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

davidespinosa

EOS M50
Feb 12, 2020
28
28


Thanks !
The 135mm looks promising.
But I bet the 24mm turned into the 35mm f/1.2, at least for the moment.
 
  • Like
Reactions: highdesertmesa

MadScotsman

EOS R / RP
Sep 9, 2019
45
82
I demand a 70-200 f/2L with dual card slots.

TWO card slots?

What a joke.

If the image wasn't saved on at least THREE cards simultaneously it obviously wasn't worth taking in the first place.

I'm a REAL professional, and would never insult my customer and fail them by putting their images at risk on a mere TWO card slots.

I REFUSE to by any new lens if it's not AT LEAST three slots.

This is why pros don't take Canon seriously.
 

SteveC

R5
CR Pro
Sep 3, 2019
2,136
2,019
TWO card slots?

What a joke.

If the image wasn't saved on at least THREE cards simultaneously it obviously wasn't worth taking in the first place.

I'm a REAL professional, and would never insult my customer and fail them by putting their images at risk on a mere TWO card slots.

I REFUSE to by any new lens if it's not AT LEAST three slots.

This is why pros don't take Canon seriously.

You can probably cram at least ten cards into the RF drop in filter adapter, if you remove the filter.

The cards will make direct physical contact with the sensor, increasing their throughput.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MadScotsman

SwissFrank

from EOS 1N to R
Dec 9, 2018
490
227
I guess I'm not into the idea of a 70-135/2 for fashion:

You have a lot of control over distance to subject. The difference between a head-and-shoulders at 70 and 135 is only a half-dozen steps I think.

And if you're looking for bokeh, you really want aperture (e.g., in millimeters) instead of f-stop. 135/2 is a lot like 100/1.4 or 85/1.2 or 200/2.8. 70/2 is only a 35mm aperture, about the same as a 50/1.4 wide open. Sure, bokeh, but not fashion-shooting bokeh.

Finally the zoom is surely a lot heavier, not fun for shooting a long time with.

I suspect we'll have a special 135mm DS to match the 85mm DS and that will be the fashion line.
 

SwissFrank

from EOS 1N to R
Dec 9, 2018
490
227
For me the big problem with an f/2 trinity is... what is the point?

In the old days, an f/2.8 trinity made sense as at least they could all be autofocused using all focus points, but that's not a worry any more. Aperture could be literally anything nowadays.

at least an f/2.8 used to be equally bright in the viewfinder, but again that's no longer a worry. With the electronic viewfinder, aperture could again be literally anything.

There's no reason to make a set to have some sort of "complementary look" because f/2 at these small apertures may have so much DOF it might as well be f/16. To really get the bokeh of 70/2, you need a 35mm aperture, which would be 50/1.4, 35/1, 35/0.7, or 17.5/0.5.

And there's no requirement to all be f/2 to be usable under a given shooting condition, because the reciprocal rule lets you hand-hold FAR longer at extreme wide-angles. You'd get the hand-holdability of 70/2 with 35/2.8 or 17.5/4. And they also reduce subject motion linearly.

And they're not similar in weight and control placement to the point that you'd have any benefit to the lenses "feeling" the same.

If there's any benefit to different zooms having the same maximum f-stop I'm sorry but I'm just not seeing it.

I think the main reason to do a 14-28/2.0 is simply because they could probably give you an f/2.0 zoom without using much glass, so it'd be relatively small and cheap compared to the 28-70/2.0 or a hypothetical 70-135/2.0.
 
  • Like
Reactions: davidespinosa

highdesertmesa

R5 | 50R | Q | M
CR Pro
Apr 17, 2017
345
480
www.instagram.com
For me the big problem with an f/2 trinity is... what is the point?

In the old days, an f/2.8 trinity made sense as at least they could all be autofocused using all focus points, but that's not a worry any more. Aperture could be literally anything nowadays.

at least an f/2.8 used to be equally bright in the viewfinder, but again that's no longer a worry. With the electronic viewfinder, aperture could again be literally anything.

There's no reason to make a set to have some sort of "complementary look" because f/2 at these small apertures may have so much DOF it might as well be f/16. To really get the bokeh of 70/2, you need a 35mm aperture, which would be 50/1.4, 35/1, 35/0.7, or 17.5/0.5.

And there's no requirement to all be f/2 to be usable under a given shooting condition, because the reciprocal rule lets you hand-hold FAR longer at extreme wide-angles. You'd get the hand-holdability of 70/2 with 35/2.8 or 17.5/4. And they also reduce subject motion linearly.

And they're not similar in weight and control placement to the point that you'd have any benefit to the lenses "feeling" the same.

If there's any benefit to different zooms having the same maximum f-stop I'm sorry but I'm just not seeing it.

I think the main reason to do a 14-28/2.0 is simply because they could probably give you an f/2.0 zoom without using much glass, so it'd be relatively small and cheap compared to the 28-70/2.0 or a hypothetical 70-135/2.0.

"I don't get it, so how could anyone else possibly want it?"

Thankfully Canon isn't listening to you.
 

sanj

EOS R5
Jan 22, 2012
3,689
559
For me the big problem with an f/2 trinity is... what is the point?

In the old days, an f/2.8 trinity made sense as at least they could all be autofocused using all focus points, but that's not a worry any more. Aperture could be literally anything nowadays.

at least an f/2.8 used to be equally bright in the viewfinder, but again that's no longer a worry. With the electronic viewfinder, aperture could again be literally anything.

There's no reason to make a set to have some sort of "complementary look" because f/2 at these small apertures may have so much DOF it might as well be f/16. To really get the bokeh of 70/2, you need a 35mm aperture, which would be 50/1.4, 35/1, 35/0.7, or 17.5/0.5.

And there's no requirement to all be f/2 to be usable under a given shooting condition, because the reciprocal rule lets you hand-hold FAR longer at extreme wide-angles. You'd get the hand-holdability of 70/2 with 35/2.8 or 17.5/4. And they also reduce subject motion linearly.

And they're not similar in weight and control placement to the point that you'd have any benefit to the lenses "feeling" the same.

If there's any benefit to different zooms having the same maximum f-stop I'm sorry but I'm just not seeing it.

I think the main reason to do a 14-28/2.0 is simply because they could probably give you an f/2.0 zoom without using much glass, so it'd be relatively small and cheap compared to the 28-70/2.0 or a hypothetical 70-135/2.0.
Shooting at ISO 1600 and not 3200 is the point. Amongst others.
 

privatebydesign

EOS-1D X Mark III
CR Pro
Jan 29, 2011
9,692
4,252
Shooting at ISO 1600 and not 3200 is the point. Amongst others.
Just playing devils advocate here ...

Nowadays what difference does that make, iso 3,200 from basically every modern camera is more than usable for pretty much everything, f2 often doesn't give you the dof you need.

I can see a use for both f2 and f2.8 zooms but the size weight and cost of these f2 zooms makes even faster primes even more appealing.
 

tron

EOS R5
CR Pro
Nov 8, 2011
4,834
1,124
That can be a serious piece of a lens collection. I would be highly tempted but for my f/2.8L zooms (EF and RF) and the Sigma 14 1.8. But as unfocused said primes would be quite appealing. How about a 14 1.4L for example? :)
Come on Canon you Can! (Pun intended since that was a previous decade moto by the way)
 

SwissFrank

from EOS 1N to R
Dec 9, 2018
490
227
"I don't get it, so how could anyone else possibly want it?"

Thankfully Canon isn't listening to you.
My mail clearly kicked off in bold with: what is the point?

I am not making a statement, I am asking a question.

So why do you say "Thankfully Canon isn't listening to you"? I'm simply asking what the purpose is. Why are you so aggressive to me?
 
<-- start Taboola -->