Patent: Canon RF 28-70mm f/2.8, with focus on a compact design
- Thread starter Canon Rumors
- Start date
Because the 28-70mm F2.8 is a heavy lump, and this new lens seems to be designed to be lighter and more compact, making it a better option for travelling. Also it’s quite possible that the new lens will be a lot cheaper, if it lacks OIS.
Personally I think the 24-70mm or 24-105mm options are both better choices for a “walkabout” lens.
Upvote
0
I’m fine with the off numbers. If you have a constraint like a 77mm filter size it will drive odd numbers because you can’t force everyone. Forcing the design to give exact numbers can sub optimize things you care about.
But there is no excuse on earth for allowing the dishonest anti consumer rounding.
Upvote
0
This may be a bit OT, but I own both a Tamron 17-50/2.8 and a Canon 17-55/2.8. The Tamron goes noticeably wider, even though both are sold as being 17 mm at the wide end. So the rounding thing is nothing new.
I liked my Tamron 17-50/2.8. Small, light, sharp, fast, with an under-the-radar look. It's the ideal travel and hiking and go-anywhere lens. A FF equivalent (~500g, 67 mm filter) would be a nice thing to have.
I liked my Tamron 17-50/2.8. Small, light, sharp, fast, with an under-the-radar look. It's the ideal travel and hiking and go-anywhere lens. A FF equivalent (~500g, 67 mm filter) would be a nice thing to have.
Upvote
0
I think you didn’t pay attention to what I wrote.
This lens is the 28-70mm F2.8 and I question it’s point when the 24-70mm F2.8 is already available.
Upvote
0
This one's lighter/more compact and appears to be more distortion
I think you didn’t pay attention to what I wrote.
This lens is the 28-70mm F2.8 and I question it’s point when the 24-70mm F2.8 is already available.
Upvote
0
davidcl0nel
Canon R5, 17 TSE, RF35+85 IS, RF70-200 4 IS, EF135
The same reason there is an EF 24-70 f/4, if there exists an EF 24-105 f/4 already ?
Both were L anyway.
For 28-70 there is a 2.0 zoom as an L, so the "smaller" version could be a 28-70 2.8 without L, why not ?
Upvote
0
This lens could fit nicely into the gap in my travel lens set (currently adapted Tamron 17-35mm f/2.8-4 and Sigma 100-400mm) replacing my 50mm f/1.8 without adding too much size or weight. Definitely interested in this if it’s in the range of $1,500 or less, and if the image quality is up to modern standards.
Upvote
0
A non-L version definitely has a point.
I think you didn’t pay attention to what I wrote.
This lens is the 28-70mm F2.8 and I question it’s point when the 24-70mm F2.8 is already available.
Upvote
0
If the lens cost only $800 while the f/2 version costs $3000, that would be a good reason to buy the cheaper one. Many people says that 24-70 or so is the "normal" always-on focal range, but for me it is quite a boring focal range in the center of focal ranges. Not wide enough for buildings close to you, but not long enough for buildings far away from you. My always-on lens usually is a 15-30 and I would only buy another lens on the 24-70 (or 28-70) range to fill the gap in case I need an average focal range. So A cheap version would be quite appealing for me. 28-70 is good for people, but I do not like people in my photos. Sometimes unfortunately they are unavoidable.
Upvote
0
On emount there’s the Tamron
28-75 f2.8 (which I think was best selling lens of 2019 on the platform) and Sigma responded with their 28-70mm f2.8 Contemporary..
They are very very popular with a wide range of users and come in a lower price than the GM and Sigma Art 24-70mm f2.8 options. I suspect Canon rightly want to provide this option to their users too.
28-75 f2.8 (which I think was best selling lens of 2019 on the platform) and Sigma responded with their 28-70mm f2.8 Contemporary..
They are very very popular with a wide range of users and come in a lower price than the GM and Sigma Art 24-70mm f2.8 options. I suspect Canon rightly want to provide this option to their users too.
Upvote
0
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.
Upvote
0
Sound like another "fix-it-in-post" mirrorless camera lens that needs in-camera corrections to correct distortion, which is cheaper for Canon than doing it with optics, as is the case with the RF 24-200mm and Rf 14-35 f/4.
Upvote
0
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.
Upvote
0
