The Follow-up to the RF 24-70 F2.8L IS USM Could See More of the World

[Canon Rumors]

Canon's follow-up to the RF 24-70mm f/2.8L IS USM could be going wider, and we're here for it. It's time for some new ideas and focal ranges for fast zoom lenses I have written a couple of times about the next iteration of the hugely popular RF 24-70mm f/2.8L IS USM. I have some level […]

See full article...

 

[Hector1970]

20-70mm would certainly be quite useful. I'm sure Canon will have to do something to get people to buy new lens. The existing ones are so good. Maybe they will eventually get around to a 16-600mm 2.8 that's less than 1KG in weight

 

[Exploreshootshare]

Ohhhh, I´m intrigued starting at 20mm would be really nice. Would it "cannibalize" the sales of the UWA zoom (15-35mm) because there is less need for it? Just a thought/ question. I could imagine Canon coming up with a 20-50mm F2.8 zoom in a very compact size. We will wait and see.

One more thing: that is a very good to differentiate the F2.8 L zoom from the F2.8 STM zoom.

 

[Maximilian]

Personally, I am more on the tele/portrait side of the world.
For that, I would love to see some extra mm FL on the long end, say 75 or 80.
But I suppose that the guess with 20 mm sounds more likely.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Personally, I am more on the tele/portrait side of the world.
For that, I would love to see some extra mm FL on the long end, say 75 or 80.
But I suppose that the guess with 20 mm sounds more likely.

There is already the 24-105/2.8L Z (and it’s an excellent lens!).

 

[Tirmite]

20-70mm would certainly be quite useful. I'm sure Canon will have to do something to get people to buy new lens. The existing ones are so good. Maybe they will eventually get around to a 16-600mm 2.8 that's less than 1KG in weight

I can make you a 16-600mm f2.8. Not problem. I can whip out one on my optical lathe in about a week. Do you want white or black exterior? I just need a $5000 deposit and the remaining $20,000 will be due upon delivery (which will cost $1000 because of shipping weight and insurance). Bitcoin only. Call me!

 

[Tirmite]

I got the 28-70mm 2.0 when I first jumped into Canon mirrorless. It's a fantastic lens for indoor events or just as a "normal" lens to leave on a body and maybe have in the car as an always-with-me camera. But the weight of that monster gets old fast. A 20-70mm or 20-85mm would be a great lens and exotic but not too heavy.
I really, really, really wish Canon would copy Sony and make a 50-150mm f2.0. I've rented one just to evaluate it and it's an incredible lens that covers such a useful range. Excellent for indoor events. Also one that you can just leave on the camera all the time. I've decided to get one and if Canon ever makes their own, maybe I'll switch, but it's just too handy to do without in the meantime.
That lens along with a 15-35mm and a 300mm 2.8 are all anyone needs for events, concerts, sports, weddings, and portraits. It's not much heavier than a 70-200mm 2.8. The f2.0 speed and shallow DOF are worth the cost. Come on, Canon! Do your own version and add some one-upmanship like making yours compatible with teleconverters. I bet they probably won't because then you could have a 50-150mm 2.0 and a 70-280mm 2.8 with the 1.4x converter and that would cannibalize sales of Canon's $10,000 100-300mm. So that's why I'll be buying the Sony for now and bringing an older a7r body out of retirement.

 

[sturm3n]

Very welcome news to me! When I switched from Sony to Canon 2 years ago, one of the lenses I was saddest to part with was the 20-70mm f/4. I wish Canon would just blatantly rip it off. The versatility combined with the size and weight is incredible. However, I'll settle for a bigger, heavier, more expensive 20-70mm f/2.8L.

 

[Maximilian]

There is already the 24-105/2.8L Z (and it’s an excellent lens!).

With “minor” differences in price, size, and weight, yes

 

[m4ndr4ke]

While my preference for having 28mm on one end of my main lens is clear, objectively I have to recognise that a 20-70mm f/2.8 could be very useful to me, as it would have the potential to replace simultaneously an UWA and a standard zoom lenses.

I doubt I would go for it, as I imagine myself more likely to jump to prime lenses, within a few years, but I'm certain such a zoom lens could make many, many users happy.

I can make you a 16-600mm f2.8. Not problem. I can whip out one on my optical lathe in about a week. Do you want white or black exterior? I just need a $5000 deposit and the remaining $20,000 will be due upon delivery (which will cost $1000 because of shipping weight and insurance). Bitcoin only. Call me!

That would actually be very cheap.
A 600mm f/2.8 prime could probably cost 25k alone

I really, really, really wish Canon would copy Sony and make a 50-150mm f2.0. I've rented one just to evaluate it and it's an incredible lens that covers such a useful range. Excellent for indoor events.
(...)
That lens along with a 15-35mm and a 300mm 2.8 are all anyone needs for events, concerts, sports, weddings, and portraits. It's not much heavier than a 70-200mm 2.8. The f2.0 speed and shallow DOF are worth the cost.

I tried the 50-150mm last year. Having 50mm on the telephoto zoom is interesting, but the wider aperture didn't really excite me. I don't know, I'm also the kind of guy who doesn't bother to own an 85 or 135mm, and covers everything beyond 70mm with the 70-200mm f/2.8, so I guess I don't care that much for shallow depth of field. I always found f/2.8 to be enough from about 85 onwards.
I also don't use the widest aperture of my 28-70mm f/2 that often, so there's that...

The FE 50-150mm f/2 weights about as much as a traditional 70-200mm f/2.8, like the EF, and the size is pretty similar too. It's manageable, but these new 1kg 70-200mm f/2.8 lenses and, specially, the original RF 70-200mm f/2.8, that takes less space in the bag, are winning my heart. I can now carry a lens and a camera body where I used to carry just the 70-200mm. That's pretty amazing.

 

[Del Paso]

This is my firm order for this lens!

 

[Shane]

This would make packing my bag for weddings lighter. I currently use the 28-70 f2 and I also take a 15-35 2.8. For the huge space and weight savings I may be willing to just take a 20-70 2.8. I also carry a 35 1.4 and an 85 1.2 and 100 Macro so one less lens would be nice haha. I really love the 28-70 f2 though, so it will be a tough call. Certainly a great lens if they bring it out.

 

[josephandrews222]

I also don't use the widest aperture of my 28-70mm f/2 that often, so there's that...

Really?

 

[@amir_photography]

In my opinion this could be a great lens paired with the 14 f1.4 vcm lens as well, since I find myself not always using the range of 16-20 on my 15-30...

 

[mswoody6.4]

a 20-70 mm f2.8 would be nice but what about a 20-70 mm or 20-75 f2.0 would be nicer

 

[PinholeR5]

I bet they probably won't because then you could have a 50-150mm 2.0 and a 70-280mm 2.8 with the 1.4x converter and that would cannibalize sales of Canon's $10,000 100-300mm.

Wouldn't a 50-150mm 2.0 be a 70-210mm 2.8 with the 1.4x TC? That is more competing with the 70-200mm 2.8, not the 100-300mm 2.8. The Sony is priced at US $4K. The Canon 70-200mm F2.8 Z is at US $3.1K and the non-Z version around US $2.8K. I think it could happen. Though I suspect that TC compatibility wouldn't be high in the priority list for such a lens and that weight & size would be prioritized higher.

 

[mswoody6.4]

a 20-75 mmf2.0 with a 2x tc would theoretically be a 40-150 f4.0 you are forgetting that when you use a tc it decreases the amount of light into the camera where as a 1.4 tc would then be a 28- 105mm @ f2.8 and as for macro tube it would also reduce the amount of light into the camera as well. I found the formula for light loss using extension tubes it is
To calculate light loss with macro extension tubes, divide the tube length by the lens focal length to find the magnification increase, then use the formula
and for a tc it is

• 1.4x Teleconverter: Loses 1 stop of light
  
  • 1.7x Teleconverter: Loses 1.5 stops of light.
  • 2x Teleconverter: Loses 2 stops of light (e.g.
  • 
    
    
    
    
    

 

[Del Paso]

In my opinion this could be a great lens paired with the 14 f1.4 vcm lens as well, since I find myself not always using the range of 16-20 on my 15-30...

Or, why not, with the "coming-some-day" 14 TSE ?

 

[m4ndr4ke]

Really?

Oh absolutely, I may work the entire month without resorting to f/2, sometimes.
Usually, I only use that aperture when available light drops a lot, it’s just too much blur for most things.

 

[Stereohans]

A 20-70/2.8 would be THE lens for concerts in narrow clubs and small venues in general. If it is a bit brighter I'd also not complain. The sensors of the newer R cameras support photography with available light and autofocus systems are good enough to shoot wide open also under more demanding conditions. Bring it on!

Greetings from Middle Franconia, Hans