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

[JumboShrimp]

Big, heavy, expensive, limited. Waste of Canon's resources. Perhaps they might sell a dozen or so ...

 

[chong67]

When? Keep teasing. Just release it.

I like F2. No more noise in low light.

 

[unfocused]

Big, heavy, expensive, limited. Waste of Canon's resources. Perhaps they might sell a dozen or so ...

As long as they make a profit, and Canon isn't in the habit of producing products that don't make a profit, who cares?

 

[davidespinosa]

Canon RF 24mm f/1.2L & RF 85mm f/1.2L in the works [CR1]

We're told that beyond new f/2.8 RF zoom lenses, that Canon is working on two new L prime lenses, an RF 24mm f/1.2L USM and an RF 85mm f/1.2L for release in l

www.canonrumors.com

Patent: Canon RF 135mm f/1.4L USM

Well here's a fun optical formula from Canon discovered by Canon News, a Canon RF 135mm f/1.4L USM. The Canon EF 135mm f/2L USM is an all-time classic, and t

www.canonrumors.com

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

 

[MadScotsman]

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.

 

[sanj]

Big, heavy, expensive, limited. Waste of Canon's resources. Perhaps they might sell a dozen or so ...

Hahhaha. Brilliant. Thanks for a good laugh.

 

[BillB]

Hahhaha. Brilliant. Thanks for a good laugh.

That's what a good CR1 rumor can do.

 

[c.drum]

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

Ah yes, Irritable Bowel Syndrome really warrants the need for f2.

 

[SteveC]

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.

 

[joestopper]

Big, heavy, expensive, limited. Waste of Canon's resources. Perhaps they might sell a dozen or so ...

Alone to people in this thread they will sell dozens ...

 

[Antono Refa]

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

That's not good enough - off site backup is a must via real time wireless upload to the cloud.

 

[highdesertmesa]

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]

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]

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]

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)

 

[joestopper]

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

I dont think so: While 35mm is more for street photography, 24 is a classical landscape prime. We will certainly see the RF 24.

 

[MadScotsman]

We will certainly see the RF 24.

Yes. Please.

 

[Ozarker]

Thanks for the answer, instead of just attacking me for asking the question.

I'm trying to think though, even in candlelight I can shoot a 35/1.4 wide open 1/15th on 1600 film (and did so 1000s of times). At 14-15mm, you wouldn't even need IS to be on to obey the reciprocal rule.

At 3200, you'd be at 1/2 a candle.

With IS of say 2-4 stops, you'd be at 1/8th to 1/32nd of a candle.

I agree there must be somebody somewhere who would rather take a shot in 1/32nd candlelight at 1600 instead of 3200, but would you at least agree that this isn't going to be a common type of photography? If this is an actual drive for sales I'm happy to believe it. I just want to clarify that you're saying this is important enough that f/2 be offered, and indeed the reason perhaps most worth mentioning as it's the only one you mention?

What are the "amongst others?" Again happy to hear you out and learn something. To be clear I don't see the purpose of it, but I'm not saying there's no purpose. I'm just asking what the purpose is (besides the reason you've already kindly given).

What matters isn't that it is common for the average photographer or not. What matters is whether or not a large enough number of people would rather shoot at a faster shutter speed in the same amount of light at f/2 vs f/2.8 to make it a profitable product.

You want a defined purpose. For you, there may not be one in any case. But that is not the point. For somebody else there is a purpose and it doesn't have to be explained or justified to anyone... even for the sake of argument. It is very simple: Some people are willing to pay more for a larger aperture. Whether or not you or I think it is a good idea, smart, worth it, or anything else, is none of our business. Canon has identified a lens/focal length combination Canon believes will be profitable and have produced it. Is Canon right or wrong? We will see.

 

[sanj]

Thanks for the answer, instead of just attacking me for asking the question.

I'm trying to think though, even in candlelight I can shoot a 35/1.4 wide open 1/15th on 1600 film (and did so 1000s of times). At 14-15mm, you wouldn't even need IS to be on to obey the reciprocal rule.

At 3200, you'd be at 1/2 a candle.

With IS of say 2-4 stops, you'd be at 1/8th to 1/32nd of a candle.

I agree there must be somebody somewhere who would rather take a shot in 1/32nd candlelight at 1600 instead of 3200, but would you at least agree that this isn't going to be a common type of photography? If this is an actual drive for sales I'm happy to believe it. I just want to clarify that you're saying this is important enough that f/2 be offered, and indeed the reason perhaps most worth mentioning as it's the only one you mention?

What are the "amongst others?" Again happy to hear you out and learn something. To be clear I don't see the purpose of it, but I'm not saying there's no purpose. I'm just asking what the purpose is (besides the reason you've already kindly given).

I am not the attacking type! Been there, done that. Realized it does not work. f2 with save you a stop of ISO. If that matters to you or not, you decide. For me, 1600 ISO gives a visibly better IQ. The other purpose would be a background blur.

 

[dominic_siu]

Can shoot at one whole stop faster with 2 times of light gathering capability means a lot for F2 zoom vs F2.8 zoom