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

CanonFanBoy

Purple
CR Pro
Jan 28, 2015
5,552
3,944
Irving, Texas
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...
Sometimes practicality is of no concern. A Timex is far more practical than a Rolex. Sometimes people just want and there’s those willing to provide.

This lens isn’t even on my wish list, but I still want it. ;) The means to acquire are a whole other story. Ain’t gonna happen. :(
Probably a $5k lens.
 

Del Paso

M3 Singlestroke
Aug 9, 2018
1,182
1,252
Sometimes practicality is of no concern. A Timex is far more practical than a Rolex. Sometimes people just want and there’s those willing to provide.

This lens isn’t even on my wish list, but I still want it. ;) The means to acquire are a whole other story. Ain’t gonna happen. :(
Probably a $5k lens.
There's a 1-2 year-long waiting list to get a sports Rolex.
How long for a Timex ?
Expensive products have a very stable market, and, fortunately, Canon didn't commit the mistake to introduce mostly inexpensive lenses for the R models.
This distinguishes them from Nikon and even Sony.
They had a chance to develop uncommon lenses, partly thanks to their new mount, and took it !
 

Larsskv

EOS R
Jun 12, 2015
847
294
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.

I believe Nikon shooters will have f2 zooms eventually. I am not sure about Sony, though. Their narrower lens mount is likely a significant disadvantage for extreme lens designs such as the f2 FF zooms.
 

unfocused

EOS-1D X Mark III
Jul 20, 2010
5,974
3,239
67
Springfield, IL
www.mgordoncommunications.com
...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...

Actually, only a few of the f/64 group were landscape photographers. Edward Weston shot landscapes, but is better known for his nudes and for his still life images. And, even his landscapes weren't really about the land. Imogen Cunningham is best known for portraits and nudes. Other members are less well known, but are not known primarily as landscape photographers. If you include Peter Stackpole and Dorothea Lange (Stackpole claimed to be a member, but that is in dispute and Lange claimed not to be a member, but that is also in dispute) you have additional examples that were not landscape photographers.

The defining feature of f/64 was the belief in straight photography. They chose f/64 because they felt in best approximated the way the human eye sees -- everything in focus. It was largely a rejection of the romanticism and soft focus of the late 19th, early 20th century and has its roots in Paul Strand's "White Fence." It might also be summarized as an effort to have photography stand on its own as a unique medium, instead of as a imitation of painting, which is what the romanticists were accused of.

Today's fondness for bokeh hearkens back to those 19th century images. Nothing wrong with it, but as I said, it would have Adams and the rest of the f/64 school rolling in their graves because it is exactly what they rejected. That doesn't mean they were right. But, I'm personally more of the straight photography school, so the extreme wide aperture lenses have little appeal to me personally. Hence, my point that if I had the money, I'd rather have a big white.
 

navastronia

EOS RP + 5D Classic
Aug 31, 2018
713
845
Actually, only a few of the f/64 group were landscape photographers. Edward Weston shot landscapes, but is better known for his nudes and for his still life images. And, even his landscapes weren't really about the land. Imogen Cunningham is best known for portraits and nudes. Other members are less well known, but are not known primarily as landscape photographers. If you include Peter Stackpole and Dorothea Lange (Stackpole claimed to be a member, but that is in dispute and Lange claimed not to be a member, but that is also in dispute) you have additional examples that were not landscape photographers.

The defining feature of f/64 was the belief in straight photography. They chose f/64 because they felt in best approximated the way the human eye sees -- everything in focus. It was largely a rejection of the romanticism and soft focus of the late 19th, early 20th century and has its roots in Paul Strand's "White Fence." It might also be summarized as an effort to have photography stand on its own as a unique medium, instead of as a imitation of painting, which is what the romanticists were accused of.

Today's fondness for bokeh hearkens back to those 19th century images. Nothing wrong with it, but as I said, it would have Adams and the rest of the f/64 school rolling in their graves because it is exactly what they rejected. That doesn't mean they were right. But, I'm personally more of the straight photography school, so the extreme wide aperture lenses have little appeal to me personally. Hence, my point that if I had the money, I'd rather have a big white.

This is a good read. Thank you for sharing!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chris.Chapterten

Del Paso

M3 Singlestroke
Aug 9, 2018
1,182
1,252
I believe Nikon shooters will have f2 zooms eventually. I am not sure about Sony, though. Their narrower lens mount is likely a significant disadvantage for extreme lens designs such as the f2 FF zooms.
By then, it could be too late for Nikon, which I'd regret for sentimental reasons, Nikon was always part of the landscape...
 

highdesertmesa

R5 | Q2 | M10M
CR Pro
Apr 17, 2017
349
485
www.instagram.com
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

Because this doesn’t replace the EF 11-24. There is rumored to be an RF 10-24 coming for that.
 
Feb 13, 2020
4
0
The 14-28 f/2 makes sense and it is versatile. But the 70-135 f/2 makes no sense. I can't imagine people carrying the trinity of lenses in their travel. And if you are not travelling ,you might do well with a prime.
 

navastronia

EOS RP + 5D Classic
Aug 31, 2018
713
845
The 14-28 f/2 makes sense and it is versatile. But the 70-135 f/2 makes no sense. I can't imagine people carrying the trinity of lenses in their travel. And if you are not travelling ,you might do well with a prime.

This post is like the Bat Signal for CanonFanBoy ;) , but before he gets here, I want to say that despite me having no interest in the 70-135/2, it most certainly does make a ton of sense for portrait photographers who want to have the "right" focal length for subjects with different face types/shapes (not all FLs are flattering to all faces - those with large noses might look better with more compression, etc) while also having good low light/shallow DoF capability.

EDIT: after writing that, I am now a little bit interested in the 70-135/2. Damn! :LOL:
 

KirkD

EOS M6 Mark II
Nov 23, 2017
89
92
Canada
kirkdurston.wixsite.com
My wallet is still in pain from having purchased the RF 15-35 f2.8L. This 14-28 f2 would be amazing but it was enough of a stretch to purchase the 15-35. I'm tapping out of this one but love that they are making one (maybe). By the way, Fro won't need to work out anymore if he starts shooting with these f2 trinity lenses.
 

CanonFanBoy

Purple
CR Pro
Jan 28, 2015
5,552
3,944
Irving, Texas
What do you like about these three lenses apart from the other RF lenses? What sets them apart?
Well, so far there is just one f/2 zoom. Do you mean what do I like about it vs. the RF 24-70mm f/2.8? I can answer that only based on looks since I have neither touched nor seen another RF zoom.

I like the way the RF 28-70mm f/2 looks better. I also like the extra stop. Compared to my former EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II... I like the extra stop and the size/shape better. I do not miss the 4mm at the short end. I like the heavier weight. I like the photos I get better. I like the bokeh better.

My Grandson will get all my stuff when I die... so I am thinking about him.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Jack Douglas

CanonFanBoy

Purple
CR Pro
Jan 28, 2015
5,552
3,944
Irving, Texas
This post is like the Bat Signal for CanonFanBoy ;) , but before he gets here, I want to say that despite me having no interest in the 70-135/2, it most certainly does make a ton of sense for portrait photographers who want to have the "right" focal length for subjects with different face types/shapes (not all FLs are flattering to all faces - those with large noses might look better with more compression, etc) while also having good low light/shallow DoF capability.

EDIT: after writing that, I am now a little bit interested in the 70-135/2. Damn! :LOL:
I think the man accidentally got the numbers switched around. :ROFLMAO: But seriously, as a guy who loves to shoot portraits, it makes more sense for me to carry a faster lens that doesn't go out to 200mm.

While I would only very very rarely have any use for an RF 14-28mm f/2L (I rarely use my 28-70), I still want the f/2L zoom trinity. It might take me 10 years, but I will have it if I am still alive. An RF 70-135mm f/2L would get a whole lot of use from me and that will be my next lens. :) When? It's gonna be a little while. Still broke. :(
 
  • Like
Reactions: navastronia

CanonFanBoy

Purple
CR Pro
Jan 28, 2015
5,552
3,944
Irving, Texas
You just blocked me on twitter because you made an asinine political comment and I replied to it?

Please delete me from here too then. Asshole.
Don't know who blocked you on Twitter, but you have the ability to delete your account here at CR yourself... don't you? Instead of picking a cat fight across platforms?