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

[Ozarker]

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

Well, that’s just Canon being modest.

 

[Architect1776]

A trinity line with IS and another trinity line of F2..

I feel bad for Nikon and Sony shooters.. Neither is even an option for them.

But....but...but only dynamic range counts, nothing else is important.

 

[Antono Refa]

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.

 

[navastronia]

Yep, this would be the only wide angle lens I'd need. Hope Canon produces it.

 

[Jack Douglas]

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

F4 is big enough!

 

[Ozarker]

Yep, this would be the only wide angle lens I'd need. Hope Canon produces it.

28mm is really too wide for my needs, but I need a 14-28mm really bad.

 

[sanj]

Yes, but think of the vignetting. Oh, the horror!

Having f2 does not mean that you have to use f2. You can shoot at 5.6 and have no issues. But when you need the f2 you will be happy that you have it.

 

[Jack Douglas]

Even if it gives me ridiculous photos, I love it ... and isn't life about having fun and photography the same.

Jack

 

[Jack Douglas]

Shot at 11 but cropped after the fact to get better alignment.
Perhaps this will help someone determine that they really need a crazy wide lens!

Jack

 

[Ozarker]

Shot at 11 but cropped after the fact to get better alignment.View attachment 189273
Perhaps this will help someone determine that they really need a crazy wide lens!

Jack

It isn’t so much that I need a wide lens, butt that I need a narrower wife.

 

[Jack Douglas]

It isn’t so much that I need a wide lens, butt that I need a narrower wife.

Ooh that sounds kind of ......

 

[Jack Douglas]

Ooh that sounds kind of ......

I have the best wife. She encourages me to by camera gear. Yes, believe it or not it's true. I restrain myself.

But I'm not allowed to use it on her.

Jack

 

[jvillain]

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.

 

[Canon1966]

I’m just sitting here repeating : “14-28 f2 L” that is something , mmm....

sounds good. Probably come in at $3000

 

[Ozarker]

I have the best wife. She encourages me to by camera gear. Yes, believe it or not it's true. I restrain myself.

But I'm not allowed to use it on her.

Jack

Same here. I am not allowed to take her photo except under very exceptional circumstances.

 

[deleteme]

Continue reading...

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...

 

[deleteme]

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.

 

[shawn]

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.

 

[AccipiterQ]

With IBS, f2 would be the way to go. But $$$$

I think IBS is irritable bowel.....

Seriously though,exactly my thought....f2.8 with IS &IBIS can't compare to f2 & IBIS. At least for me.

 

[Treyarnon]

a 14-28 F2 would make a hell of an astro lens....