Patent: Canon RF 28-70mm f/2.8, with focus on a compact design

Aug 7, 2018
356
306
So do I, but that's the way of the world.
Unlike some premium lens brands where price is no obstacle, most lenses are made with specific compromises in mid:

1. Price
2. Performance/Image Quality
3. Size/Weight

Pick any 2 of the 3! :)

It looks like Canon is achieving the compact size by sacrificing focal range.

We've seen that Canon also makes similar compromises to save weight and reduce cost, such as the inclusion of molded plastic aspherical lens elements in the new Rf 100-400 f/8 lens.
It is not just about making comprimises. 28-70 already is a compromise, because the "normal" standard zoom is 24-70 or even 24-105. I just don't like that Canon always rounds in the wrong direction. A 600mm lens will be 585mm and not 611mm or so. In the supermarket for example if a package of cornflakes says "750g" it will have at least 750g. If they only put 742g into every box, they will get into big trouble. So you can expect something around 760g or even more dependig on how accurate those boxes could be filled.

Here it is even worse. It is not about tolerances that appear by chance, but they intentionally give you less than advertised. It may only be 3% less, but imagine you order a camera and you will only pay 97% of the bill. I think they will not send you the camera, until you have paid 100%.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AJ

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
26,131
4,730
If you've used 24mm, and really need 24mm, then you won't settle for 28mm. There, fixed it! :cool:
Between my 24-105/4L (EF and RF) and my EF 24-70/2.8 II, ~23% of my shots are at <28mm.

When I bought my first DSLR (a T1i/500D in 2009), I passed on the kit lens and started with the EF-S 17-55/2.8 and the EF 85/1.8. The 17-55 is an excellent general purpose zoom for APS-C, and starts at 27mm FFeq.

I’d prefer a walk around lens starting at 24mm, but I could live with 28mm. Fortunately, I don’t have to.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LogicExtremist

LogicExtremist

Lux pictor
Sep 26, 2021
189
117
Between my 24-105/4L (EF and RF) and my EF 24-70/2.8 II, ~23% of my shots are at <28mm.

When I bought my first DSLR (a T1i/500D in 2009), I passed on the kit lens and started with the EF-S 17-55/2.8 and the EF 85/1.8. The 17-55 is an excellent general purpose zoom for APS-C, and starts at 27mm FFeq.

I’d prefer a walk around lens starting at 24mm, but I could live with 28mm. Fortunately, I don’t have to.
Likewise, on my RF 24-105 f/4L I find I'm using 24mm for the bulk of the wider shots, and it's not because I'm going wide as possible. When I'm using my Ef 16-35mm lens, and zooming to frame shots, I find I'm often around 24mm. Looks like it's a standard focal length for good reason. :) .
 

LogicExtremist

Lux pictor
Sep 26, 2021
189
117
It is not just about making comprimises. 28-70 already is a compromise, because the "normal" standard zoom is 24-70 or even 24-105. I just don't like that Canon always rounds in the wrong direction. A 600mm lens will be 585mm and not 611mm or so. In the supermarket for example if a package of cornflakes says "750g" it will have at least 750g. If they only put 742g into every box, they will get into big trouble. So you can expect something around 760g or even more dependig on how accurate those boxes could be filled.

Here it is even worse. It is not about tolerances that appear by chance, but they intentionally give you less than advertised. It may only be 3% less, but imagine you order a camera and you will only pay 97% of the bill. I think they will not send you the camera, until you have paid 100%.
I get what you're saying now, the lens name descriptions are nominal (ie, just an name that approximates the real focal length) rather than reflecting the actual focal length specification. I remember a while back many reviewers were comparing the RF 85mm f/2 Macro against the faster 85mm Canon lenses, they discovered the framing was different. They estimated that this lens is probably more closer to a 90mm lens.
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
26,131
4,730
It is not just about making comprimises. 28-70 already is a compromise, because the "normal" standard zoom is 24-70 or even 24-105. I just don't like that Canon always rounds in the wrong direction. A 600mm lens will be 585mm and not 611mm or so.
For APS-C, the ‘normal’ standard zoom is 18-55mm, which is 29-85mm FFeq. 28-135mm kit lenses were the norm for many years of film cameras and early DSLRs.

In the supermarket for example if a package of cornflakes says "750g" it will have at least 750g. If they only put 742g into every box, they will get into big trouble. So you can expect something around 760g or even more dependig on how accurate those boxes could be filled.
Grocery honesty is more subtle. Like the ‘half-gallon’ juice cartons that didn’t change in price, but dropped the volume from 64 to 59 oz.

Here it is even worse. It is not about tolerances that appear by chance, but they intentionally give you less than advertised. It may only be 3% less, but imagine you order a camera and you will only pay 97% of the bill. I think they will not send you the camera, until you have paid 100%.
Consider it from the other side. If Canon designs products to a price point, perhaps to get the full, unrounded spec you’d need to pay 105%.
 

Rocky

EOS R
Jul 30, 2010
1,016
89
I have 18-55 when I got my M. I end up doing a lot of stitches for wider scenery. When I got my M50, I paid $70 extra to get the 15- 45. Now the 18-55 is practically in cold storage.
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
26,131
4,730
I have 18-55 when I got my M. I end up doing a lot of stitches for wider scenery. When I got my M50, I paid $70 extra to get the 15- 45. Now the 18-55 is practically in cold storage.
The EF-M 11-22mm is an excellent lent if you want a wider FoV on your M-series body.

 

Normalnorm

EOS RP
Dec 25, 2012
749
373
On emount A LOT of people where fine with 28mm at the wide end which is why the Tamron sold so many copies. In fact a G2 version is coming very soon to make it even better. Different people have different needs and remember that Canon themselves have the RF 28-70mm f2 out already. An f2.8 version will be cheaper, lighter, more compact and will be an excellent addition for lots of Canon shooters.
Before 24-70s came out people were fine with 28-70.
“Once they have seen the lights of Paris, they will never come back to the farm”.
 

Finn

EOS M6 Mark II
Mar 6, 2021
72
48
I think Canon already has plenty of very nice RF zoom lenses already. I would much prefer more L-series prime lenses with IS that are as small and light as canon can make them.
  • RF 20mm L IS f/1.8 or f/1.4
  • RF 24mm L IS f/1.4 or f/1.2
Sony's 20mm f/1.8 is very popular and finding a place in many peoples bags because it is so versatile. Easy to film yourself, wide enough for most landscapes, and fast enough (if good IQ) for astrophotography.

We now have the tiny 16mm f/2.8 but it is not a L-series weather sealed lens. Bummer.
 

Rocky

EOS R
Jul 30, 2010
1,016
89
The EF-M 11-22mm is an excellent lent if you want a wider FoV on your M-series body.

I have the 11-22mm lens also. My is very sharp at the center but is get a little bit not that sharp at the edge. Also I still prefer the 15-45 as my walk around lens. It is more versatile.
 

SNJ Ops

EOS M50
Jul 27, 2021
38
33
I think Canon already has plenty of very nice RF zoom lenses already. I would much prefer more L-series prime lenses with IS that are as small and light as canon can make them.
  • RF 20mm L IS f/1.8 or f/1.4
  • RF 24mm L IS f/1.4 or f/1.2
Sony's 20mm f/1.8 is very popular and finding a place in many peoples bags because it is so versatile. Easy to film yourself, wide enough for most landscapes, and fast enough (if good IQ) for astrophotography.

We now have the tiny 16mm f/2.8 but it is not a L-series weather sealed lens. Bummer.
I own the 20mm f1.8 G and it has amazing IQ. I’ve only used mine for woodland and landscapes but I have seen reviews testing it for astro and it’s an excellent performer. In some areas of the frame its sharper than the 24mm f1.4 GM.

Yes it’s surprising there hasn’t been an L series wide angle prime yet. An f1.2 would be interesting if the coma and astigmatism can kept to minimal levels at the wider apertures.
 
  • Like
Reactions: chasingrealness

Finn

EOS M6 Mark II
Mar 6, 2021
72
48
Buy five for $1500 and discard them as they get wet. You a diver?
No.
You are risking more than a lens. I don’t want to kill my $3,900 R5 because water got into the lens mount from a cheap $300 lens. You a billionaire?
 

privatebydesign

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jan 29, 2011
10,524
5,785
No.
You are risking more than a lens. I don’t want to kill my $3,900 R5 because water got into the lens mount from a cheap $300 lens. You a billionaire?
I have used my EF50mm f1.4 for twenty odd years in rain and sleet and snow on 1 series bodies and never had an issue. I use my EF35mm f2 IS the same way, again without issue. I think people read too much into these things...

If I was doing an overnight time lapse with either it is simplicity itself to protect the complete kit from the worst of the elements. If I’m using non weather sealed lenses in my hand (and there are a few L lenses amongst them) then it is easy to monitor how wet everything is getting.
 

Finn

EOS M6 Mark II
Mar 6, 2021
72
48
I have used my EF50mm f1.4 for twenty odd years in rain and sleet and snow on 1 series bodies and never had an issue. I use my EF35mm f2 IS the same way, again without issue. I think people read too much into these things...

If I was doing an overnight time lapse with either it is simplicity itself to protect the complete kit from the worst of the elements. If I’m using non weather sealed lenses in my hand (and there are a few L lenses amongst them) then it is easy to monitor how wet everything is getting.
Well that’s nice to hear. I also have had friends with Canon R with weather sealed L lens brick their cameras in moderate weather. So unless camera manufactures start IPX rating their gear I’m going to treat it like it isn’t weather-sealed, especially with a lens that has no gasket around the mount.

Olympus started to go in this direction with 1X with a IP1X rating and marketing material showing it being blasted by jets (this is a IP5X test).
 

privatebydesign

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jan 29, 2011
10,524
5,785
Well that’s nice to hear. I also have had friends with Canon R with weather sealed L lens brick their cameras in moderate weather. So unless camera manufactures start IPX rating their gear I’m going to treat it like it isn’t weather-sealed, especially with a lens that has no gasket around the mount.

Olympus started to go in this direction with 1X with a IP1X rating and marketing material showing it being blasted by jets (this is a IP5X test).
That is the core difference, your friends bodies were not weather sealed, I was talking about non weather sealed lenses on weather sealed bodies. Initially you were talking about a non weather sealed lens.