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

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?

Because your post reads like a nonsensical rant and your questions sound rhetorical? :unsure:

Given the choices between the RF 24-105L f/4, 24-70L f/2.8, and 28-70L f/2, I went with the f/2. Really sad I did every time I have to carry it a long distance and really glad I did every time I look at the images taken with it.

The RF 28-70L f/2 is like having several Otus primes in one lens: sacrificing f/1.4 but gaining autofocus. The rest of the f/2 trinity will likely be equally world-class. But those for whom the IQ, convenience over primes, and rendering do not outweigh the lack of IS and the extra size and weight, Canon has us covered there, too with f/2.8 and f/4 versions.

Maybe you just got caught up in the whirlwind of everyone else's naysaying, and you genuinely wanted to know. I say look at threads about and images taken with the 28-70 to better understand why someone would want the rumored 14-28 f/2.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0
^ To further add: don't think that means that I actually will buy the wide and tele f/2 zooms from the f/2 trinity. I'm pretty happy to sit on the 28-70 like a toadstool and position other lenses around it. I bought the RF 70-200 instead of waiting for the 70-135 f/2 because my need is for a small, light lens with more reach than 135mm for travel. I plan on getting the RF 15-35 f/2.8 for travel as well. Then I'll put my RF 50 f/1.2 squarely in the middle for my own oddball trinity. But I can see why the wide and tele f/2 lenses would be nice for some.
 
Upvote 0
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.
Agreed! But iso 3200 on the EOS R doesn't look great at a pixel level.. I like to max out at iso 1000 if I can.. I find that to be very clean.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
Talking about RAW images with no noise reduction applied. I find even iso 1600 reduces sharpness and adding noise reduction on top makes things worse. For normal digital display sizes, 3200 is fine though.
Right. Could you please review the following page and see if Canon R RAW at iso3200 was substantially noisier than 5D4 for you? thank you.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
Right. Could you please review the following page and see if Canon R RAW at iso3200 was substantially noisier than 5D4 for you? thank you.

Thanks for the link. I used to own a 5D IV and I would agree the noise between the two cameras is pretty much the same. Very happy to now have a couple of really nice f1.2 lenses to avoid ever having to go that high with the ISO
 
Upvote 0
I was pretty impressed at first then I realized that all these zooms are just 2X. That means Canon is finally catching up to Sigma who have had their 18-35 and 50-100 1.8s for years. The Canon FF lenses will deliver more being FF lenses but the lens designs aren't that radical any more.
That’s not the same thing, to make a full frame 28-70 f2 takes a lot of research and development vs a tiny apsc lens which is about 1/4 the size
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0