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

[jeffa4444]

Im quite happy with the present RF 24-70mm f2.8L IS USM I see no use case for going wider. What I would like to see is Canon add a RF 65mm f1.4L VCM prime to the f1.4L VCM series

 

[ImageWerkx]

I am the proud owner of the RF 24-70 f/2.8L. It’s a great lens and I’m a HUGE fan of it. That said, and not surprisingly given its expense, I would want its successor to have more range on both ends say 20-85? Last fall, I picked up a 24-105 f/4L (a stupendous sale on Canon’s refurb site) and have found the additional reach beneficial for events and “less formal” photographic scenarios. I’m glad that Canon is trying different formulas and look forward to seeing what else, like the 45mm f/1.2 they’ll cook up!

 

[Askeladden]

I am quite disappointed in my 24-70, not because of optical performance or anything like that, but because it has amassed internal dust in the optics after not that much usage. Even worse is that it was a replacement for another copy (brand new from retailer) that had a rather large brownish piece of debris that looked like tobacco behind the front element. Must have been a bad batch of Monday products or something, but it is beyond me that the first one even passed inspections. None of my other RF lenses except for the RF 28 2.8 has any dust in them. The 28 2.8 I can understand and forgive as it is quite a complicated little budget lens. I can live with some dust in the optics, but what bothers me is the hit i take with resale value.
I think Nikon did a smart move with their new 24-70 which is internal focusing.

 

[erader]

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.

agreed. 24-85 would be great

 

[erader]

I am quite disappointed in my 24-70, not because of optical performance or anything like that, but because it has amassed internal dust in the optics after not that much usage. Even worse is that it was a replacement for another copy (brand new from retailer) that had a rather large brownish piece of debris that looked like tobacco behind the front element. Must have been a bad batch of Monday products or something, but it is beyond me that the first one even passed inspections. None of my other RF lenses except for the RF 28 2.8 has any dust in them. The 28 2.8 I can understand and forgive as it is quite a complicated little budget lens. I can live with some dust in the optics, but what bothers me is the hit i take with resale value.
I think Nikon did a smart move with their new 24-70 which is internal focusing.

i've never owned a lens since 1980 that had dust in it, because i don't check

Merrell Nova 4 WP Running Shoe​

 

[Ian K]

I find 24mm fine for walk around work. 70mm is ok, but the 105mm is a better top end. That said the 23-105 f2.8 is too heavy for my liking. I found the 24-105 f4 to fail to focus correctly in low light on the R5 Mark II, so I stuck with the 24-70 f2.8. Perhaps that was an early focus issue with the mark II, which has been fixed? Anyone having problems with that combo (R5 II, 24-105 f4 at night time with lit buildings or bridges)

24mm seems plenty wide enough, unless you go indoors, when the 10-20mm is king.

 

[erader]

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'm sure Canon will have to do something to get people to buy new lens."

lower the price, weight, size (VCM)

 

[erader]

I find 24mm fine for walk around work. 70mm is ok, but the 105mm is a better top end. That said the 23-105 f2.8 is too heavy for my liking. I found the 24-105 f4 to fail to focus correctly in low light on the R5 Mark II, so I stuck with the 24-70 f2.8. Perhaps that was an early focus issue with the mark II, which has been fixed? Anyone having problems with that combo (R5 II, 24-105 f4 at night time with lit buildings or bridges)

24mm seems plenty wide enough, unless you go indoors, when the 10-20mm is king.

i'm a landscape shooter. many of my landscapes with 24-70 are at 24mm. that tells me 20mm would be very useful