Canon working on another f/2 zoom lens for the RF mount [CR1]

[Ladislav]

The only reason why I really want to see f/2 holy trinity is hope that it will somehow push down prices of f/2.8 holy trinity.

 

[magarity]

Can anyone tell me why canon is creating heavy, bulky lenses on a smaller mirrorless body? The mirrorless rf system is heavier than a dslr ef-s system. Wasn't mirrorless supposed to be the lighter system?

This is exactly what I was thinking. I rent a 70-200 2.8 from time to time (hurrah for lensrentals) and it's a beast to drag around all day. I can only imagine how horrible a 2.0 would be.

 

[Ozarker]

Can anyone tell me why canon is creating heavy, bulky lenses on a smaller mirrorless body? The mirrorless rf system is heavier than a dslr ef-s system. Wasn't mirrorless supposed to be the lighter system?

Not unless one goes crop... especially Micro 4/3. Anyway, these are fast "L" lenses and for full frame. Nobody buys "L" for light weight. Bodies are lighter. Lenses, nope.

 

[Ozarker]

This is exactly what I was thinking. I rent a 70-200 2.8 from time to time (hurrah for lensrentals) and it's a beast to drag around all day. I can only imagine how horrible a 2.0 would be.

I have to frequently haul around the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L II. You're right, it is heavy. However, I would still be happy to carry around an f/2. I think it won't be 70-200mm though. Probably 70-120, 70-130, 70-150. Something shorter.

 

[Antono Refa]

1 You want buy lense what is totally usefull 10 year later too. There could be 100mp crop sensor 10 year later and smaller than f2 may be difraction afffected. but yeah i was wrong on that thing speed boosters will solve that problem.

I didn't consider the diffraction part, but I doubt 100MP cameras will be mainstream in a decade. If there's one thing I never heard about the 5Ds is that it is a popular model.

2 if that 120mp would be suitable and affordable for slr cameras we would seen it on camera already.

I think its the other side of the equation - there aren't enough people who would buy a camera with that high a resolution.

its too expensive or it just too slow for most peoples with nowadays computers.Or too bad DR. And it doesnt sound good idea add one more format when got rid APS-H

The sensor can shoot 9.4 fps, oh so very slow.

People keep saying they want high resolution for reach, e.g. birds, I don't think they'll object to smaller sensors.

 

[Ozarker]

"...and then the rf 70-200 2.8 IS was previewed as a tiny lens compared to normal 70-200..."

By whom? Shorter when retracted because it is not internally zooming. I never saw anyone from Canon saying it would be tiny compared to the EF 70-200 f/2.8L II, III.

 

[Pape]

Lucky ones who are always on right place with camera and dont need better reach =better resolution
I want that teleportation gift too!
Well i guess studio photographers wont need better resolution ,their models come as close as wanted to come
90% peoples would buy higher resolution camera if price is near enough low resolution camera.

 

[jonebize]

Even a really strong 20-35mm f/2 would be insane.

 

[SouthpawSD]

50-100 f/2 on full frame would be awesome

 

[Photo Hack]

Even a really strong 20-35mm f/2 would be insane.

If Sigma can do 24-35 f2 on EF years ago....I think Canon could certainly do a 20-35 or similar on the RF after doing a great job on the 28-70 f2.

 

[jonebize]

If Sigma can do 24-35 f2 on EF years ago....I think Canon could certainly do a 20-35 or similar on the RF after doing a great job on the 28-70 f2.

I think so too. It would be a fantastic lens and is somewhat of a modest hope. If the IQ (bokeh) were a little nicer than the Sigma, it would take it to the next level.

 

[Phil]

Can anyone tell me why canon is creating heavy, bulky lenses on a smaller mirrorless body? The mirrorless rf system is heavier than a dslr ef-s system. Wasn't mirrorless supposed to be the lighter system?

It’s all about marketing I think, it makes the system seem impressive but the reality is the R body needs a vertical grip just so you can hold these big lens steady for any length of time. Making the body bigger again and in truth the R isn’t high enough in quality to match these lenses anyway. The new L lenses are sharp but are absolutely massive and expensive making them not practical for 90% of Canon users out there. The 2.8 trinity should be great and not to big and when some nice 1.4 or 1.8 primes come out like the 35 then Canon will have a nice system that’s actually practical. And the pro body needs to be release now!

 

[Phil]

I can only wonder how you already know the weight and the price of a non-existing lens!

I’m thinking a basic knowledge of science and economics.

 

[Richard CR]

200 f/2 2.5kg $7K

135-200 f/2 3kg $10K

Yeah that will light a fire under EOS R sales

yeah that would be one big ____ lens. Canon could call it the "BFL"

 

[Richard CR]

Agreed, with the patents out there for a 70-130mm F/2 I wouldn't be surprised if that's what we're going to get. 70-150mm f/2 even would be really sweet, close enough to 200mm to not be a huge loss, and a whole stop brighter. Add image stabilization and you have me sold! I would rather them cut down on the long end and keep this handholdable than to go all the way to 200/2 and make it a great white.

Wasn't there a 14-24mm f/1.4 mentioned before? They could do something crazy on the wide end, too.

that's a pretty good memory that patent application was found so long ago I had trouble finding it. it was actually one of the first full frame mirrorless patent applications we discovered.
https://www.canonnews.com/canon-patent-application-canon-applies-for-a-mirrorless-full-frame-20-zoom

basically 90-130mm or 70-125mm 2.0

 

[Don Haines]

Maybe I'm the wrong sort of customer but I don't see the great value of these F2 Zooms.
They appear as if they will be bulky and heavy.
<snip>

I agree with most of your comments, but so much depends on what one is doing.

For example, in astrophotography, fast is of paramount importance, but when hiking anything more than a F4 (or 5.6) is a brick. Primes are way better than zooms, until you get yourself into a weight or space limited situation. Superzooms suck until you get somewhere you can’t change lenses....

Give it a few years and we will see a fuller lens lineup, fast primes, slow zooms, and lots in the middle. At the moment we should all be happy that Canon went to great lengths to make sure that the entire EF and EF-s collection can be used on the R series with no extra elements.

 

[Don Haines]

This is exactly what I was thinking. I rent a 70-200 2.8 from time to time (hurrah for lensrentals) and it's a beast to drag around all day. I can only imagine how horrible a 2.0 would be.

24-240.....

Look for some slow (and light) lenses once the system gets more mature.....

 

[BillB]

Can anyone tell me why canon is creating heavy, bulky lenses on a smaller mirrorless body? The mirrorless rf system is heavier than a dslr ef-s system. Wasn't mirrorless supposed to be the lighter system?

If the heavy bulky RF lenses are going to be used as studio lenses maybe the point is that the R is a pretty good fit. In a studio setting, focus accuracy and sensor quality may be important, but things like fps and focus tracking, not so much.

 

[masterpix]

I would say that todays "trinity" are 11-24mm, 24-70mm and 70-200mm or 11-24mm, 24-105mm, 100-400mm

 

[Richard CR]

RF 100-400mm f4L i'm not sure its realistic, judging from how big the 200-400 and the 400mm F4 are, and the prime is a DO lens.

that'll work if you want a $12K lens.