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

highdesertmesa

R5
CR Pro
Apr 17, 2017
360
492
www.instagram.com
There's a 35 f/1.2 rumor, but no 24 or 135 rumor yet.
I wish !


 

slclick

EOS 3
Dec 17, 2013
4,647
3,048
The reference was to a 35 f/1.2 and 135 f/1.4 – not 135 f/1.2.
I just looked up at the last post and there it was maybe I didn't go up the ladder high enough to appease you but oh well. I've been in multiple earthquakes today while dealing with other various things, you know ;)
 

highdesertmesa

R5
CR Pro
Apr 17, 2017
360
492
www.instagram.com
I just looked up at the last post and there it was maybe I didn't go up the ladder high enough to appease you but oh well. I've been in multiple earthquakes today while dealing with other various things, you know ;)

Go up the ladder high enough? I was talking about the post right above yours :) I knew it was a simple oversight and no rudeness was intended.
 
  • Like
Reactions: slclick

dominic_siu

R5, RF1435, RF2870, RF70200 2.8, RF100 Macro
Aug 31, 2018
89
69
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.
Same here, but if 1428F2 release, I would trade my 1535 for 1428
 

john1970

EOS R5
CR Pro
Dec 27, 2015
455
576
Northeastern US
I recently purchased the f2.8 trinity and am very content with my purchases. The f2 zooms are an engineering marvel, but for me they are too heavy to handle for daily use. I thought the 82 mm filters on the f2.8 were large until I saw the 95 mm filters on the f2. Wow!!
 
Jun 22, 2017
4
1
KY, USA
Dual card slots on the camera is not safe enough. Customers demand dual dual redundancy and backup. With the new RF mount boasting extra data bandwidth, it can send the files straight to the lens card slots. Brilliant idea.

Hey you know what they say. 3 is 2, 2 is 1, 1 is none.
Also I bet we could get better read/write performance if we tied all the cards together in a in-camera SD card RAID array. LOL
 
  • Like
Reactions: ethanz

GMCPhotographics

EOS 5D Mark IV
CR Pro
Aug 22, 2010
1,702
424
51
Uk
www.GMCPhotographics.co.uk
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.
Except that focal overlap is there for a reason. A 24-70 isn't really a 24-70...it's closer to 25.5 to 65mm in reality. A 70-200 isn't really a 70-200...it's actually a 75-190mm. So where zooms are concerned....they often fall a bit short or long at either end of their claimed focal scale. Primes are general a lot more accurate, but again this focal length figure shifts according to the point of focus. Focus breathing causes the focal length to change too. Again....zooms tend to fare worse than primes in this regards. I once owned a Sigma 120-300 f2.8 OS (not for long I might add). Along side my canon 70-200 f2.8, I found that it underexposed by 1/3 of a stop...indicating that it wasn't really an 2.8 optic. The 120mm was a lot longer than that, closer to 135mm in my estimates. The 300mm end was way shorter too. If I brought the focus to MFD....then it wasn't much longer than my 70-200. I recon 240mm max. There was so little reason on keeping that lens compared to the vastly lighter, faster focssing and sharper 70-200mm f2.8 LIS II. I sold the Sigma and a few other bits to fund a S/H ef 400mm F2.8 LIS, which quite frankly was in a different league and it was the last Sigma lens I bought.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: CanonFanBoy

GMCPhotographics

EOS 5D Mark IV
CR Pro
Aug 22, 2010
1,702
424
51
Uk
www.GMCPhotographics.co.uk
I think for me, the f2 range are nice, but too big and heavy. Too much of a compromise between primes and zooms to justify swapping my fast primes and f2.8 zooms. I run with both depending on lighting conditions at wedding venues. I also find the focal ranges to be a bit limiting. I would prefer the wide to be 14-35mm. The extra length on the long end is exceptionally useful. The 28mm end of the 28-70/f2 is way shorter than the 24mm end that I enjoy with my f2.8 zoom. Making this far less versatile as a one lens walkabout. The rumours of a 70-135mm f2 are again a little short and I can't see much more value over a 135mm f2 prime. A 16-35/f2.8, 50 f1.2, 85 f1.2 and a 135mm f2 are way more versatile than the f2 trinity.
Plus the issues of the Eos R body, poor UI and quirky AF implementation...leaves me still very cold for the current Canon mirror less set up. Hopefully the R5 will rectify this?
In the mean time....I'm still rocking a pair of 5DmkIII's, a full set of ef fast primes and a full set of ef 2.8 zoomsters....