There are at least 3 more PowerZoom lenses coming [CR3]

Really? How so?

It's small, sharp, quick focussing and good value. What more do you want?
Other than size&weight, 14-35L triumph over it.
Sounds like the current 70-200RF will become the 'cheaper' (but not cheap!) version to make way for that premium experience.

Being that this canon, that's 3000/3200$ easy.

Who needs a 50 1.4 update anyways o_O
Mint RF 70-200 f4L is getting cheaper(sub $1200), hard to justified getting f2.8 over it with modern high iso and denoise getting so good. If you need a shallower DOF, use a tele prime.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

danfaz

Coffee Fiend
Jul 14, 2015
954
1,843
www.1fineklick.com
Mint RF 70-200 f4L is getting cheaper(sub $1200), hard to justified getting f2.8 over it with modern high iso and denoise getting so good. If you need a shallower DOF, use a tele prime.
I think it's fairly easy to justify. Regardless of how good denoise is, a cleaner image will always be better to start with. Denoise makes stuff up if there isn't enough info. Also, f/2.8 doesn't just mean lower ISOs or DOF, it also allows for faster shutter speeds...at lower ISOs, which equals cleaner images.
Also, you are suggesting buying two lenses vs. one. That's more money and more gear.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 users
Upvote 0

Dragon

EF 800L f/5.6, RF 800 f/11
May 29, 2019
1,252
1,771
Oregon
Possibly, but I think longer teles are easier to make than wide-short teles.
Someone correct me if wrong, of course.
Definitely more challenging to design as wide-shorts have to transition from retrofocus to telephoto. However, once designed, they may not be any harder or more expensive to build given that long telephotos need big glass that may well offset the complexity of the wide-shorts from a cost perspective.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0

danfaz

Coffee Fiend
Jul 14, 2015
954
1,843
www.1fineklick.com
The current RF 70-200/2.8 launched at $2700. I can easily see a PZ version coming in at $3000 like the 24-105/2.8 or even higher.

Definitely more challenging to design as wide-shorts have to transition from retrofocus to telephoto. However, once designed, they may not be any harder or more expensive to build give that long telephotos need big glass that may well offset the complexity of the wide-shorts from a cost perspective.
I reckon you guys are correct. Well, it better come with a Lens Case LZ1326 if it's gonna cost $3000+ :ROFLMAO:
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0

YuengLinger

Print the ones you love.
Canon Rumors Premium
Dec 20, 2012
3,794
2,359
USA
I think it's fairly easy to justify. Regardless of how good denoise is, a cleaner image will always be better to start with. Denoise makes stuff up if there isn't enough info. Also, f/2.8 doesn't just mean lower ISOs or DOF, it also allows for faster shutter speeds...at lower ISOs, which equals cleaner images.
Also, you are suggesting buying two lenses vs. one. That's more money and more gear.
That shallower DoF counts for a lot. I can't imagine, if I bought the RF 135mm f/1.8, that I'd really be using it much. The flexibility and the bokeh of the 70-200mm f/2.8 is amazing, and so close in "blur value," that the 135 would be redundant and less useful. "For me," I believe, is the required disclaimer.

Very low lighting, ok, ok, the f/1.8 would be nice, but then stuck with a fixed focal-length and shallower DoF than is needed for my kids' plays and other institutionally lit activities.

In short, I think the Rf 70-200mm f/2.8L is practical enough to justify the extra $$$ over the f/4.

Of course the 85mm f/1.2L is another story. I have to give into my prime-lens fetish now and then!
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: 2 users
Upvote 0

neuroanatomist

Canon Rumors Premium
Jul 21, 2010
31,353
13,283
Very low lighting, ok, ok, the f/1.8 would be nice, but then stuck with a fixed focal-length and shallower DoF than is needed for my kids' plays and other institutionally lit activities.

In short, I think the Rf 70-200mm f/2.8L is practical enough to justify the extra $$$ over the f/4.

Of course the 85mm f/1.2L is another story. I have to give into my prime-lens fetish now and then!
Same for me. I had the EF 135/2L, it's a lovely lens and I'm sure the RF 135/1.8L is even better. But after getting the EF 70-200/2.8 II, I ended up selling the 135/2 for lack of use. I have been only mildly tempted by the 135/1.8, knowing the times I use would be few given that I have the 70-200/2.8 and now the 100-300/2.8 as well.

I won't rule out getting the 85/1.2 at some point (I had the EF 85/1.2 and EF 85/1.4 previously). However, I'd much rather Canon release a 70-150/2 or something similar.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0

roby17269

R5, H5X + IQ1-80, DJI Mini & Mavic 3 Pro, GoPro 10
Feb 26, 2014
477
593
New York
rdmfashionphoto.com
I won't rule out getting the 85/1.2 at some point (I had the EF 85/1.2 and EF 85/1.4 previously). However, I'd much rather Canon release a 70-150/2 or something similar.
The RF 85 1.2 is magical :)
I love that lens, it has a special rendering and it is actually usable at 1.2 (the EF one wasn't really). The only downsides are size and weight. And cost. Apart from sharpness, AF is faster (not fast in absolute terms, but better) and minimum focus distance is shorter. I am comparing to the RF 85 1.2 II since I have never used the EF 85 1.4.
I believe you'd like it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0
Aug 10, 2021
1,964
1,738
If Canon was to release a RF-S 15-60/2.8 lens, it would be Canon's first interesting RF-S lens for me.
I don't do video, and don't care about powerzoom option. But definitely sounds like a perfect replacement for my EF-S 17-55/2.8.

I would probably miss something in the long end if making it my standard walk-around lens instead of the EF-S 15-85mm. But it has the important 15mm in the short end, so if weight of an RF-S 15-60mm/2.8 was closer to the EF-S 15-85mm than to the 17-55mm/2.8 (which I hope is realistic with the shorter flange distance of a mirrorless lens?), it might still be considered for that too.

Oh well. I'm thinking to much about it. It is still only a "random" lens-patent coupled with a not so specific rumour :)
If it became real, you could supplement it with the 85 f/2 or 100 2.8 getting half or full macro capabilities as well. Both lenses can fit in my jean pockets.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0