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

[neuroanatomist]

Possibly, but I think longer teles are easier to make than wide-short teles.
Someone correct me if wrong, of course.

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.

 

[photofrankdzi]

R7 need this 15-60....

YES !!!!

 

[DhlcadR6]

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

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.

 

[danfaz]

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.

 

[Dragon]

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.

 

[hne]

At first, I was against buying the 70-200 mm internal zoom, but I am now strongly considering it as a companion to the 24-105 mm lens.

I thought the 24-105/2.8 was released as a companion to the 100-300/2.8.

 

[koenkooi]

I thought the 24-105/2.8 was released as a companion to the 100-300/2.8.

One is a new powerzoom 'Z' lens, the other is not. You're right that they pair very well, f/2.8 from 24mm to 300mm, but the 100-300 isn't aimed at video.

 

[E_ATL]

Canon doesn't call these "powerzoom" lenses. They're Z lenses that support optional Canon Power Zoom Adapters. So just say Z. Until you get the adapter, it's just a great lens.

 

[neuroanatomist]

So just say Z.

Sure, there’s no chance that would lead to confusion.

 

[danfaz]

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+

 

[E_ATL]

Sure, there’s no chance that would lead to confusion.

View attachment 215206

Then say Canon Z

 

[neuroanatomist]

Then say Canon Z

Powerzoom.

 

[YuengLinger]

Powerzoom.

Or...EZ-PZ, Lemon Squeezy?

 

[YuengLinger]

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!

 

[mb66energy]

RF-S 15-60 would be a fine video lens roughly 24-100 equivalent. This on an R7 + EF 100-400 on an R6 ii would be a fine combo from 24 ... 400 or 640 if you use the APS-C crop of the R6 ii in video. Two units, no swapping of lenses for a lot of flexibility!

 

[neuroanatomist]

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.

 

[roby17269]

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.

 

[danfaz]

However, I'd much rather Canon release a 70-150/2 or something similar.

That would take the cake for sure!

 

[EricN]

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.

 

[scyrene]

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.

How big are your pockets?!