Is another f/2 zoom coming from Canon? [CR2]

[neuroanatomist]

I guess this where the research dollars are going that would have developed a RF 50mm 1.4

Canon = lens jail

If you can't make excellent images with the lenses in the current RF lineup, the problem is not where Canon is spending their research funds.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

Since the 300/2.8 and 500/4 of the EF line have been replaced by zooms, I wonder if a 70-200/2.0 would be possible.

It would indeed be possible but there would not be the same benefit.
Turning 300 and 500 into mirrorless zooms makes so much sense because the back focus of prime lenses at those focal lengths is so long that a mirrorless version would not be any shorter.
A mirrorless version of a 70-200 will be shorter than an SLR version but so will a 200.

That being said, I do not foresee a 200-600 f/4.
A 200-400 f/2.8 might make some sense, but since there is already a 100-300 f/2.8, adapting the EF version was pretty smart.
The same thing would be true of an RF 200-500 f/4 and the RF 600 f/4.
Now we just need that 1.0-1.4-2.0x Extender.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Now we just need that 1.0-1.4-2.0x Extender.

You should read the patent on which that rumor is based, and see if you think it’s a real possibility. I have, and I don’t.

 

[yeahright]

It's not hard.

The Canon Rumors Rating System Explained

From time-to-time we use a rumour validity rating system to help our readers. Below we explain what each rumour rating means [CR0] We don't give this rat

www.canonrumors.com

Of course, even though CR3 is 'fact' it's still a rumor until it's not, as shown by the two recent incorrect CR3 posts I mentioned above.

it's confusing because on a Canon forum the rating should really be reversed: lower number = better

 

[blackcoffee17]

While APS-C users can\'t even get a constant F4 zoom...

 

[neuroanatomist]

While APS-C users can\'t even get a constant F4 zoom...

Nothing is stopping you from using the 14-35/4L or 24-105/4L on an APS-C body. As I'm sure you're aware, there has been only one APS-C constant aperture zoom from Canon, ever. I think you need to accept that that one lens was an outlier.

 

[Rendil]

I just want them to hurry up with RF 35 1.2 or 1.4 prime!

 

[AJ]

Nothing is stopping you from using the 14-35/4L or 24-105/4L on an APS-C body. As I'm sure you're aware, there has been only one APS-C constant aperture zoom from Canon, ever. I think you need to accept that that one lens was an outlier.

Yes you can mount those lenses on an RF APSC camera. But that kinda reminds me of 2003 when we were mounting 17-40/4 lenses on our 300Ds and 20Ds.
As for f/4 APSC lenses - Sony seems to manage to do it with their 16-70/4.0 (Zeiss) and their 10-20/4.0 ultrawide and their 18-105/4.0 superzoom. This tells me that Sony must see a market for such gear.

 

[neuroanatomist]

This tells me that Sony must see a market for such gear.

Sony certainly sees a market for gear where they don’t have to compete directly with Canon. They abandoned DSLRs because they couldn’t compete. They launched FF MILCs and shifted focus to them right when Canon launched the EOS M line. Those aren’t coincidences.

 

[blackcoffee17]

Nothing is stopping you from using the 14-35/4L or 24-105/4L on an APS-C body. As I'm sure you're aware, there has been only one APS-C constant aperture zoom from Canon, ever. I think you need to accept that that one lens was an outlier.

I am glad you always defending Canon, no matter what!

"Nothing is stopping you from using the 14-35/4L or 24-105/4L" - the 35mm long end is stopping me or the 39mm equivalent (not so) wide end is stopping me

Any other good suggestions or should APS-C users be happy with crappy 18-45 6.3 plastic mount lenses?

"As I'm sure you're aware, there has been only one APS-C constant aperture zoom from Canon, ever"

Yes, i'm aware. Bring that lens back with RF mount and updated optics (the current one is soft on 32MP). Or at least an updated 15-85 or something.

 

[blackcoffee17]

Yes you can mount those lenses on an RF APSC camera. But that kinda reminds me of 2003 when we were mounting 17-40/4 lenses on our 300Ds and 20Ds.
As for f/4 APSC lenses - Sony seems to manage to do it with their 16-70/4.0 (Zeiss) and their 10-20/4.0 ultrawide and their 18-105/4.0 superzoom. This tells me that Sony must see a market for such gear.

Or course there is a market for such a gear. You just have to look at every Canon Facebook group or forum post where people constantly asking about better alternatives for the crappy kit zooms.

 

[blackcoffee17]

If you can't make excellent images with the lenses in the current RF lineup, the problem is not where Canon is spending their research funds.

You can make "excellent images" with a smartphone or a 15 year old 5D Mark II. What's your point? That Canon users who love 50mm focal length should not demand something more premium between a $150 50mm 1.8 and $3000 50mm 1.2?

Why Canon users always have to buy 1kg bricks when they want a weather sealed prime, for example?

 

[blackcoffee17]

Sony certainly sees a market for gear where they don’t have to compete directly with Canon. They abandoned DSLRs because they couldn’t compete. They launched FF MILCs and shifted focus to them right when Canon launched the EOS M line. Those aren’t coincidences.

Canon is the Apple of the camera world.

 

[scyrene]

Canon is the Apple of the camera world.

Is that meant to sound like a criticism?

 

[Doormat]

As much as I admire the 28-70mm f2.0 L lens, It's a lens that's slightly missed the "ideal" photojournalis / wedding photography focal lengths. It would ahve been a far more useful lens (to many) if the range had been eitehr a 24-55mm f2 or a preferable 35-85mm f2. Then it would truely have covered the classic 2 prime lens range. When I was doing a lot of weddings, I would run with three full frame DSLR's, a 16-35, 35L and 85L as my three shooters. I'd swap out iwht other lenses as needed, but with this combo I could cover 95% of what I needed to from both a coverage perspective and a creative art perspective.
The 28-70mm f2 Doesn't quite cover the ranges that I would like. It's not wide enough at the wide end to replace a wide zoom and it's certainly not long enough to replace a portrait tele prime.
If Canon were smart they would produce a 35-105mm f2.0 and it would sell a lot to photo journalists who would combine it with a wide zoom. Press photographers could easily combine it with a 100-300 f2.8 and a 15-35 and it's easy to see the versatility and range.
The current 28-70mm is a bit of an odd ball lens from a focal length point of view. It's like Canon wanted to make an exotic kit lens without understanding who would want to use this lens.

So true
28-70 is so….vanilla.
I’d sooner opt for the older 24-70L !! Wider, lighter, cheaper.

For the focal range offered and the penalty of hauling its huge heavy expensive ass everywhere 28-70/2 just doesn’t turn my head. Definitely one for the “Look At Me” brigade, usually the same type that buys a Range Rover yawn Zzzzzz

 

[Doormat]

Nothing is stopping you from using the 14-35/4L or 24-105/4L on an APS-C body. As I'm sure you're aware, there has been only one APS-C constant aperture zoom from Canon, ever. I think you need to accept that that one lens was an outlier.

Only the ludicrous cost of the L’s that is.
The tragedy is the M system was solely based around the aps-c sensor, the dinky lenses too.
Canon has snatched that option away and thrust upon us the shrunken R aps-c alternative, it’s a pity they didn’t have the wisdom to use the same mount as the M system, 9 lenses had already been built!! A few more fast primes would have kept all previous M users happy whilst those buying into the R based aps-c would have a back catalogue of lenses to go at.

Instead it’s just shit, as per usual in how canon likes to treat aps-c users hoping (willing) they get frustrated and pay out the ludicrous sums of money for the FF and L glass, all merely to take random snaps of pets…..as amateurs often do so it seems.

Just like the cruise industry has tapped into the extraordinary unearnt wealth of the boomer generation, so has the camera market too. Exploited (and excluded !!) doesn’t even cover it!

By the time Z generation has aged, phones will reign supreme in all aspects of image capture and cruise ships will be reflected in the same vein as gas guzzling V8’s…..sin of sins and best forgotten!

 

[Czardoom]

Only the ludicrous cost of the L’s that is.
The tragedy is the M system was solely based around the aps-c sensor, the dinky lenses too.
Canon has snatched that option away and thrust upon us the shrunken R aps-c alternative, it’s a pity they didn’t have the wisdom to use the same mount as the M system, 9 lenses had already been built!! A few more fast primes would have kept all previous M users happy whilst those buying into the R based aps-c would have a back catalogue of lenses to go at.

Instead it’s just shit, as per usual in how canon likes to treat aps-c users hoping (willing) they get frustrated and pay out the ludicrous sums of money for the FF and L glass, all merely to take random snaps of pets…..as amateurs often do so it seems.

Just like the cruise industry has tapped into the extraordinary unearnt wealth of the boomer generation, so has the camera market too. Exploited (and excluded !!) doesn’t even cover it!

By the time Z generation has aged, phones will reign supreme in all aspects of image capture and cruise ships will be reflected in the same vein as gas guzzling V8’s…..sin of sins and best forgotten!

Excuse me if I'm wrong, but aren't you the guy with like a dozen cameras? And thus numerous lenses for each system? Thus spending way more than a reasonable person would on cameras? So you spend money on cameras (most of which you almost certainly don't need, and then complain about the price of lenses, which can easily last for 20 or more years.

If you compare the price of Canon's L lenses, they are certainly comparable to the pro lines of both Nikon and Sony. Yes, expensive, but also are put on sale on occasion, can be bought used or refurbished if one is patient. And, as mentioned, they are a long term investment.

You just seem to be needlessly whining because Canon did not have an entire lens lineup ready in advance for the RF mount APS-C cameras they have released in the past year. Did you really expect that? Do you really think Canon would have been smarter to release RF mount APS-C cameras with a different mount (the M mount) than the RF full frame cameras? Just so M users could use their existing lenses, but making all the other new RF lenses, including all the telephoto lenses that all the birders and wildlife shooters buy, incompatible?

I feel bad for users of the M system. It's unfortunate that Canon has changed course and the system appears to be on its way out. Of course, you can continue to use what you have for perhaps another decade or more. So, it really is only a bad thing for people who have to have the newest or latest and greatest. If you like your M cameras and lenses, just keep using them. No one is "snatching" them away from you.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Excuse me if I'm wrong, but aren't you the guy with like a dozen cameras?

Yep. He has two hands, two eyes and dozens of cameras. Instead of buying another dozen used cameras, he could buy a couple of used L-series lenses and get far better image quality. But some would rather complain.

I feel bad for users of the M system. It's unfortunate that Canon has changed course and the system appears to be on its way out. Of course, you can continue to use what you have for perhaps another decade or more. So, it really is only a bad thing for people who have to have the newest or latest and greatest. If you like your M cameras and lenses, just keep using them. No one is "snatching" them away from you.

Exactly. As an M-series fan, I don’t feel bad for me. @Doormat seems motivated to collect inexpensive cameras, but for me a camera is a tool to take pictures. For my use case, the current M system really does meet the need, I can’t really say there’s anything lacking. The IQ is as good as APS-C gets, the lenses are good quality, and the whole system is small. Here’s my M kit – M6II, M6 and all 8 EF-M lenses plus the 270EX II flash, all in the relatively small Pelican Storm im2200 case:



When I want expanded capabilities (fast action, long focal lengths, low light shooting, lens movements), those are better served by the higher IQ with a FF body anyway.

 

[danfaz]

So true
28-70 is so….vanilla.
I’d sooner opt for the older 24-70L !! Wider, lighter, cheaper.

Well, to each their own. I happen to really like the 28-70. I have compared the 24-70 and 28-70 in hand, in the same scenarios, and I found the 24-70 to be "vanilla." The 28-70 to me has a more unique look and character than the 24-70.
I didn't buy it so people would look at me (I actually get embarrassed when that happens), nor do I drive a Range Rover.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Well, to each their own. I happen to really like the 28-70. I have compared the 24-70 and 28-70 in hand, in the same scenarios, and I found the 24-70 to be "vanilla." The 28-70 to me has a more unique look and character than the 24-70.

Agreed. I’ve used fast L primes (EF 35/1.4L and EF 85/1.2L II that I sold, EF 85/1.4L IS that I still have) and typically shoot them at f/2 both for sufficient DoF for both eyes in focus and because stopping them down a bit improves the IQ meaningfully.

The 28-70/2 is big and heavy, but less so and far more convenient that carrying several fast primes. It delivers excellent IQ wide open.

I didn't buy it so people would look at me (I actually get embarrassed when that happens), nor do I drive a Range Rover.

I’m sure there are some people who buy camera gear mainly to be seen using it. For me, what matters is getting the shots I want. If there were smaller, lighter lenses that could do that, I’d use them. But…physics. I feel self-conscious pulling out the 100-300/2.8 at one of my kids’ indoor performances, but it gets me the shots I want, and your kids only grow up once.

I drive a bright orange car, which definitely stands out. But it’s just a little Subaru Crosstrek, and to be honest I picked the color because on the trim level I wanted (the top one, because that has safety features lacking in lower trim levels and this is the car my oldest child will end up driving), the interior had orange stitching and accents regardless of exterior color, and I wanted them to match so I got the orange car.

I suspect some people who make comments like @Doormat’s do so based on some jealousy, though that may not be the case here.