Patent: Canon RF 35-135mm f/2.8 and other fast zoom lenses

[Kiton]

I like R5, but I also like 28mm lenses... and don’t have money for R5 (yet?). I actually almost sold everything, and now I stuck between options. Sony has nice 28mm and compact 35 1.4 is coming... but 35-135 2.8 is my dream zoom.
Anyway, I need more money, so I have time to see what’s coming.

Like you, I like 28mm and really want a good 28 f2 prime.
I started the switch, had an A9, really did not love a few things about Sony, and really loved a few other things.
Much the same as with Canon.
What I dislike the most about Canon is the way the company is run!

If you shoot a lot of portraits, borrow or rent a Sony before going down that path!

I read brief post by an AP fotog in LA who said he overcame Sony's shitty skin tones by using Fuji profiles, but by the time I heard about this I had dumped Sony already so I have no idea how it works or how well it works. But judging by his studio and red carpet pix, he has it together!

Canon could own the market if they just were a bit better of a company to deal with!

 

[Lucas Tingley]

where is our 24-105 f2.8!!

 

[Exploreshootshare]

Wow,
RF 35-135mm sounds very, very tempting. I love my 24-105mm as a walk-around/ always-on lens but at times I miss some range. Not often enough to justify buying an expensive 70-200mm or pack my 100-400mm as well, so a 35-135mm would be a dream, although I'd have to sell my 24-105mm.

When reading the comments here (and elsewhere) I have a hard time imaging Canon would actually make this lense because they´d cannibalise other lense sales such as 24-105mm/ 24-70mm/ 70-200mm and some primes. Sounds like they'd be risking a lot.

 

[dilbert]

Hey PBD, I believe he is just saying that the system is allowing him to get more shots he gets paid for easier with the new system. I still have my 5D Mark IV and my EF 85 1.4 and I can tell you that it can be a real hassle to get tack sharp eyes when wide open and as the sun is falling below the horizon. I always take enough photos to ensure I get THE shot I need but it’s frustrating how many shots are off by a few millimeters, so his point of having far more keepers with Eye AF could definitely be a real differentiator.

Or in other words, you're looking to the camera to make up for a lack of skill on your behalf. To some extent this will work but I'm glad I'm not the one paying you for your photography.

Sorry to be blunt, but that's how your comments read.

 

[Fischer]

Not such a great idea when the comparative costs are actually given. You can get a 5D IV and 2.8 zoom trinity for peanuts compared to an R5 and 2.8 zoom trinity, and I haven’t seen a single image one could take and the other couldn’t.

Depends on your needs. Lots of shots available now that the AF of the 5DIV has no chance of delivering.

 

[privatebydesign]

Depends on your needs. Lots of shots available now that the AF of the 5DIV has no chance of delivering.

And are you able to point me to a single one?

 

[Fischer]

And are you able to point me to a single one?

Easily. I take a lot of action shots and the AF of the 5DIV can’t always keep up with fast subjects movning towards you slightly missing sharp head/eye focus in around 50% of your shots, while the R5 - and even the R to some extent - can make track sharps head shots one after the other. (I have made controlled tests comparing the AF in exactly this situation - and it is also what several other testers have found).

 

[privatebydesign]

Easily. I take a lot of action shots and the AF of the 5DIV can’t always keep up with fast subjects movning towards you slightly missing sharp head/eye focus in around 50% of your shots, while the R5 - and even the R to some extent - can make track sharps head shots one after the other. (I have made controlled tests comparing the AF in exactly this situation - and it is also what several other testers have found).

And yet you fail to show one image that has been taken with an R5 that has not already been taken with another camera.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

A 35-135 f2.8L lens would sell very well as a great high-IQ general purpose lens with full "portrait" zoom reach. Pair it with a 15-35 f4L(or f2.8L) and maybe 100-500 f4.5-7.1L and you'd have a great setup.

Many photojournalists have used an f2.8 x3 lens (and 3 camera) line up for years. A lot of press guys also lug about a 300mm f2.8 as a 4th lens too, but often that sits in the car boot, only taken out when they need it.
Canon built a prototype of this lens type years ago, the problem was that it was as big as a 70-200 f2.8 and felt unnecessarily large for the zoom range when compared to a 24-70 which was already covering their 3 lens range.
In my opinion, 35mm isn't really wide enough for versatile shooting, however mated to a 15-35 that's less of an issue. At the 135mm end, it's nice for portraiture and the extra reach over a 24-70 will make a nice "walk-about" lens. The short wide end at 35mm again makes it ideal for portraiture...no one wants to shoot unflattering 24/28mm portraits. So I'm guessing that this lens is intended for wedding photographers as a "most used" / centre piece lens. If it's got good MFD and magnification then yes...wedding work would be ideal.

 

[Fischer]

And yet you fail to show one image that has been taken with an R5 that has not already been taken with another camera.

Suit yourself. I gave a very well known and documented example. No need to delve further into a futile argument.

 

[SpaceGhost]

My "Dream Lens" is the RF 24-135 f2.8 L IS... so we're seemingly getting close. To be honest, I wish the RF 24-105 f4L IS had a 2.8 variant. I guess that means my dream lens is not seemingly close.

 

[Lucas Tingley]

Wow,
RF 35-135mm sounds very, very tempting. I love my 24-105mm as a walk-around/ always-on lens but at times I miss some range. Not often enough to justify buying an expensive 70-200mm or pack my 100-400mm as well, so a 35-135mm would be a dream, although I'd have to sell my 24-105mm.

When reading the comments here (and elsewhere) I have a hard time imaging Canon would actually make this lense because they´d cannibalise other lense sales such as 24-105mm/ 24-70mm/ 70-200mm and some primes. Sounds like they'd be risking a lot.

maybe 28-100mm f2.8

and also the 24-105 f4 could be like the EF 16-35 f4, a budget version

My only problem with a 35-135 is it doesn't go wide enough for me to use it as my standard zoom.

I cant pay for it anyway so it doesn't matter.

 

[Ph0t0]

Not such a great idea when the comparative costs are actually given. You can get a 5D IV and 2.8 zoom trinity for peanuts compared to an R5 and 2.8 zoom trinity, and I haven’t seen a single image one could take and the other couldn’t.

Are you a tech head or a photographer is more to the point, tech heads will always be seduced by the newest shiniest toy, photographers will take pictures with whatever they can afford (or borrow).

You haven't seen a photo that one could take and the other couldn't?
Well I'm more of a photographer then a tech head and I can say that Canon mirrorless cameras have definitly helped me to take a lot of photos that I couldn't take with their DSLR cameras. I do a lot of photo shoots with models and with canon Eye focus it is a lot easier to shoot. I can concentrate on composition and the camera will find the eye. Auto focus is also more reliable with mirrorless. I basically don't have any shots with missed focus. I don't have the need for constant chimping and I don't have to retake shots. Which is a big deal because when I'm working on commercial shoots we always have a time limit . So lately I usually end up with 2x to 4x more keepers than I did when I was shooting with 5D IV and 5dsr.
IBIS also makes a big difference when shooting in low light.

Eye AF is also very usefull when shooting wildlife (especially with nice landscape in the background) when the subject is moving and I don't have to struggle with AF points and recomposing the shot. The camera finds the eye very fast.
Also shooting moving subjects with manual focus lenses is a lot easier with focus peaking and magnification in the view finder.
As well as working with tilt and shift lenses.

True I don't see any real advantages when shooting landscapes or architecture from a tripod... but otherwise Eye focus and focus peaking in EVF and IBIS it definitely helped me to capture a lot of shots that I would have missed entirely when working with a DSLR and then it also helped me capture shots that would have been unsharp, sharp at wrong places or too noisy.

 

[privatebydesign]

You haven't seen a photo that one could take and the other couldn't?
Well I'm more of a photographer then a tech head and I can say that Canon mirrorless cameras have definitly helped me to take a lot of photos that I couldn't take with their DSLR cameras. I do a lot of photo shoots with models and with canon Eye focus it is a lot easier to shoot. I can concentrate on composition and the camera will find the eye. Auto focus is also more reliable with mirrorless. I basically don't have any shots with missed focus. I don't have the need for constant chimping and I don't have to retake shots. Which is a big deal because when I'm working on commercial shoots we always have a time limit . So lately I usually end up with 2x to 4x more keepers than I did when I was shooting with 5D IV and 5dsr.
IBIS also makes a big difference when shooting in low light.

Eye AF is also very usefull when shooting wildlife (especially with nice landscape in the background) when the subject is moving and I don't have to struggle with AF points and recomposing the shot. The camera finds the eye very fast.
Also shooting moving subjects with manual focus lenses is a lot easier with focus peaking and magnification in the view finder.
As well as working with tilt and shift lenses.

True I don't see any real advantages when shooting landscapes or architecture from a tripod... but otherwise Eye focus and focus peaking in EVF and IBIS it definitely helped me to capture a lot of shots that I would have missed entirely when working with a DSLR and then it also helped me capture shots that would have been unsharp, sharp at wrong places or too noisy.

I don't know if you and a few others are being intentionally obtuse but you are certainly misrepresenting or misunderstanding what I am getting at. What I am saying is new photographers or those thinking they need to upgrade but don't necessarily have the money to should not feel left out, yes in some situations some people might get more keepers with newer AF (and I have been very open about saying that already) but that doesn't mean you need to buy the latest and greatest because there is not one single image that has been taken with an R5 that hasn't been taken before with much more modest equipment.

Or, nobody should let their inability to pay over $11,000 for a body and three 2.8 zooms limit your creativity their because MILC are the 'thing' at the moment.

 

[Joules]

there is not one single image that has been taken with an R5 that hasn't been taken before with much more modest equipment.

Or, nobody should let their inability to pay over $11,000 for a body and three 2.8 zooms limit your creativity their because MILC are the 'thing' at the moment.

Maybe you could make your claim a little less absolute and less people would take issue with it.

You make a 'for all' statement, and since of course the R5 has the highest dynamic range of any current FF camera, your statement is flat out wrong as nobody will have taken a 45 MP image with 11.85 stops of PDR in a single shot with more modest equipment.

I know that is entirely not what you are claiming though! But the way you phrase it gives the appearance of belittling the improvement people see in their own experiences with the R5.

Or maybe you have to explain better what it means for an image to not be 'take-able'. With a lower framerates, the odds of getting the most desired image in a fast action sequence drop. So, for this most desired image to be taken, luck is required. So it absolutely is possible to take that image, just not as likely as with a higher framerate body.

Similarly, better AF and better lenses give the modern RF system bodies and edge in probability compared to older gear. Comparing a 5D IV with the EF 50 mm 1.2 vs R5 with the RF 50 mm 1.2 for example, it is probably possible to get a sharp image from a moving subject with the EF combination, but it is less likely than with the RF.

Which is what you are saying by acknowledging the keeper rate. I think here it simply comes down to how you define being able to take an image differently than others. If the R5 produces more keepers than an older model, that necessarily has to mean the older model was unable to take as many pictures that qualify as worthy pictures. So the older one was unable to take some.

I think what you really are asking for is a new type of photography that was not just made easier through newer gear, but straight up made possible, right? One may argue that hand held long exposure photography is maybe an example for this, but even here you could always get lucky with in-lens IS only in the past and get nicely blurred waterfalls or light trails with a wide angle lens hand held.

I don't think you'll find many people claiming that newer bodies pave the road to types of photography that were impossible to capture previously.

 

[SteveC]

I'm going to be a complete smart-aleck and point out that without the R5 I'd have been unable to take full frame pictures at all.

Of course my subsequent purchase of a dirt-cheap refurb RP would have helped out...eventually.

 

[Darecinema]

Or in other words, you're looking to the camera to make up for a lack of skill on your behalf. To some extent this will work but I'm glad I'm not the one paying you for your photography.

Sorry to be blunt, but that's how your comments read.

Actually you aren’t being blunt, just arrogant

 

[Darecinema]

Or in other words, you're looking to the camera to make up for a lack of skill on your behalf. To some extent this will work but I'm glad I'm not the one paying you for your photography.

Sorry to be blunt, but that's how your comments read.

Also, I’m really glad you aren’t the one paying me as well so we can both agree on that. You sound like a pantry full of sweet cakes to work with.
My entire point was that new technology enables photographers to work faster and get more complicated shots in different lighting conditions and environments, how you construed that into me being a poor photographer is rude, insulting and poor manners. Please avoid ad hominem attacks in the future, it would be appreciated and conducive to constructive conversations.

 

[Ph0t0]

I don't know if you and a few others are being intentionally obtuse but you are certainly misrepresenting or misunderstanding what I am getting at. What I am saying is new photographers or those thinking they need to upgrade but don't necessarily have the money to should not feel left out, yes in some situations some people might get more keepers with newer AF (and I have been very open about saying that already) but that doesn't mean you need to buy the latest and greatest because there is not one single image that has been taken with an R5 that hasn't been taken before with much more modest equipment.

Or, nobody should let their inability to pay over $11,000 for a body and three 2.8 zooms limit your creativity their because MILC are the 'thing' at the moment.

Yeah I really really doubt that people are just quitting photography because they can't spring 11.000 for a brand new kit all at once.
I think you would have to be intentionally obtuse to think that others are saying "Go in 11.000 or go home". And that is not was I was saying either.
In the end everyone has a budget and we all have to work within that and make compromises.

But there are many scenarios where the new cameras can be useful, and if people are thinking about upgrading their systems because I would say that R5 is a worthwhile upgrade
If someone is a new photographer interested in portraiture, fashion, reportage and can invest a few more buck into a mirrorless system, then I would also say: Go for it, you won't regret it. It will likely help you speed up the process and get more keepers - especially in difficult circumstances.

Also this statement "there is not one single image that has been taken with an R5 that hasn't been taken before with much more modest equipment" is just laughable.
Like I said: I get 2x-3x time more keepers, because of the faster workflow, the IBIS really helps keep the ISO down in low light situations, AF is spot on and wifi transfer is also improved so it is easier for an assistant to preview images on location. So yeah I end up with a lot of good images that get used by my clients that I didn't/wouldn't get with my older gear.
And sure you can make an argument that I could have taken most of the images I take now even with a old AE-1. But one thing is theory the other thing is working on location and under pressure with limited time. And while I can look at individual shots and say: Yeah I could have done that with AE-1, the reality is just that I had many misses and fails when working with that camera and that I was nowhere as productive as I am today with better gear. And there were plenty of shots that got away because I was to slow with setting up my gear.

 

[Lucas Tingley]

Or in other words, you're looking to the camera to make up for a lack of skill on your behalf. To some extent this will work but I'm glad I'm not the one paying you for your photography.

Sorry to be blunt, but that's how your comments read.

Or thats the way you interpret it. and tell me, what lenses are you using with your CANON EOS M50 that gives you the right to be rude to him. I'm sure he is a great photographer, and cheers to his success!