Is a Canon RF 14-28mm f/2L USM on the way? [CR1]

Antono Refa

EOS R
Mar 26, 2014
1,327
434
I know there are folks that love themselves some bokeh. I'm not one of them. Ansel Adams and the rest of the f64 school have got to be rolling in their graves.

Three points:

1. AFAIK, the f/64 school shot landscape, where it makes sense to have everything in focus. The RF 70-135mm would be used for portraiture, where blurring the background is a lot more useful.

2. Faster aperture on wide lenses can be useful for star trails, AFAIK, something else the f/64 school didn't shoot.

3. f/64 on MF to LF cameras has the depth of field of f/8 to f/16 on FF. I'll fall off my chair if the f/2 trinity's aperture wouldn't close as far as f/16, probably f/22.

Minimum $9,000 for this "trinity" that doesn't go past 135mm doesn't tempt me. I'd much rather have a big white if I could afford that kind of money.

You don't have to buy an f/2 lens. I'm not going to.
 
Last edited:

Jack Douglas

CR for the Humour
Apr 10, 2013
6,849
2,464
Alberta, Canada
Even if it gives me ridiculous photos, I love it ... and isn't life about having fun and photography the same. Mighty Skeena river_16099.JPG

Jack
 

jvillain

EOS RP
Sep 29, 2018
291
235
I was pretty impressed at first then I realized that all these zooms are just 2X. That means Canon is finally catching up to Sigma who have had their 18-35 and 50-100 1.8s for years. The Canon FF lenses will deliver more being FF lenses but the lens designs aren't that radical any more.
 

Normalnorm

EOS RP
Dec 25, 2012
746
373
An f2 lens of 14-28mm would be a technical feat that would astound the market. However, it seems to me to be the realm of a halo product with minimal practicality for the bulk of users.
I know I will get a hail of comments claiming "I will die without this lens.." but the fact remains that in only the most specialized cases would an f2 lens in this range show even a marginal benefit and then one has to contend with the issues of arising from f2 potentially erasing any advantage of speed.

Now, the 70-135 f2 is a different story...
 

Normalnorm

EOS RP
Dec 25, 2012
746
373
I have the 11-24 f/4 L lens....and it is great fun.

This new RF lens sounds interesting, but I'm wondering why they aren't going as wide at the older EF lens?

Would it just be too big or something to do 11-24 at f/2?

C
The 11-24 is plenty big at f4. If it were even possible, I would bet the f2 version would be in the range of 8-10 lbs.
Oh, I forgot! Mirrorless should make lenses smaller!
I guess then we are OK at f2. ;)
 
  • Love
Reactions: Jack Douglas

shawn

EOS M6 Mark II
Jan 28, 2019
66
67
I have the 28-70 f/2 L and honestly it's not that great. It has a ton of focus breathing at mid portrait distances which means you really have to get close to your subject, I find that somewhat annoying in practice. It behaves more like a 28-60 with a macro mode. Not having that true 70mm at closer distances reduces the amount of pop off the background which is one thing you expect with a f/2 lens.