One consideration in favor of f/2.8s is decreased working distance. It also helps with flashes. Some flashes only support zoom settings of 105 or 200mm.I've shot an f/2.8 trinity since 1995 or so. I think I had the 20-35/2.8 just before the 17-35 came out? (Where was Canon rumors, THEN? You could have saved me a few hundred!)
Anyway I'm thinking the f/4 trinity is where it's at these days. I don't think f/2.8 really gives noticeable bokeh in this day of 35/1.2's and 135/1.4's, and with today's low noise at high ISOs and IBIS/IS, you can shoot moving subjects in poor light and non-moving subjects in candlelight with f/4 at these focal lengths. And the tele can be variable aperture again for the same reasons; the old 70-200/2.8 is in effect variable anyway as you use it a lot with 1.4x and 2.0x so are up to 400mm f/5.6, which I think the 100-500/4-7.1 either does, or is within a 1/3 stop of doing.
Of course you do need blur on occasion, but the 24-105/4 has a 25mm aperture when you want a light portrait, which is the same as the 70/2.8's 25mm. And 500/7.1 at 500mm is a 70.4mm aperture, pretty much the same as your 70-200 at 200/2.8, 280/4, or 400/5.6.
So, I was thinking about two possible directions for the wide-angle.
14-35/4 is basically super-wide to almost normal. You can shoot street with it, and other quick-changing subjects. The huge overlap with the 24-105 means you can get away without changing lenses.
The other direction they could have gone would be like 10-24/4: even wider, but then you have to change lenses. That'd be more appropriate for landscape, real estate, backpacking, etc. where you'd typically have more time to get the exact right lens on. Interestingly this also might have been a better example for shooters with two cameras? The only advantage of a big overlap might be when having a failure yet still being able to shoot 24-35 is so valuable?
On the third hand, we've got the 100-500, not a 70-400 or some such. So maybe they're just throwing darts at a board, not trying to design a coherent product line for a specific use case. In other words having a lot of overlap at one end serves some users that would be dis-served by having no overlap at the other end, and vice versa.
I love having overlap in the 24-35mm range. It really does reduce a lot of lens changes. 35mm is one of my favored focal lengths, so it's great having it on both the normal and ultrawide zooms.
I suspect an RF version of the EF 11-24 to come eventually, but it is not a direct competitor to the 15-35 f/2.8 or 14-35 f/4 zooms. The RF zooms are filterable while the 11-24 is not. The 11-24 is also a lot heavier and larger. I'd love to know what Canon has planned. Will they go the Sony route with a 12-24 f/2.8 or will they stay at f/4 but extend the range to 9-24 or 10-24mm? I'm guessing that Canon would do a f/4 9-24 or 10-24, and maybe release a prime at f/2.8.
Upvote
0