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

[stevoc921]

Is it just me or is 70-150 not a great range?? Wouldn\'t 50-150 would make more sense and sell more lenses?? Not a lens \"tech\", but seems like it wouldn\'t be that difficult to add the wider range and keep the 2.8 aperture. A lot of times 70 is not wide enough and 150 is barely telephoto enough, but maybe that\'s the point. If you want better you\'ve got to go L. Maybe it\'s just what I frequently shoot, but you can almost always \"dolly in\", but a lot of times you can\'t \"dolly out\".

 

[EOS 4 Life]

Is it just me or is 70-150 not a great range?? Wouldn\'t 50-150 would make more sense and sell more lenses?? Not a lens \"tech\", but seems like it wouldn\'t be that difficult to add the wider range and keep the 2.8 aperture. A lot of times 70 is not wide enough and 150 is barely telephoto enough, but maybe that\'s the point. If you want better you\'ve got to go L. Maybe it\'s just what I frequently shoot, but you can almost always \"dolly in\", but a lot of times you can\'t \"dolly out\".

It is not a matter of difficulty.
Cost, size, and weight also matter.

 

[juststeve]

I believe even a 70-150/2.8 would have to be larger than the just under four length of the two 2.8 STM lenses now available. Seems more likely just under 6 inches for a 150 max lens and 7 inches for a 180 max lens. A 180 lens at 2.8 could still fit within the 67 mm filter diameter. I am not likely in the market for a 70-180/ 2.8 but would give it a thought. I doubt if I would consider a 70-150/2.8 lens under any circumstance even a sub $1000 circumstance.

 

[Loswr]

I believe even a 70-150/2.8 would have to be larger than the just under four length of the two 2.8 STM lenses now available. Seems more likely just under 6 inches for a 150 max lens and 7 inches for a 180 max lens.

Since you refer to the existing f/2.8 non-L zooms as 'under four' (inches), I presume you are referring to the retracted length. The current RF 70-200/2.8L is 146 mm / 5.75" long, so why do you think a non-L 70-150/2.8 would be the same size as the current 70-200/2.8L and a 70-180/2.8 would be 3 cm / >1" longer than the current 70-200/2.8L?

Unless you believe that an RF 70-150/180 f/2.8 non-L zoom would have an internal zooming mechanism, but that seems about as likely as Canon giving the lens away for free.

 

[SvO2]

I would prefer they sacrifice the wide end personally. 80-200 (magic drain pipe v2?) or even 100-200 would be better. Or maybe a less drastic cut to the tele end (70-180?)

 

[VivaLasVegas]

16-28, 28-70,….70-150 makes a lot of sense to me, these should be the lightest trinity with stabilization in the industry. Capping the FL at 150 should make it light/portable and at the same time making the 70-200 f2.8/4 still a viable option. Canon can replace the fantastic ef 70-300 f4-5.6 with an affordable RF version.

 

[Exploreshootshare]

Canon can replace the fantastic ef 70-300 f4-5.6 with an affordable RF version.

I thought Canon already replaced that lens with the RF 100-400mm F5.6-8

 

[FleetingMoments]

This lens makes no logical sense - for me I love the versatility of my 24-70mm F2.8 on R5, and I will get the 70-200mm F2.8 with extension tube, I just don't think the 70-150 makes sense with the 24-105 as a middle ground lens already well established.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

I would prefer they sacrifice the wide end personally. 80-200 (magic drain pipe v2?) or even 100-200 would be better. Or maybe a less drastic cut to the tele end (70-180?)

Once you pass 50 mm, the tele end determines the size and weight a lot more than the wide end.

 

[john1970]

At first I did not understand why Canon made these lenses, but for the size, weight, and price they are very good. I ordered the 28-70 mm f2.8 and will likely order the 70-150 mm 2.8 if if arrives as well. At 1 lb in weight for the 28-70 mm it is difficult to say no for a relatively fast travel lens. For travel I am thinking that the 28-70 mm f2.8 for outdoor and 35 mm f1.4 for indoor would be a good combo.

 

[AJ]

There was some chatter a while back of a zooming macro lens. I wonder if this is it.

 

[FleetingMoments]

There was some chatter a while back of a zooming macro lens. I wonder if this is it.

Now that would be of interest. I have the 35mm and 100mm Macro. A zooming macro could be interesting indeed.

 

[john1970]

Now that would be of interest. I have the 35mm and 100mm Macro. A zooming macro could be interesting indeed.

A 1:1 Zooming macro as an L series lens would replace the 100 mm Macro for me.

 

[Del Paso]

A 1:1 Zooming macro as an L series lens would replace the 100 mm Macro for me.

I'm afraid we'd have to sacrifice some sharpness, at least wide open. With regard to sharpness, the 100mm is a killer!

 

[FleetingMoments]

A 1:1 Zooming macro as an L series lens would replace the 100 mm Macro for me.

I dunno....the 1.4x magnification for me would still pip it. TBH any new L series Macro lenses would be appealing. I'd opt for a 35mm L Macro at 1:1 would be awesome.

 

[FleetingMoments]

I'm afraid we'd have to sacrifice some sharpness, at least wide open. With regard to sharpness, the 100mm is a killer!

Agree, it's a lens I'd never part with.

 

[Loswr]

At first I did not understand why Canon made these lenses, but for the size, weight, and price they are very good. I needed up ordering the 28-70 mm f2.8 and will likely order the 70-150 mm 2.8 if if arrives as well. At 1 lb in weight for the 28-70 mm it is difficult to say no for a relatively fast travel lens. For travel I am thinking that the 28-70 mm f2.8 for outdoor and 35 mm f1.4 for indoor would be a good combo.

I don't really need an f/2.8 zoom for travel. Usually I want more in focus (family and background), or I’m shooting at blue hour on a tripod aiming for long exposures. If I need a wide aperture I often want wider than f/2.8, which is why I bought the 24/1.8 (and now have the 24 and 20 f/1.4 if I have room).

But I totally get why Canon made these lenses. They’re near-L in spec, near-L in image quality, but less than half L-cost. Bryan/TDP sums it up in the opening line of his RF 28-70/2.8 review: “Not everyone can afford Canon's flagship L-series lenses, but all want the performance and features they offer.”

 

[john1970]

I dunno....the 1.4x magnification for me would still pip it. TBH any new L series Macro lenses would be appealing. I'd opt for a 35mm L Macro at 1:1 would be awesome.

Good point. I forgot about the 1.4x magnification. Guess I would have to keep it as well.

 

[Del Paso]

Good point. I forgot about the 1.4x magnification. Guess I would have to keep it as well.

One has never enough lenses...
Or should I say one has never too many lenses?

 

[bn5fg]

But I totally get why Canon made these lenses. They’re near-L in spec, near-L in image quality, but less than half L-cost. Bryan/TDP sums it up in the opening line of his RF 28-70/2.8 review: “Not everyone can afford Canon's flagship L-series lenses, but all want the performance and features they offer.”

For me, it wasn't really about the price — it was more about the weight and balance. Otherwise, I would have gotten the 24-70f2.8 ages ago.