

Instead of opening the mount to third party lens manufacturers Canon tries to keep the cake all for them with mediocre lenses that nodoby asked for.

Thanks for the totally ignorant comment. Lots of people have been asking for affordable consumer lenses that are f/2.8. That has been probably the number one complaint from Canon RF camera consumers - that the lenses are too expensive and that the newer RF lenses are too slow. And by most accounts, these lenses have very good IQ. So, good try!!

 

[Steve_FR]

RF 70-200/2.8L – $2700
RF 70-200/2.8L Z – $3000
RF 70-150/2.8 – $1000-1200

Similar IQ, same constant aperture. reduced focal range, MUCH lower cost. Makes absolute sense.

I’m thrilled at the prospect of more lens options in the ecosystem - even if not for me, it may be ideal for a friend or family member.

I do yearn for something Canon in the 35-150 ish range @ f/2.8. The Tamron EF 35-150 f/2.8-4 is a fine stills lens, but the OIS is awful jittery for video. Alas, that horse has been flogged enough already.

 

[Exploreshootshare]

That focal length sounds about right. I was hoping for a 70-180mm F2.8 STM offering, kinda like Tamrons lens. But since the Tamron weighs 910gr and the other f2.8 STM lenses are between 445-490gr, I figured they'd have to cut some focal length in order to trim some weight. A 500gr lens probably fits better for the R8.

I´m personally interested in the 2.8 STM lenses. If and when I finally pull the trigger on the R8 as a second body, I´d probably get the 28-70mm F2.8. For the third rumored lens, sacrificing 50mm focal length (compared to my 70-200mm F4 L) does sound like a lot to give up.

Two questions to R8 owners:
Has anyone used the R8 with either the RF24-105mm F4 L or the 70-200mm F4? Also, how is the 100-400mm on that body?

I´d use the R8 with the RF 16mm, 35mm (maybe 28mm if I can get it at refurb price) 85mm F2 (if I keep it) and need something in the standard telezoom area...

 

[blackcoffee17]

Instead of opening the mount to third party lens manufacturers Canon tries to keep the cake all for them with mediocre lenses that nodoby asked for.

You talking without knowing. Both the 28-70 and 16-28 have L quality optics, weather sealing and pretty fast AF. What is "mediocre"?

 

[Maximilian]

You talking without knowing. Both the 28-70 and 16-28 have L quality optics, weather sealing and pretty fast AF. What is "mediocre"?

The brain...

 

[DhlcadR6]

IMHO would love to hit the 180mm mark, but if it is small enough, I\'ll take 150mm.

And if it can do MFD of 40~55cm, it\'s gonna be a good portrait lens for me.

The 28-70STM & 16-28STM proven to be great for working photographers to replace the LG equivalent... So 70-150/70-180 will also be great.

Every keyboard warrior complains about the RF price in comparison with Sigma Tamron E-mount equivalents. But the Sigma Tamron does have AF&fps crippled by Sony.