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

Daner

AE-1 Program
Aug 15, 2017
113
115
Stockholm
danethomasphotography.com
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.

I like the RF 24-105 f/4 on my EOS R just fine for one-bag travel. It is smaller, lighter, more versatile, and better for my needs than the 24-70f/2.8 5D4 combination that I had before.

That being the case, I can imagine that a 70-135 f/2 would be a wonderful portrait lens, and considerably more versatile than the RF 85 f/1.2 DS that I am currently pining for (especially with the IBIS on the R5).
 
D

Deleted member 68328

Guest
To me, this zoom is not appealing when compared to the RF 15-35mm.

1) You gain 1mm on the wide end side, but lose 7mm on the other side. No bueno.
2) f/2.0 vs f/2.8 at these focal lengths will not help for bokeh and as regards light gathering, I think you can easily compensate by doing +1 stop ISO
Worse...
3) You lose IS and combo IBIS + IS on the R5 which is supposed to be a 7-8 stops gain
4) Most certainly, bulbous lens => no filter thread. For serious landscape photography, I can't see this as being bueno.

So what's my use case here?
 

highdesertmesa

R5
CR Pro
Apr 17, 2017
360
492
www.instagram.com
To me, this zoom is not appealing when compared to the RF 15-35mm.

1) You gain 1mm on the wide end side, but lose 7mm on the other side. No bueno.
2) f/2.0 vs f/2.8 at these focal lengths will not help for bokeh and as regards light gathering, I think you can easily compensate by doing +1 stop ISO
Worse...
3) You lose IS and combo IBIS + IS on the R5 which is supposed to be a 7-8 stops gain
4) Most certainly, bulbous lens => no filter thread. For serious landscape photography, I can't see this as being bueno.

So what's my use case here?

  1. 1mm between 15 and 14mm is significant
  2. f2 will l help for bokeh for those of us shooting at MFD and f/2. I've already seen some amazing RF 15-35 wide open at 15mm + MFD shots, so this should be even better.
  3. You only lose the 1-2 stops above the default 5 stops with IBIS. An f/2 zoom with 5 stops of IBIS will be incredible
  4. We won't know if the front element will be filterable or not. If not, it might be designed to accept a rear drop-in filter.
Can't tell you what your use case would be, but I think I can find a few :)

For those saying you lose 28-35mm with the f/2: while true, at least there won't be overlap in the f/2 trinity, which I personally like.
 
Last edited:

CanonFanBoy

Purple
CR Pro
Jan 28, 2015
5,683
4,115
Irving, Texas
  1. 1mm between 15 and 14mm is significant
  2. f2 will l help for bokeh for those of us shooting at MFD and f/2. I've already seen some amazing RF 15-35 wide open at 15mm + MFD shots, so this should be even better.
  3. You only lose the 1-2 stops above the default 5 stops with IBIS. An f/2 zoom with 5 stops of IBIS will be incredible
  4. We won't know if the front element will be filterable or not. If not, it might be designed to accept a rear drop-in filter.
Can't tell you what your use case would be, but I think I can find a few :)

For those saying you lose 28-35mm with the f/2: while true, at least there won't be overlap in the f/2 trinity, which I personally like.
Focal length overlap. Always bothered me too. :) I know why some people appreciate it (possibly less lens changes), but it bothers me. Just not quite orderly enough.
 
Last edited:

highdesertmesa

R5
CR Pro
Apr 17, 2017
360
492
www.instagram.com
Focal length overlap. Always bothered me too. :) I know why some people appreciate it (possibly lens lens changes), but it bothers me. Just not quite orderly enough.

Yes, exactly. Why no overlap at 70mm but overlap at the wide end? Shouldn't there be equal overlap at both ends? The OCD in me gets set off by that (hah). I can see for event shooting that having the widest reach on the wide end could be helpful. But for landscape, if I have the 15-35 on the camera and need to shoot at 35mm, I will probably change to the middle zoom for the best IQ.

Currently I'm thinking I will land with the f/2.8 trinity but substituting the RF 50 f/1.2 in the middle. That makes way more sense to me, and I already have the 50 and 70-200, so it's a single lens away from being complete.

Then for the f/2 trinity, I have the 28-70, and I think I will want to pair that with the rumored 24 f/1.2 and 135 f/1.4 primes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CanonFanBoy

slclick

PINHOLE
Dec 17, 2013
4,590
2,949
I never got hung up on FL overlap. I purchase each lens to do a certain job, offer a particular look. How they align with other lenses is just happenstance. I get having that mindset though but there are certain focal lengths I just avoid like 41-84. It's great we all see differently.
 

David - Sydney

EOS R
CR Pro
Dec 7, 2014
1,005
836
www.flickr.com
To me, this zoom is not appealing when compared to the RF 15-35mm.

1) You gain 1mm on the wide end side, but lose 7mm on the other side. No bueno.
2) f/2.0 vs f/2.8 at these focal lengths will not help for bokeh and as regards light gathering, I think you can easily compensate by doing +1 stop ISO
Worse...
3) You lose IS and combo IBIS + IS on the R5 which is supposed to be a 7-8 stops gain
4) Most certainly, bulbous lens => no filter thread. For serious landscape photography, I can't see this as being bueno.

So what's my use case here?
Astro (low light/no filters/tripod mount). Assumes controlled coma. Minimise star trailing by faster shutter speeds with wider aperture
Events/concerts (low light/no filters/wider angle/bokeh generally not an issue). IS would be great since handheld but IBIS will certainly help
Losing on the tele-end can be helped by cropping with R5 although perspective will change of course. Although you could use it for landscape, filters would be costly
 

CanonFanBoy

Purple
CR Pro
Jan 28, 2015
5,683
4,115
Irving, Texas
Yes, exactly. Why no overlap at 70mm but overlap at the wide end? Shouldn't there be equal overlap at both ends? The OCD in me gets set off by that (hah). I can see for event shooting that having the widest reach on the wide end could be helpful. But for landscape, if I have the 15-35 on the camera and need to shoot at 35mm, I will probably change to the middle zoom for the best IQ.

Currently I'm thinking I will land with the f/2.8 trinity but substituting the RF 50 f/1.2 in the middle. That makes way more sense to me, and I already have the 50 and 70-200, so it's a single lens away from being complete.

Then for the f/2 trinity, I have the 28-70, and I think I will want to pair that with the rumored 24 f/1.2 and 135 f/1.4 primes.
See, for storage, I would have to have one Pelican case for the zooms and one for the primes.

When I was building my EF zoom trinity I had the 24-70, 70-200, and then flatly refused to buy the 16-35. Then Canon came out with the 11-24 and I thought, "There will once again be order in the world." I went to the big Camera store in Las Vegas to lay my eyes on it. I had the cash in my pocket. I held it. I hugged it. The wife was with me. Just because it looked so cool I decided to hold the Tamron 15-35. When I did that the wife asks, "Will that fit your camera?" Stupidly I replied, "*sigh* Yes." She talked me down from the $3,000 Canon ledge and I walked out with the Tamron.

Don't get me wrong, that Tamron was a very nice lens. However, it always bothered me. Overlap. Not just overlap, but a third party brand that screwed up my color scheme in the Pelican case.

I never did get the 11-24 to make things right. Then along came the RF system and I seen me a window of opportunity to bring balance back to the universe.

So I told her over the next few months:

"I need this new camera because I need more megapixels and won't have to AFMA."
"I am getting too blind to manual focus my vintage lenses. I really do need focus peaking."
"I can keep using my same old EF lenses. No problem, honey."
"I'm just going to sell a couple of lenses I don't use much."
"You know, if I sell the rest of these I can get this and this lens in RF and won't have to use that adapter."

So here I am today. The universe is still out of balance, but there is Lady Justice and her scale standing across the far horizon. Someday...... someday. ;)
 

slclick

PINHOLE
Dec 17, 2013
4,590
2,949
See, for storage, I would have to have one Pelican case for the zooms and one for the primes.

When I was building my EF zoom trinity I had the 24-70, 70-200, and then flatly refused to buy the 16-35. Then Canon came out with the 11-24 and I thought, "There will once again be order in the world." I went to the big Camera store in Las Vegas to lay my eyes on it. I had the cash in my pocket. I held it. I hugged it. The wife was with me. Just because it looked so cool I decided to hold the Tamron 15-35. When I did that the wife asks, "Will that fit your camera?" Stupidly I replied, "*sigh* Yes." She talked me down from the $3,000 Canon ledge and I walked out with the Tamron.

Don't get me wrong, that Tamron was a very nice lens. However, it always bothered me. Overlap. Not just overlap, but a third party brand that screwed up my color scheme in the Pelican case.

I never did get the 11-24 to make things right. Then along came the RF system and I seen me a window of opportunity to bring balance back to the universe.

So I told her over the next few months:

"I need this new camera because I need more megapixels and won't have to AFMA."
"I am getting too blind to manual focus my vintage lenses. I really do need focus peaking."
"I can keep using my same old EF lenses. No problem, honey."
"I'm just going to sell a couple of lenses I don't use much."
"You know, if I sell the rest of these I can get this and this lens in RF and won't have to use that adapter."

So here I am today. The universe is still out of balance, but there is Lady Justice and her scale standing across the far horizon. Someday...... someday. ;)
Imagine fitting the Sigma 24-35 Art into the typical kit, it totally messed with people's heads. (a damn fine lens)
 
  • Like
Reactions: CanonFanBoy

PiezoSwitch

EOS M50
Aug 22, 2019
30
46
Don't get me wrong, that Tamron was a very nice lens. However, it always bothered me. Overlap. Not just overlap, but a third party brand that screwed up my color scheme in the Pelican case.

I love taking photographs and I have owned and used multiple camera systems (still do) so there is a certain neutrality that I have about camera equipment. If I take a photo I like I don't care what brand of camera I used to take it. I own camera equipment to take photos.

BUT and this is a big BUT.

I like having nice gear. I won't go overboard and purchase something outrageously expensive especially if I don't have a definite use for it. But I have more gear than I probably need. I like well made, well engineered equipment, tactile feedback and feel means something to me. So holding a white L Canon lens or a beefy well engineered RF lens appeals to me in a way that most 3rd party lenses won't (Zeiss OTUS being a major exception in my mind, Sigma ART). So your comment about the Tamron reasonates with me as well. :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: CanonFanBoy

sanj

EOS R5
Jan 22, 2012
3,968
864
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.
I think Sony will have it sooner.
 

sanj

EOS R5
Jan 22, 2012
3,968
864
To me, this zoom is not appealing when compared to the RF 15-35mm.

1) You gain 1mm on the wide end side, but lose 7mm on the other side. No bueno.
2) f/2.0 vs f/2.8 at these focal lengths will not help for bokeh and as regards light gathering, I think you can easily compensate by doing +1 stop ISO
Worse...
3) You lose IS and combo IBIS + IS on the R5 which is supposed to be a 7-8 stops gain
4) Most certainly, bulbous lens => no filter thread. For serious landscape photography, I can't see this as being bueno.

So what's my use case here?
It will have a filter thread.