We have been told that Canon is planning a second RF mount f/2 zoom to “compliment” the remarkable RF 28-70mm f/2L USM, which is one of the best zoom lenses ever made.

The source didn't know the focal length of the rumored lens, but did say to expect it some time in the first half of 2024.

Timelines on new Canon lenses are pretty much impossible to get information on. As we've seen with the RF 135mm f/1.8L IS USM and RF 100-300mm f/2.8L IS USM, Canon is still having a challenging time getting these high-end lenses into the hands of shooters. Why that is? We have no idea at this point. You do have to keep announcing products, but at a point you need to actually have the capacity to meet demand within the first few months after release.

We are expected 2-3 lenses to be announced in Q4 of 2023, but we don't want to guess which ones are coming. We know what a lot of you want to see in L series lenses, but we also expect at least 1 higher end RF-S lens to be announced before the year is out.

Go to discussion...

86 comments

  1. Never saw any patent for that, they might have gone the prime route with that instead with the 135mm f/1.8.
    However, there is a patent for a 14-28mm f/2 lens.
    • 0
  2. Apart from price, size and weight I'm always fascinated, what could become a top-notch product.
    But I wonder how the roadmap should look like.
    The question is, if f/1.x WA/UWA L primes should be first now :unsure:
    • 0
  3. As much as I admire the 28-70mm f2.0 L lens, It's a lens that's slightly missed the "ideal" photojournalis / wedding photography focal lengths. It would ahve been a far more useful lens (to many) if the range had been eitehr a 24-55mm f2 or a preferable 35-85mm f2. Then it would truely have covered the classic 2 prime lens range. When I was doing a lot of weddings, I would run with three full frame DSLR's, a 16-35, 35L and 85L as my three shooters. I'd swap out iwht other lenses as needed, but with this combo I could cover 95% of what I needed to from both a coverage perspective and a creative art perspective.
    The 28-70mm f2 Doesn't quite cover the ranges that I would like. It's not wide enough at the wide end to replace a wide zoom and it's certainly not long enough to replace a portrait tele prime.
    If Canon were smart they would produce a 35-105mm f2.0 and it would sell a lot to photo journalists who would combine it with a wide zoom. Press photographers could easily combine it with a 100-300 f2.8 and a 15-35 and it's easy to see the versatility and range.
    The current 28-70mm is a bit of an odd ball lens from a focal length point of view. It's like Canon wanted to make an exotic kit lens without understanding who would want to use this lens.
    • 0
  4. They understand it very well, plently of people use the 28-70/2 because it fits them better than the 24-70/2.8 and use it well.
    It was never intended to replace a wide zoom or a portrait tele prime in the first place. But adding another fast wide-zoom to the mix makes sense.
    Lens design does not work in a way where they pick a random focal length range with a fast aperture and just do it but whatever they do it's always a compromise. (Even though 70mm where it is slightly less sharp then elsewhere, there is still loads of room for cropping.)

    Until someone does a 24-70/2 (Canon has a patent but maybe too extreme with regards to cost or optical performance, etc.) I don't see anything else as a credible alternative. It's actually a lens that can make people use this system.
    Some may love the Tamron 35-150/2-2.8 for Sony (and Nikon), but it is cheaper for a reason. It's not like 'let's just shorten it to 105 and make it constant aperture'...
    • 0
  5. I could see them complementing the RF 28-70mm f2 with something more like a RF 70-150mm f2L this would be better for wedding photographers than a 14-28mm f2 lens which would be more specialist.
    The RF 24-70mm f2.8L still sells really well and so would the RF 70-200mm f2.8L if they made a 70-150mm f2L most serious amateurs are more than happy with the f2.8L holy trinity and many pros as well. If they did make a RF 70-150mm f2L I expect it will be more expensive than the RF 28-70mm f2L.
    • 1
  6. Admin reported a 70-135mm rumour a long time ago.

    Would be a dream lens to me, especially if not (so) bigger than the RF 135mm f/1.8
    • 0
  7. A 14-28/2 would not interest me, the 14-35/4 is plenty fast for my typical UWA needs. I had the EF 16-35/2.8L II, swapped it for the EF 16-35/4 because I so rarely shot wide open (<1% of my shots).

    A 70-135/2 would possibly be of interest, though since I have the 70-200/2.8 and 100-300/2.8, I’ve already got fast options in the range.
    • 0
  8. A 14-28/2 would not interest me, the 14-35/4 is plenty fast for my typical UWA needs. I had the EF 16-35/2.8L II, swapped it for the EF 16-35/4 because I so rarely shot wide open (<1% of my shots).

    A 70-135/2 would possibly be of interest, though since I have the 70-200/2.8 and 100-300/2.8, I’ve already got fast options in the range.
    I CAN'T agree with you at all. F2 would be a dream for Astrophotographer! And the image quality of the F4L lens never competed with the F2.8L lens.
    • 0
  9. I suppose that depends on how one interprets "confirmed".
    Indeed. A recent similar CR3 post stated, "We can reportedly expect to see the Canon RF 300mm f/2.8L IS USM some time in the first half of 2023." Instead of the CR3-graded prime, we saw a 100-300/2.8 zoom. Or how about the CR3 statement that "Sigma will address the RF mount in 2022?" That was flat out wrong.

    When CRguy posts a CR3 statement about a release happening in the subsequent week or two, he's typically spot on. But when he posts as CR3 about something months away, his track record is not as good. So while I think it's likely we will see a lens that covers 500/4 in the next 4-10 months, it could be a prime or a zoom, with or without a built-in TC. So I would not take a 200-500/4 as 'confirmed' any more than the 300/2.8 prime was confirmed.

    I will also point out that the post mentions a 'nice teleconverter solution coming for both the 100-300 and 200-500 zooms' but I've read the relevant patents and they don't exemplify what many people seem to think they do. People have the impression there's a switchable 1.0x-1.4x-2.0x TC coming, but that is problematic from a physics standpoint and nothing like what the patent actually describes (which is an adapter to match image circle to sensor size). The other patent has at most two options and could be something like a 1.4x-2.0x switchable TC (i.e. a 1.4x with a flip-in 1.4x), but that design is rather ungainly to say the least.
    • 0
  10. I CAN'T agree with you at all. F2 would be a dream for Astrophotographer! And the image quality of the F4L lens never competed with the F2.8L lens.
    Fair enough, and why I stated, "my UWA needs." Agreed that an UWA f/2 lens would be great for astrophotography, assuming Canon pays attention to correcting coma and astigmatism (which they rarely seem to do).

    On the IQ side, while there was a big difference many years ago, mainly because the EF 17-40/4L was optically weak (but budget friendly). The EF 16-35/4L IS delivers IQ similar to the EF 16-35/2.8L III, and the RF 14-35/4 delivers IQ similar to the RF 15-35/2.8. There are subtle differences, but overall IQ is really not a differentiator between current FF UWA lenses. Rather, the choice comes down to an extra stop of light vs. less weight/bulk/cost. It's also not a given that a 14-28/2 would be optically as good as the current RF UWA zooms. The 28-70/2 delivers (very) slightly lower IQ compared to the RF 24-70/2.8, for example.
    • 0
  11. On the IQ side, while there was a big difference many years ago, mainly because the EF 17-40/4L was optically weak (but budget friendly).
    You are being too kind to the EF 17-40/4L. It was best used only on an APS-C body.

    I should know, as the 17-40 was my first lens in the digital era (on a 10D and then a 50D). I, too, have gone for the EF 16-35/4L IS. I'm contemplating whether to get an RF UWA at all, since I rare use one.
    • 0
  12. Indeed. A recent similar CR3 post stated, "We can reportedly expect to see the Canon RF 300mm f/2.8L IS USM some time in the first half of 2023." Instead of the CR3-graded prime, we saw a 100-300/2.8 zoom. Or how about the CR3 statement that "Sigma will address the RF mount in 2022?" That was flat out wrong.

    When CRguy posts a CR3 statement about a release happening in the subsequent week or two, he's typically spot on. But when he posts as CR3 about something months away, his track record is not as good. So while I think it's likely we will see a lens that covers 500/4 in the next 4-10 months, it could be a prime or a zoom, with or without a built-in TC. So I would not take a 200-500/4 as 'confirmed' any more than the 300/2.8 prime was confirmed.

    I will also point out that the post mentions a 'nice teleconverter solution coming for both the 100-300 and 200-500 zooms' but I've read the relevant patents and they don't exemplify what many people seem to think they do. People have the impression there's a switchable 1.0x-1.4x-2.0x TC coming, but that is problematic from a physics standpoint and nothing like what the patent actually describes (which is an adapter to match image circle to sensor size). The other patent has at most two options and could be something like a 1.4x-2.0x switchable TC (i.e. a 1.4x with a flip-in 1.4x), but that design is rather ungainly to say the least.
    I interpreted the CR3 tag to mainly address the timing, not the actual product. Who knows when this thing will daylight, especially given ongoing production issues.
    In any case, maybe the 200-500/4 is somewhere in between a rumor (gossip, wishlist item) and fact (on store shelves).
    As such I'll amend my post:

    EF 500/4 perhaps may be somewhat likely to become a zoom: RF 200-500/4
    EF 300/2.8 became a zoom: RF 100-300/2.8
    Will EF 200/2 become a zoom: RF 70-200/2?
    • 0
  13. We have been told that Canon is planning a second RF mount f/2 zoom to “compliment” the remarkable RF 28-70mm f/2L USM, which is one of the best zoom lenses ever made. The source didn’t know the focal length of the rumored lens, but did say to expect it some time in the first half

    See full article...
    Could you stop using this CR1 CR2 CR3 code terminology? I can't remember what it means even after several years on the forum. Why not just explain it in English?
    • 0
  14. Could you stop using this CR1 CR2 CR3 code terminology? I can't remember what it means even after several years on the forum. Why not just explain it in English?
    It's not hard.


    Of course, even though CR3 is 'fact' it's still a rumor until it's not, as shown by the two recent incorrect CR3 posts I mentioned above.
    • 0

Leave a comment

Please log in to your forum account to comment