Canon Will Announce a Zoom Lens Faster Than F/2.0 in Late 2026

[neuroanatomist]

I just had a recent experience with the 28-70/2, shooting in low light conditions (event). I was shocked to see how I can see the lack of IS on the images and probably how much I got used using IS. I had to explicitly focus on having a steady hand which I haven't much done in the past ~15y.

...there are comments on here, and then there are real world comments on here.

This is one of the real world comments, at least for me. Well done.

Canon's implementation of IS in its lenses? Indispensable for my own photography.

It would help if the real world comment included the body being used, because the post implies that there was no stabilization happening, yet on bodies with IBIS the 28-70/2 has excellent stabilization as I know from personal experience.

Since you’re commenting further on the real world applicability of the post, that brings up another point. Personally, I shoot a lot of low light events, and I get a little to no benefit from image stabilization in the wide and standard focal lengths. At the events, I typically shoot in low light (concerts, performances, etc.), the lowest shutter speed I use is 1/125 s and that is plenty fast enough to eliminate the effect of camera shake with a 70 mm lens. I mean, maybe if the event was a sculpture display, then IS would be of benefit… As always, YMMV.

I do get benefit from IS when shooting low light events with the 100-300/2.8, though.

 

[Del Paso]

Well, mine arrived yesterday after an excruciating 1-month wait
The Adorama rep told me that they cannot keep those in stock... and that there were 20-ish people in the queue after me, but they receive 2-3 a week, so there's that

If 1 month is "an excruciating wait", how would you define our waiting for the RF 35mm f/1,2, sophisticated torture maybe ?

 

[m4ndr4ke]

...there are comments on here, and then there are real world comments on here.

This is one of the real world comments, at least for me. Well done.

Canon's implementation of IS in its lenses? Indispensable for my own photography.

I don't know if it's real enough, but the 28-70mm f/2 is my main lens for work.
I work photography full-time, photographing news (not sports) and events. Last year I took about 40k photographs with that lens alone, and I do not use burst shooting at all.

My base shutter speed is 1/200, that is what I set my cameras to when putting them in the bag.
By default, the 28-70 f/2 goes attached to the R6. The RP is carried without a lens, so I can choose whether I'll attach the 16mm or the 70-200, when I arrive at my destinations - sometimes I don't use the RP.

If there's enough light, I try to maintain at least 1/200. However, if I'm shooting inanimate subjects (or a room), I'll drop the shutter speed to lower my ISO. When in the field, for inanimate subjects, my usual lower limit with the R6 is 1/10th, whatever the focal length from 28 to 200mm. I may go lower with the 16mm, to half a second or one second. If I'm using electronic shutter, then half a second is the limit.

In all scenarios, the stabilisation systems can go further, but I'm not doing math in the field, I just pick a shutter speed I know will work with all my lenses. Also, it becomes tiring changing so many settings for one or two photographs, and I'm still carrying my bag in the other shoulder, so the steadiness of my body isn't necessarily at its best.

My only lens with IS is the RF 70-200mm f/2.8, all my other lenses are unstabilised. So yes, I find IBIS to be very effective.

I don't know, does that sound real enough?

 

[roby17269]

If 1 month is "an excruciating wait", how would you define our waiting for the RF 35mm f/1,2, sophisticated torture maybe ?

Well that was from when I swiped (virtually) my card to when I was ripping away the wrapping of the (very nice) box containing the lens

So apples to oranges. Canon hasn't received any money from me yet... actually the last time that has happened was some time ago... that was when the RF 35 1.4 become available for pre-order in summer 2024, if I remember correctly. Since then I've had no business with Canon

 

[Exploreshootshare]

Keep in mind, and my article mentioned this, that most of those lens designs would be almost impossible even for a fixed lens camera with a back focus distance of .4mm, which basically has the rear element touching the sensor. basically 2 hair thicknesses away from the sensor, and I'm not sure if that includes the IR filter stack or the physical sensor itself. which could mean it's touching the sensor.

There is one design, and one design only (which was highlighted at a 15mm back focus distance).

Also, all those designs are huge - think 8" lens designs as well for a very narrow focal zoom range. While a lot of the .4mm back focus designs were collapsable I think, they are still far larger than what we would expect from a compact camera, and an ultra wide zoom lens even if it's f/1.4

Yes, I did realize that and have that in mind. I just took the full frame focal lengths given from the patent or table because obviously Canon is working on them in some way.

 

[josephandrews222]

I don't know if it's real enough, but the 28-70mm f/2 is my main lens for work.
I work photography full-time, photographing news (not sports) and events. Last year I took about 40k photographs with that lens alone, and I do not use burst shooting at all.

My base shutter speed is 1/200, that is what I set my cameras to when putting them in the bag.
By default, the 28-70 f/2 goes attached to the R6. The RP is carried without a lens, so I can choose whether I'll attach the 16mm or the 70-200, when I arrive at my destinations - sometimes I don't use the RP.

If there's enough light, I try to maintain at least 1/200. However, if I'm shooting inanimate subjects (or a room), I'll drop the shutter speed to lower my ISO. When in the field, for inanimate subjects, my usual lower limit with the R6 is 1/10th, whatever the focal length from 28 to 200mm. I may go lower with the 16mm, to half a second or one second. If I'm using electronic shutter, then half a second is the limit.

In all scenarios, the stabilisation systems can go further, but I'm not doing math in the field, I just pick a shutter speed I know will work with all my lenses. Also, it becomes tiring changing so many settings for one or two photographs, and I'm still carrying my bag in the other shoulder, so the steadiness of my body isn't necessarily at its best.

My only lens with IS is the RF 70-200mm f/2.8, all my other lenses are unstabilised. So yes, I find IBIS to be very effective.

I don't know, does that sound real enough?

It sure does.

For your usage...absolutely. Very nice post. Logical. Reasonable. Fun to read. Even educational!

For my usage?

Not so much.

My statement from earlier:

"This is one of the real world comments, at least for me. Well done."

 

[riker]

I presume you’re using a camera that lacks IBIS. The point being made was that the 28-70/2 delivers 8 stops of stabilization with IBIS alone, which is the same as the 24-70/2.8 IS achieves in combination with IBIS.

I'm shooting with R5 Mark II. Just sharing my experience.
Thanks for the graph, it was showing exactly what I think but the focal length is really missing. My absolutely subjective guess/feeling is that around 40-50mm it starts to count. In average situations that is. There are always exceptions like you are in an Italian village at night, near the sea, interesting clouds lit by the Moon and you are trying to shoot 1/4s at 28mm handheld to make the waves silky. Or whatever Point is, I had a few occasions where I really appreciated IS even at wide angles and managed to get shots which were impossible 10-15-20y ago.

 

[m4ndr4ke]

It sure does.

For your usage...absolutely. Very nice post. Logical. Reasonable. Fun to read. Even educational!

For my usage?

Not so much.

My statement from earlier:

"This is one of the real world comments, at least for me. Well done."

Of course it may not work for everyone, everytime, but the same applies do IS. If, out of 20 people, one complains that IBIS didn't work for him, the system was still successful for 95% of the users.

Canon often develops the fastest lenses without IS, they did the same on EF mount. EF 24, 35, 50, 85, 135...all the fastest variants were unstabilised, and the same happened with a few zooms, like the 24-70 f/2.8 and 16-35mm f/2.8.

It is my understanding that including IS requires the lens to be able to cover a larger image circle at least at some point of its construction. When designing for the extremes, that may certainly be an issue.

I'm shooting with R5 Mark II. Just sharing my experience.
Thanks for the graph, it was showing exactly what I think but the focal length is really missing. My absolutely subjective guess/feeling is that around 40-50mm it starts to count. In average situations that is. There are always exceptions like you are in an Italian village at night, near the sea, interesting clouds lit by the Moon and you are trying to shoot 1/4s at 28mm handheld to make the waves silky. Or whatever Point is, I has a few occasions where are really appreciated IS at wide angles and managed to get shots which were impossible 10-15-20y ago.

IBIS does pretty much the same. At those focal lengths it may be even more effective than IS alone.

For a moment there you made me think twice, and I had to grab my R6.
The 45mm was attached and I managed to get sharp corners at 1/4 with ease, and about 50% keepers at 1/2.
I didn't bother dropping further, but I think that's about 4 stops of IBIS on a lens that is CIPA-rated to go up to 8 stops. IS lenses usually don't go beyond the rating of 5 stops (CIPA) on their own, with many users barely getting 3.

Usually I can get better results with the 28-70, thanks (I think) to its weight.
With the 16mm I know I can go something over a second of exposure, but I don't remember if I can get to 2 seconds, I suppose not.

The higher resolution of your camera may make it harder, but that difficulty increases for IS as well.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I'm shooting with R5 Mark II. Just sharing my experience.
Point is, I has a few occasions where are really appreciated IS at wide angles and managed to get shots which were impossible 10-15-20y ago.

Then I’m confused. Previously you argued that lens IS is desirable in an updated MkII 28-70/2 and you stated:

I just had a recent experience with the 28-70/2, shooting in low light conditions (event). I was shocked to see how I can see the lack of IS on the images and probably how much I got used using IS. I had to explicitly focus on having a steady hand which I haven't much done in the past ~15y.

Your camera has IBIS. For the 28-70/2, the camera’s IBIS provides the maximum possible stabilization (8-stops based on the CIPA standard) that can be achieved by any current Canon system including the RF 24-70/2.8 IS. In other words, putting IS in a future 28-70/2 II lens will have zero benefit unless the lens is used with a body lacking IBIS (like the R8 or C50).

If you were using the R5II and 28-70/2 and were ‘shocked how you can see the lack of IS’, then you probably have the setting turned off. That’s a ‘wetware’ error, or maybe we need the photography equivalent of PBKAC, perhaps PBCAH – problem between camera and hair.

 

[mimbu]

Heck, I'd even take lenses without IS up to 200, maybe 300mm, if it meant other benefits like wider apertures or crazy zoom ranges.
I'm happy as long as I can get one to two stops of IBIS. I remember my old EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L non-IS allowed me 1/50 at 200mm on my R6 and I always found it to be more than adequate.

IBIS is most effective at shorter focal lengths due to the nature of how it works -- the sensor can only move so far regardless of the focal length, unlike IS which can be designed to work with (practically?) any focal length. In particular at focal lengths beyond 150mm, IBIS performance starts to really fall off a cliff. Beyond 200mm it becomes mostly ineffective unless it's working together with IS in which case it can give the combined system a small bump over IS alone.

 

[m4ndr4ke]

IBIS is most effective at shorter focal lengths due to the nature of how it works -- the sensor can only move so far regardless of the focal length, unlike IS which is tuned for each lens. In particular at focal lengths beyond 150mm, IBIS performance starts to really fall off a cliff. Beyond 200mm it becomes mostly ineffective unless it's working together with IS in which case it can give the combined system a small bump over IS alone.

I'm aware, that's why I mentioned my experience with the old EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L, that took me to 200mm with IBIS alone, and using the adapter. I still had 2 stops of stabilisation - I always found that to be quite good, all things considered.
A RF lens would stand closer to the sensor, which would probably allow IBIS to be slightly more effective, perhaps even getting two stops at 300mm. I'd take that

 

[mimbu]

A RF lens would stand closer to the sensor, which would probably allow IBIS to be slightly more effective, perhaps even getting two stops at 300mm. I'd take that

Short flange distance itself doesn't really impact IBIS performance. Of course over time IBIS has improved (better gyros, faster movement of the sensor, faster calculations, that sort of thing) which may help slightly, but we still today don't see much impact from IBIS on longer lenses. Not even the best IBIS (Panasonic) has managed to do that.

 

[Uneternal]

It would be nice if we finally get a successor of the EF 17-55mm 2.8. If it was below f/2.0 that would be a total game changer.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

I have seen it said that cinema cameras are usually used with rigs (is that the word?) to stabilise them?

Cinema cameras are often rigged up because they do not come with everything we need.
It does add to stability, but that is not the main purpose.
Canon Cinema EOS cameras generally come ready to use out of the box.
I use the R5 C handheld and ready to go.

Cinema lenses don't usually have IS, do they?

Canon has plenty of cinema lenses with IS.
They are very popular in ENG, wildlife, and sports.
You are correct that most cinema lenses do not have IS.
However, that is also true of most photo lenses.
It is easy not to realize that as a Canon user, but lens IS is very rare in other camera systems under 200 mm of focal length.

 

[neuroanatomist]

It is easy not to realize that as a Canon user, but lens IS is very rare in other camera systems under 200 mm of focal length.

Is that because of the reliance on IBIS with MILCs? Is that also true of Nikon's VC lenses (since they transitioned to MILCs on a similar timeline to Canon)?

 

[EOS 4 Life]

Your camera has IBIS. For the 28-70/2, the camera’s IBIS provides the maximum possible stabilization (8-stops based on the CIPA standard) that can be achieved by any current Canon system including the RF 24-70/2.8 IS. In other words, putting IS in a future 28-70/2 II lens will have zero benefit unless the lens is used with a body lacking IBIS (like the R8 or C50).

CIPA uses robots.
Human hands are different, and we will all get different results.
If CIPA did not use robots, then they could not give a number, but your mileage will definitely vary.
Someones real world use differing from CIPA is to be expected.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

IBIS is most effective at shorter focal lengths due to the nature of how it works

IBIS is most effective at standard focal lengths, but I guess that it was what you meant.
I wish Canon would let us turn IBIS off and only use lens IS for UWA.
*I more than wish, I have requested several times.
Canon responded by improving their IBIS, but not enough for me.
A lot of more influential people than me really like being able to turn off IBIS from the lens.
I use my R5 C or PowerShot V1 for UWA, so it does not impact me personally

 

[EOS 4 Life]

A RF lens would stand closer to the sensor, which would probably allow IBIS to be slightly more effective, perhaps even getting two stops at 300mm. I'd take that

The distance from the sensor at 300 mm would be exactly the same.
The back focus makes up for the flange distance.
RF would give you better stabilization than an EF lens that does not have coordinated IS, but that has nothing to do with the flange distance.

 

[neuroanatomist]

CIPA uses robots.
Human hands are different, and we will all get different results.
If CIPA did not use robots, then they could not give a number, but your mileage will definitely vary.
Someones real world use differing from CIPA is to be expected.

I was replying to someone who stated, “I was shocked to see how I can see the lack of IS on the images…” Sure, maybe someone using the R5II + 28-70/2 gets 6-stops of stabilization and not the 8-stops per CIPA’s testing protocol. What ‘real world use’ would differ from CIPA by 8 stops? Having advanced Parkinson’s disease and taking pictures while riding a mechanical bull during an earthquake?

 

[EOS 4 Life]

Is that because of the reliance on IBIS with MILCs?

I think that is true.
Tamron had a lot of SLR lenses in the standard range with IS.
They have very few in mirrorless.
Canon has gone the other way, but they have many cameras on the RF mount that do not have IBIS.