Canon to Merge Two Lenses Into an RF 24-70mm f/2L IS?
- Thread starter Canon Rumors
- Start date
Thinking more about this desirable, yet hypothetical lens, there’s probably room for one TC in the optical path as it is (assuming they keep the drop-in filter), but not for two of them. The lens is already quite long as it is. Makes me wonder if they will release it as a DO lens…You mean, where´s your 600/4+1.4&2.0 TC
Upvote
0
My thoughts were similar to yours. I love my 28-70 F2. It is by far my most used lens (outside of sports and wildlife). It has traveled all over the globe with me and is always there for family events. When first bought it and sold my EF 24-70 F2.8 II, I would feel it a bit tight on the side side. I got the 16 F2.8 just to manage wide angle enxiety
. But over time I realized that I swapped in the 16 very, very rarely. I don't mind the weight and size of the 28-70 F2 too much. Or better, I think it is worth the effort to carry it around.
All that said, a lighter version at the same IQ and and extra 4mm at the wide end would get my money instantly.
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
Interesting. At first I thought: no way they're going to take a 24-70/2.8 and make it a stop faster without a significant increase in weight. Physics doesn't work that way.
But Sony has shown that a 28-70/2 can be made much lighter, so if Canon take that as a starting point and then create a design where distortion corrections are sacrificed for a wider focal length rage, then voila. Canon turned EF 16-35/4 into RF 14-35/4, so it seems reasonable that they could stretch 28-70 into 24-70 using similar techniques.
I think such a lens would be an instant hit for wedding photography and photojournalism. Wedding photography is tiring, and a lighter lens will be appreciated. Plus the extra 4 mm will make a big difference too.
But Sony has shown that a 28-70/2 can be made much lighter, so if Canon take that as a starting point and then create a design where distortion corrections are sacrificed for a wider focal length rage, then voila. Canon turned EF 16-35/4 into RF 14-35/4, so it seems reasonable that they could stretch 28-70 into 24-70 using similar techniques.
I think such a lens would be an instant hit for wedding photography and photojournalism. Wedding photography is tiring, and a lighter lens will be appreciated. Plus the extra 4 mm will make a big difference too.
Upvote
0
The RF 24-70 f/2L is going to be lighter than the RF 28-70, but still have some heft to it. I do not know size and weight. I don't know about IS or focus motor either. I don't think such a lens needs IS, there aren't going to be too many R8 customers buying $3000 lenses.
Upvote
0
My understanding of a "trinity" was three lenses that share the same aperture and quality built, but differ in focal length in a way that they complement each other. Therefore, the 200-800mm doesn't really qualify as part of a trinity because it has a much higher and variable f-number and no L designation..In case of the f2 zooms, my guess would be:
16-24mm F2 --> yet to be released or even only rumored.
24-70mm F2
70-135/150/180mm F2 --> whatever Canon decides on.
Concering the UWA zoom: Canon could give users the option to sacrifice one stop for starting at a 1mm wider focal length
(14-35mm F4 zoom, 15-35mm f2.8 zoom, 16-24?mm F2 zoom)
Sony is apparently going 16-24mm, 28-70mm and 50-150mm with the f2 trinity. The 50-150mm does sound intriguing to me as a stand alone lens, but not in a trinity package. Considering a trinity, I'm some users would prefer the lens starting at 70mm and extending its reach beyond 150mm.
I also wonder if a 20-70mm F2.8 - if it is ever made - will impact the UWA 2.8 zoom. Would Canon try to make a 10-20mm F2.8 or 12-24mm f2.8? If the standard goes down to 20mm, there's "no need" to go up to 35mm with the UWA zoom because there would a great amount of overlap and fewer mm gained by a UWA zoom. I don't think such a lens would arrive within the next 2-4 years, but it is still an interesting thought.
Upvote
0
Digital correction is a deal breaker, and why I have kept away from the VCM lenses except to solve specific problems (the 35 VCM was a bit of a mistake, though, and I have no 20 or 24mm f/1.4 options that are accurate). The 28-70 f/2 already requires some correction, but I usually turn it off and can get away with it for events etc to get better low light performance. Sony can seemingly match or even exceed the geometric performance of the existing 28-70 f/2L.
If I' at ISO 12800 on a Canon mirrorless body and process with lightroom, LR doesn't have the accurate lens profiles to correct, nor the sensor profile to manage the noise properly, and boosting by any amount in the corners becomes VERY noisy -and on top of that, you get stretching of noise artifacts, leading to banding - best case, or further enhancement of noise. If you shoot during the day at ISO 100, I'd have very little - if any - concerns, as there should still be plenty of adjustment latitude in terms of vignetting, but the distortion profile needs to be accurate.
I own both the Sony 35 GM and Canon 35 VCM lenses; the Sony bests Canon's 35 VCM for geometry.
I really hope Canon don't compromise on optical design just to get a lighter lens. I'd prefer a lighter 28-70 without IS vs an optically poorer 24-70 f/2 with IS. Sony have proven you can do the former, so either Canon are unable to innovate and get on top of Sony again, or they have lost touch with their target market). If they get the geometry right, I'll be getting on the waiting list the day the announcement is out.
My other gripe with the current Canon 28-70 f/2L? The front element has a very soft coating on it. There are numerous posts on forums from people who cleaned their lens and accidentally scraped entire sections of coating off. It was an AU$1200+ repair when I had mine done, and I expect it to be more costly now and has been the only lens that's done this out of probably 30+ L series lenses I have owned. Serviceability matters in professional situations.
If I' at ISO 12800 on a Canon mirrorless body and process with lightroom, LR doesn't have the accurate lens profiles to correct, nor the sensor profile to manage the noise properly, and boosting by any amount in the corners becomes VERY noisy -and on top of that, you get stretching of noise artifacts, leading to banding - best case, or further enhancement of noise. If you shoot during the day at ISO 100, I'd have very little - if any - concerns, as there should still be plenty of adjustment latitude in terms of vignetting, but the distortion profile needs to be accurate.
I own both the Sony 35 GM and Canon 35 VCM lenses; the Sony bests Canon's 35 VCM for geometry.
I really hope Canon don't compromise on optical design just to get a lighter lens. I'd prefer a lighter 28-70 without IS vs an optically poorer 24-70 f/2 with IS. Sony have proven you can do the former, so either Canon are unable to innovate and get on top of Sony again, or they have lost touch with their target market). If they get the geometry right, I'll be getting on the waiting list the day the announcement is out.
My other gripe with the current Canon 28-70 f/2L? The front element has a very soft coating on it. There are numerous posts on forums from people who cleaned their lens and accidentally scraped entire sections of coating off. It was an AU$1200+ repair when I had mine done, and I expect it to be more costly now and has been the only lens that's done this out of probably 30+ L series lenses I have owned. Serviceability matters in professional situations.
Upvote
0
There's at least one other possibility, that they believe they can sell more lenses like this, or to put it another way, their actual target market prefers lightness over other concerns.
Upvote
0
Canon are getting fairly smashed by Sony on several fronts, so they really need to compete.
- They have some better performing prime lenses (24 GM, 35 GM, 50 1.2 GM) available for less than the L VCM variants - although the 35GM does exhibit a little more CA.
- They have lighter versions of staple zooms (16-35 GM II, 24-70 GM II, 28-70 f/2 GM) and a few primes (like the 300 2.8 GM)
- They have a high resolution pro camera body (granted; the R1 is a completely different system to the A1 II)
- They have a camera with a global shutter
- They have better low light performance, relative to product tier (backed up by photons to photos, in addition to my own experience)
- They have lenses that Canon don't have (50-150 f/2, and a rumoured 16-28 coming, and their new 100-400 f/4.5 GM)
- They don't rely on digital geometric correction anywhere near as much.
- They have a lightweight/compact full-frame option without significant feature compromise.
- Their sensors, in my testing, do not exhibit vertical bloom when using mechanical shutter.
- Their macro works with a 2x TC, delivering 2.8x with AF.
- Third party lens support!! (in case the first party drops the ball).
We know Canon do respect and cater for their pro sports community - the 100-300 f/2.8L is heavy but is a far more usable lens than the 300 2.8 where the only compromise seems to be price. vs the EF II. Their new RF 70-200 Z lens is so good that with a 2x TC, it still outperforms the RF 100-500L. Canon Professional Services have been fantastic for me (and honestly have been a key reason why I keep shooting Canon). Their RF 85L? Stellar. Commands every dollar of the price they ask.
Honestly, I'd love a Sony 28-70 f/2 GM that I can bolt onto a Canon body, but I am aching for a decent 35mm prime with the same performance of the RF 85L. The flare control of the 85L alone has kept the 28-70 f/2L in the bag several times in favour of a 35 (EF II) +85 combo. I want more lenses like that lens.
The RF 135L is amazing, with my main gripes being the flare in high contrast situations (which is why I passed on it for my esports and bar images) but the bokeh is to die for.
Do you recall how hard it was for Canon to make a 50mm prime you could shoot with wide open? Their EF 50 1.0L was a halo lens designed for film. The 50 1.2L was hot garbage wide open. They arguably never made it work, and then introduced the RF 50 1.2L proving they could get the job done all along. The 50 1.4 VCM is actually a very decent lens, but the bokeh and rendering on the 1.2 makes it worth the dollars for still imaging.
The rumoured weight makes this feel like a 28-70 f/2 IS with a bonus "extended" 4mm on the wide end, or a 24-70 f/2.8 IS with an "extended' f/2 aperture i.e. the extra feature is there if you desperately need it, but like the extension ISO modes, you wouldn't want to make a habit out of it.
Upvote
0
Why is it so hard for you to just accept that some randos on the internet understand the camera market and what it wants much better than Canon has or ever will.
Upvote
0
Your list is 'interesting', here are some questions:
a. Sony has a global shutter camera - so what? the IQ is compromised.
b. Sony has lenses that Canon do not - the reverse is also true, Canon has the 100-500L, fisheye, 200-800 etc
c. Sony has a lightweight/compact FF option, so does Canon, the R8 is highly functional for photography with IQ practically the same as the R6II
d. Sony has 3rd party lens support (in case the first party drops the ball) - I am glad that there is little worry that Canon's first party lens support would drop the ball.
I am sure others would have things to say about the rest of the claims on your list.
Upvote
0
I am not interested in those lists, I am just interested in the lens in my hands.
These days street work with the RF45 1.2 on the R5 II.
There is no time to think about those stupid discussions.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
