I actually prefer f/4 at the ultra-wide side because of the weight saving.
But 70-135 f/2 IS would be amazing, if it doesn't weigh too much.
But 70-135 f/2 IS would be amazing, if it doesn't weigh too much.
Upvote
0
Seriously dude?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.
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!!
Maybe so, but those reasons are not a concern for me. The only overlap I am talking about is 16-35/24-70 which is 11mm. There may not be a logical reason for this being an issue. That's not the point in my case.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.
They will get rid of the vignetting if it includes a $10k price tagYes, but think of the vignetting. Oh, the horror!
Can't tell you what your use case would be, but I think I can find a few
- 1mm between 15 and 14mm is significant
- 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.
- 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
- 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.
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.
F4 is big enough!
sounds good. Probably come in at $3000
No IBIS... no 30p.I demand a 70-200 f/2L with dual card slots.
Agree, and especially true for a zoom where some other compromises must be made.TBH, after we see the price...
... and size...
... and weight of such a thing...
... we'll all realize that there would be a much bigger demand for an f/4 version.
I get it that a few people always want the absolutely biggest aperture lens for everything, but the percentage of ultra-wide angle photography that would benefit from f/2 over, say f/2.8, is extraordinary tiny.
Surely f/2 is the differentiator?Don't get me wrong, choices are always nice to have. I mean go for it Canon! But had it started at 11mm like the EF version, it would have been a significant differentiator from the RF 15-35mm.
1. No it isn't. See this focal length simulator simulator. Also I didn't say 14mm is useless in comparison to 15mm, but the trade-off for losing 7mm on the other side is meh.
2. No it won't. At 14mm f/2.0 focused at 1 meter, image is still sharp 1.43m behind the subject. Check this calculator. How many extra meters would you need to have a creamy bokeh? Impossible.
3. We don't know yet. How can you assume the IS of the RF 15-35mm only accounts for 1-2 stop(s) of the overall combo IS + IBIS for a yet to be released R5 camera? Also f/2.8 + 2 extra stops IS is superior to f/2.0 without these 2 extra stops for static subject shooting.
4. If not filterable, it'll most certainly have a rear drop-in filter which is nice to have, but still meh. The base filter kit for landscape is composed of ND and CPOL filters. You can't combine filters or rotate your CPOL filter with a rear drop-in system.
------------
5. For astro, you're better off with a fixed focal length like the Sigma 14mm
6. For concert and low-light photography in general, I understand the benefit of 1 stop extra. But honestly, given Canon sensors perform well at high ISO and given the high MP count of the R5 sensor (more MP do compensate for noise actually), shooting concert/low-light situations at f/2.8 is a no brainer. If you're only shooting that with your UWA zoom, then ok. Otherwise, the trade-off isn't worthwhile.
Don't get me wrong, choices are always nice to have. I mean go for it Canon! But had it started at 11mm like the EF version, it would have been a significant differentiator from the RF 15-35mm.
TBH, after we see the price...
... and size...
... and weight of such a thing...
... we'll all realize that there would be a much bigger demand for an f/4 version.
I get it that a few people always want the absolutely biggest aperture lens for everything, but the percentage of ultra-wide angle photography that would benefit from f/2 over, say f/2.8, is extraordinary tiny.
So Sony rumours claims the Sony 14-24 f/2.8 GM will cost $4K, which would put this at about $6K based on that pricing. It won't be that dear but it will be dearer than the 28-70 f/2. Much much harder to do highly optically corrected f/2 ultrawide angle zoom.