A 50-150 or 35-135 would not be as good for me. I'd already have 28-70 covered. The 28-70 is $3k. A 50-150 f/2?
I stand corrected. Thx. I really forgot about the RF-S 14-30mm f/3.5-6.3 IS STM PZ and it didn't show up on my quick google search.
Yeah, and with the RF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 not needing any kind of R&D and the R&D of the VCM basically (at least the theoretical part) taking place when the first VCM´s were announced, it is kind of disappointing imo.
I purchased the 50mm VCM and I really, really like it. I tested the 35mm and 85mm in a camera store and they are also very good. But I'll stick with 35mm F1.8/ 85mm F2 because the vcm´s are just very expensive. I am really curious to see how the 50mm VCM compares to the 45mm F1.2. I'll rent the latter and make test shots side by side.
I am interested in the 70-180 f/2.8 STM but I don´t see myself buying this lens because I own the marvelous (imo) 70-200mm F4 lens. I'd only be interested in the rumored 70-180 f/2.8 STM if it really reaches 180mm and weighs less than 500 gr.
I am a bit torn on this matter.
While the Sony 50-150mm F2 is really nice, it kind of hits a different tone. 50-150mm is according suited for sports (of course, portraits as well) and that is what Sony intended according to their marketing while a 70-135mm seems more like a classic portrait focal length(s?), although you could use it for sports as well.
That sounds dreadfully heavy imo. Tamrons offering with a variable 2-2.8 is already near 1.2 kg and the f2.8 starts at around 60mm already. I simply can't image how heavy a constant F2 aperture would be that covers the 35-150mm zoom range.
I think that only happened once in Canons history it wasn't really official. The CR lens road map from 2022 was extremely precise for a rumor site (aside the face the TS lenses and the 35mm F1.2 are still missing in action) and I bet Canon intentionally leaked it, so people would know without Canon being accountable. Worked in their favor, nobody can "demand" the above mentioned and missing lenses.
I guess you are right in the canabilization. I would definitively sell my 28-70mm F2 if I bought the 35-135mm F2, even though the 28-70 F2 is by far my most used lens outside of sports (100-300 F2.8) and wildlife (100-500mm probably, but EF 400mm f2.8 iii, EF 600mm f4 ii, RF 200-800 and 100-300mm).
I don't worry about what other manufacturers put out. I don't switch systems because of a lens. Do you have $ for that? Great.
I don't know how big the front element would have to be for 150mm f/2 or 180mm f/2, but it's going to be a huge lens. I'm a portrait photographer. WTF do I need with a tripod dependent monster?
While the Sony 50-150mm F2 is really nice, it kind of hits a different tone. 50-150mm is according suited for sports (of course, portraits as well) and that is what Sony intended according to their marketing while a 70-135mm seems more like a classic portrait focal length(s?), although you could use it for sports as well.
I´d love a Canon F2 lens to be as light as possible and therefore a 70-135mm F2 sounds more appealing to me. If Canon has sports in mind just like Sony, I´d prefer 70-180mm F2 (if possible). In the end, I am pretty sure I´d purchase any kind of 50-150mm, 70-135mm, 70-180mm F2 zoom as long as it weighs around 1 kg (max). The current 28-70mm F2 is just too heavy... I was tempted several times and I rented three times already
That sounds dreadfully heavy imo. Tamrons offering with a variable 2-2.8 is already near 1.2 kg and the f2.8 starts at around 60mm already. I simply can't image how heavy a constant F2 aperture would be that covers the 35-150mm zoom range.
. But, if we fix cost and IQ, then, for me:I am interested in the 70-180 f/2.8 STM but I don´t see myself buying this lens because I own the marvelous (imo) 70-200mm F4 lens. I'd only be interested in the rumored 70-180 f/2.8 STM if it really reaches 180mm and weighs less than 500 gr.
Currently, there is a Black Friday offer: R8 and 28-70mm F2.8 for 1.899 €. I am thinking about this combo and selling my 24-105mm. Like the lighter weight, the higher magnification and lower minimum focus distance and maybe even 2.8 for some situations. Mostly importantly, the 2.8 balances better on the R8 than the 24-105mm F4. But I might miss going to 105mm and especially having 24mm. Plus, it was my first RF lens
The 16-28 f/2.8 seems to be really good, but the weight savings compared to the 14-35mm F4 are too small, price difference isn't that big and you really loose two valuable mm of focal length. Plus, with the L lens you get better magnification.
Those numbers really hit me every time
time for a mkii!With emphasis on "was", it is not anymore.
70-135mm would only be underwhelming if it would weigh around 1.340gr. If a 70-135mm would weigh something like 700-900gr, that would be a blessing. A lot of people would buy that.
To me personally, 1.430 gr for a 50-150mm is not reasonable because I´d like to carry it around all the time, even when traveling. For sports e.g. 1.430 gr is an absolute steel
For this use case, I´d go with it as well. And if Canon would be really, really nice that'd give us both what we want and need
The only way I see that happening it if the 35-150mm - no wait, gotta be better than Tamron - 30-150mm has a variable aperture like F2-2.8. But I'm honestly guessing Sony put Canon in quite a pickle: the 50-150mm was pretty unexpected by most people and it is really good. Now, if Canon releases a 70-135mm it must be dramatically lighter and absolutely can´t be a brick again. If they release a 50-150mm F2 it has to be better head-to-head at least on the spec sheet. Though nut to crack. Therefore, it'll probably (and sadly) take a while...
The bokeh of the F4 version is really pretty good (especially for a F4 lens) and for landscapes F4 is perfect. If one shoots action and sports, F2.8 does matter.
That puts it in perspective and really creates a market for the lens, but only if you need F2.8.
If pricing aligns with the other two F2.8 STM than probably even more than 50%.
My gosh. You guys act like switching systems, or like what some other manufacturer does, should influence somebody not in that system. Honestly, I choose what I choose because that's what I like. Period.I guess you are right in the canabilization. I would definitively sell my 28-70mm F2 if I bought the 35-135mm F2, even though the 28-70 F2 is by far my most used lens outside of sports (100-300 F2.8) and wildlife (100-500mm probably, but EF 400mm f2.8 iii, EF 600mm f4 ii, RF 200-800 and 100-300mm).
I do have some hope, though.
The RF 28-70mm F2 was released 7 years ago. There have been plenty of mentions of a MK II, especially after Sony came out with their much lighter version last year (918g vs 1430g). The RF 28-70mm F2 was a trailblazer, a halo lens, the kind of lens that makes you want to switch systesm. A 70-135mm F2 lens would be really underwhelming in the face of Sony's 50-150mm. Canon releaseing their own 50-150mm F2 would be great, but not exactly a standout lens. A 35-135mm F2, on the other hand, would be a one of a kind new lens. While 35mm isn't exactly wide enough to replace a standard zoom, 28mm barely is, it is wide enough to make it quite usable in a lot of settings! Yes, the 15-35mm f2.8 could complement it very well. Actually, even the RF 16-28mm F2.8 could fill the wider end.
Well, the current Sony 50-150mm F2 (1340g) is ligher than the Canon RF 28-70mm F2 (1430g). So it is possible to have a 50-150mm with reasonable weight, that is, if you can manage the Canon RF 28-70mm F2, a 50-150mm F2 should be manageable.
it is priced at $4k vs the Canon 28-70mm F2's $3.3k, but the Sony is a newer lens. So the cost isn't that different.
I agree that all things equal, lighter is better
Good trade-off:
50-150mm F2 -> 50-135mm F2 that is lighter/smaller
50-135mm F2 -> 35-135mm F2 that is heavier/larger
In other words, I'd trade-off focal length range on the long end for size/weight, but I'd happily deal with larger weight/size to get move focal length range on the wide side.
If 1kg is already heavy and at the max for you, then perhaps an RF 28-70mm MK II at ~900g and an RF 70-135mm F2 at ~900g would be the ideal. I'd go for a 1500g RF 35-135mm F2 in a heartbeat!
.I'm totally with you, I would trade long end mm for wider ones instantly on this lense because that would be mean less having to change from one lens to another whereas with a lens starting at 70mm you would have to change constantly for wide portraits...I guess you are right in the canabilization. I would definitively sell my 28-70mm F2 if I bought the 35-135mm F2, even though the 28-70 F2 is by far my most used lens outside of sports (100-300 F2.8) and wildlife (100-500mm probably, but EF 400mm f2.8 iii, EF 600mm f4 ii, RF 200-800 and 100-300mm).
I do have some hope, though.
The RF 28-70mm F2 was released 7 years ago. There have been plenty of mentions of a MK II, especially after Sony came out with their much lighter version last year (918g vs 1430g). The RF 28-70mm F2 was a trailblazer, a halo lens, the kind of lens that makes you want to switch systesm. A 70-135mm F2 lens would be really underwhelming in the face of Sony's 50-150mm. Canon releaseing their own 50-150mm F2 would be great, but not exactly a standout lens. A 35-135mm F2, on the other hand, would be a one of a kind new lens. While 35mm isn't exactly wide enough to replace a standard zoom, 28mm barely is, it is wide enough to make it quite usable in a lot of settings! Yes, the 15-35mm f2.8 could complement it very well. Actually, even the RF 16-28mm F2.8 could fill the wider end.
Well, the current Sony 50-150mm F2 (1340g) is ligher than the Canon RF 28-70mm F2 (1430g). So it is possible to have a 50-150mm with reasonable weight, that is, if you can manage the Canon RF 28-70mm F2, a 50-150mm F2 should be manageable.
it is priced at $4k vs the Canon 28-70mm F2's $3.3k, but the Sony is a newer lens. So the cost isn't that different.
I agree that all things equal, lighter is better
Good trade-off:
50-150mm F2 -> 50-135mm F2 that is lighter/smaller
50-135mm F2 -> 35-135mm F2 that is heavier/larger
In other words, I'd trade-off focal length range on the long end for size/weight, but I'd happily deal with larger weight/size to get move focal length range on the wide side.
If 1kg is already heavy and at the max for you, then perhaps an RF 28-70mm MK II at ~900g and an RF 70-135mm F2 at ~900g would be the ideal. I'd go for a 1500g RF 35-135mm F2 in a heartbeat!
Again I'm with you, it's not about you and me changing from one system to another (I will not do it), it's about Canon competing against Sony to keep their customers and bring new ones.Hey, i'm totally with you on the ergonomics and color science!
Sorry if my comments came off the wrong way. I didn't mean to imply that what I think/want or what Sony does should dictate or influence what you (or anyone else) do(does)/want(s).
I will say that looking at other systems is useful to me for a number of reasons. First, it gives an idea of what is technically feasible. So, a Sony 50-150mm F2 at 1340g means such a design is potentially techicaly feasible in the Canon system. As we were speculating on how heavy the several options would be it is useful to have some reference points.
The second reason I find it useful to look at other systems is that I believe Canon (not any person on this forum) is influenced by what competitors do. So as we speculate about what new products Canon will put out, taking a look at the competitive landscape can give a hint. When I said a 70-135mm would be underwheliming given the Sony 50-150mm, in reference to how the RF 28-70mm F2 was such a remarkable lens in pushing the focal length range and aperture curve. I was just commenting on Canon vs Sony as competitors trying to market to multi-system users, users that change systems, new users not yet into any of the systesm, etc. Even then, as I noted in my post, for some folks having a 70-135mm F2 that is significantly lower weight than the Sony 50-150mm F2 would be a big winner.
There are many lenses from other systems I would love to have. The Nikon 400mm f/2.8 & 600mm F4 with built-in TC are great examples. Also many of the newer Sigma full-frame mirrorless lenses look very enticing to me. However, none of them enticing enough for me to change systems, yet.
When I think of getting a Sony camera so I can use some of those lenses, I usually give up when I remember that I'd be stuck using a Sony camera
