# A pair of 24-70mm f/2.8L IS lenses coming in 2019? [CR2]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Sep 20, 2018)

> We’re told that Canon will definitely release an RF 24-70mm f/2.8L IS in 2019. We don’t think that is a big secret as Canon has mentioned there are a few f/2.8 zoom lenses coming next year. We also suspect a wide angle f/2.8L zoom is coming as well as an RF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS.
> The same source says Canon will likely release an EF 24-70mm f/2.8L IS sometime in 2019, possibly as early as May 2019.
> There were no details given as to when we could expect an RF 24-70mm f/2.8L IS, but suspect it’ll be in the 2nd half of next year.



Continue reading...


----------



## razorzec (Sep 20, 2018)

I wonder if they would implement a 5 stop correction to this lens like they did with the RF24-105. it's about time they standardize it across all their lenses.


----------



## Aaron D (Sep 20, 2018)

Bring an RF 24-70 2.8 IS, add a card slot and I'm IN!


----------



## Etienne (Sep 20, 2018)

I hope the RF zooms are substantially smaller and lighter than the EF versions.
I'd rather have an RF 16-35 f/4L than an f/2.8L purely based on size and weight.


----------



## Chaitanya (Sep 20, 2018)

That would be interesting. I hope Canon quickly brings some wide/ultra wide lenses for RF mount.


----------



## Kit Lens Jockey (Sep 20, 2018)

Etienne said:


> I hope the RF zooms are substantially smaller and lighter than the EF versions.
> I'd rather have an RF 16-35 f/4L than an f/2.8L purely based on size and weight.



If Sony's lenses are any guide, they won't be any smaller or lighter.

Projecting a full frame image circle onto a sensor at a wide aperture takes a lot of glass, that's just how it is. It doesn't matter all that much if you move the lens a little closer or further away from the sensor. Opens up a few more possibilities for lens design, but still...

Also... So now this news comes out the day after I finally got fed up with Canon's lack of IBIS and no stabilized 24-70 2.8 and broke down and ordered a Tamron? 

Also, are they really going to make both an EF and an RF 24-70 f2.8 IS? That's a really tough choice to make at this stage in the game, with the options for EF cameras much more rounded out than RF.

I mean I assume the RF lens will be the one that is more relevant further into the future, as I think RF cameras will eventually take over. But right now it seems kind of limiting to by an RF only lens if a similar one comes out in EF and can be used on either EF or RF cameras.


----------



## jolyonralph (Sep 20, 2018)

Kit Lens Jockey said:


> Also, are they really going to make both an EF and an RF 24-70 f2.8 IS? That's a really tough choice to make at this stage in the game, with the options for EF cameras much more rounded out than RF.
> 
> I mean I assume the RF lens will be the one that is more relevant further into the future, as I think RF cameras will eventually take over. But right now it seems kind of limiting to by an RF only lens if a similar one comes out in EF and can be used on either EF or RF cameras.



Even if the two are identically optically (which would be unlikely), and even if they were the same weight (again, unlikely), it's more than likely that the RF lens would have better autofocus speed and performance due to the new communication protocols. Whether that would be enough to make a difference in day to day shooting is anyone's guess. But you can be sure if there's a difference it'll be big in the marketing.


----------



## bokehmon22 (Sep 20, 2018)

With the news of 24-70 2.8 IS and 70-200 2.8, the likelihood of Canon release a professional FF mirrorless with high FPS 26 mpx camera is more likely vs 6DII equivalent like some people suggested here.


----------



## padam (Sep 20, 2018)

Etienne said:
I hope the RF zooms are substantially smaller and lighter than the EF versions.
I'd rather have an RF 16-35 f/4L than an f/2.8L purely based on size and weight.


Kit Lens Jockey said:


> If Sony's lenses are any guide, they won't be any smaller or lighter.


The 16-35mm f/4 IS (OSS) and f/2.8 GM Sony lenses are both a good bit lighter and smaller than the Canon EF 16-35mm f/4 IS or f/2.8 III equivalents (plus adapter) this is where some gain could be noticeable as opposed to standard zooms or tele zooms.


----------



## tmroper (Sep 20, 2018)

Kit Lens Jockey said:


> If Sony's lenses are any guide, they won't be any smaller or lighter.
> 
> Projecting a full frame image circle onto a sensor at a wide aperture takes a lot of glass, that's just how it is. It doesn't matter all that much if you move the lens a little closer or further away from the sensor. Opens up a few more possibilities for lens design, but still...



My Leica Summilux 35mm 1.4 is TINY compared to all these Canon beasts (including the 35L 1.4), and doesn't seem to have all that much glass. So it must be more a matter of the AF and IS motors, etc.


----------



## jolyonralph (Sep 20, 2018)

bokehmon22 said:


> With the news of 24-70 2.8 IS and 70-200 2.8, the likelihood of Canon release a professional FF mirrorless with high FPS 26 mpx camera is more likely vs 6DII equivalent like some people suggested here.



I'd like to think so, but I don't think they have the affordable sensor tech to be able to do that yet. If they do then the EOS R was just an emergency project to get something out quicker to take the wind out of Nikon's sails, while they complete what should have been the launch RF camera....


----------



## docsmith (Sep 20, 2018)

padam said:


> The 16-35mm f/4 IS (OSS) and f/2.8 GM Sony lenses are both a good bit lighter and smaller than the Canon EF 16-35mm f/4 IS or f/2.8 III equivalents (plus adapter) this is where some gain could be noticeable as opposed to standard zooms or tele zooms.



?

The 16-35 f/4 IS, the Sony is 518 g to Canon's 615 g. The Sony is shorter.
https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Lens-Specifications.aspx?Lens=1009&LensComp=949

The 16-35 f/2.8 the Sony is 680g to Canon's 790 g and are very similar in size:
https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Lens-Specifications.aspx?Lens=1177&LensComp=1073

Similar to the RF lenses to EF, you seem to save 10-20% in weight. In some instances, this may be significant....but in most, I view this as pretty minimal. So, I would expect RF lenses to continue this trend (no adapter needed to the EOS-R), and be 10-20% lighter.
This is why I still see the place for the M series. They are very much smaller and lighter.


----------



## Kit Lens Jockey (Sep 20, 2018)

jolyonralph said:


> Even if the two are identically optically (which would be unlikely), and even if they were the same weight (again, unlikely), it's more than likely that the RF lens would have better autofocus speed and performance due to the new communication protocols. Whether that would be enough to make a difference in day to day shooting is anyone's guess. But you can be sure if there's a difference it'll be big in the marketing.


Right, but what I'm saying is that right now there is no RF camera that comes close to the capabilities of something like a 1DX II, and it's arguable whether or not the EOS R is as good as the 5D IV.

So while there's no doubt that an RF lens could be made with more advanced technology, quicker autofocus, etc than an EF lens, if you bought one at this point, you'd be limiting yourself to not being able to use it on Canon's most capable camera.

Like others have just said, this makes it more likely that a more capable RF camera will be announced before or at the same time as this lens, to avoid the conundrum of buying a more advanced lens but only being able to use it on a less capable camera.


----------



## jolyonralph (Sep 20, 2018)

Kit Lens Jockey said:


> Right, but what I'm saying is that right now there is no RF camera that comes close to the capabilities of something like a 1DX II, and it's arguable whether or not the EOS R is as good as the 5D IV.
> 
> So while there's no doubt that an RF lens could be made with more advanced technology, quicker autofocus, etc than an EF lens, if you bought one at this point, you'd be limiting yourself to not being able to use it on Canon's most capable camera.
> 
> Like others have just said, this makes it more likely that a more capable RF camera will be announced before or at the same time as this lens, to avoid the conundrum of buying a more advanced lens but only being able to use it on a less capable camera.



I totally agree. But there are some weird people out there with only one camera body, and if that's an EOS R ..


----------



## padam (Sep 20, 2018)

docsmith said:


> ?
> 
> The 16-35 f/4 IS, the Sony is 518 g to Canon's 615 g. The Sony is shorter.
> https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Lens-Specifications.aspx?Lens=1009&LensComp=949
> ...


Yes but as I wrote the adapter should be added as well. They can make pancake lenses as well if they want to later on, although I don't see one on this picture, not sure if this is all illustration or there are future lenses presented on it. Image quality seems to be the main priority here, so yes, they've managed to separate the M system very well.


----------



## 6degrees (Sep 20, 2018)

F2.8L Zoom lenses are just reinventing the wheels and boring.

How about 100-200mm F2 or 135-200mm F2?


----------



## 6degrees (Sep 20, 2018)

Sony 24mm F1.4 GM is out, very compact.

Can Canon develop RF 24mm F1.4 or RF 20mm F1.4, for:

(1) similar image quality, but smaller and lighter? Or,

(2) similar size and weight, but better image quality?

To prove Canon RF does have advantage?


----------



## bokehmon22 (Sep 20, 2018)

jolyonralph said:


> I'd like to think so, but I don't think they have the affordable sensor tech to be able to do that yet. If they do then the EOS R was just an emergency project to get something out quicker to take the wind out of Nikon's sails, while they complete what should have been the launch RF camera....



Who knows. EOS R could be their less ambitious camera that's why it's release first. They could be saving all the best tech with the best lens line up for their professional FF mirrorless camera BUT it means releasing later to work out some of the obstacles they had to deal with.

With Samsung entering the sensor market, I would love for Canon to use their FF sensor like Panasonic was rumored to use. Samsung can definite challenge Sony for sensor dominant.


----------



## bokehmon22 (Sep 20, 2018)

6degrees said:


> F2.8L Zoom lenses are just reinventing the wheels and boring.
> 
> How about 100-200mm F2 or 135-200mm F2?


Because people would complain the weight, size and price like 28-70 F2 price at $3000. Can't please everyone beside they already have 70-130 F2 patent.


----------



## peterzuehlke (Sep 20, 2018)

I don't get it. A pro-grade standard zoom that only mounts on a consumer mirrorless body. Everyone is going to give up their one series and 5 series bodies and buy a couple of R bodies, (cause you can't put these on your old camera as a backup) for these couple of lenses. I know Canon is the 800 lb gorilla but this is pushing it.


----------



## Sharlin (Sep 20, 2018)

peterzuehlke said:


> I don't get it. A pro-grade standard zoom that only mounts on a consumer mirrorless body. Everyone is going to give up their one series and 5 series bodies and buy a couple of R bodies, (cause you can't put these on your old camera as a backup) for these couple of lenses. I know Canon is the 800 lb gorilla but this is pushing it.



Canon have been pretty clear that the R body is not the big thing. The RF mount is. Bodies come and go. A professional R body will come in due time. Those RF lenses released now will last for a decade or two.


----------



## Sharlin (Sep 20, 2018)

Aaron D said:


> Bring an RF 24-70 2.8 IS, add a card slot and I'm IN!



Agreed, it's about time Canon add a card slot to their lenses.


----------



## RayValdez360 (Sep 20, 2018)

Aaron D said:


> Bring an RF 24-70 2.8 IS, add a card slot and I'm IN!


Put the card slot in the lens and use them extra pins they are bragging about.


----------



## RayValdez360 (Sep 20, 2018)

Sharlin said:


> Canon have been pretty clear that the R body is not the big thing. The RF mount is. Bodies come and go. A professional R body will come in due time. Those RF lenses released now will last for a decade or two.


Cool, so there will be piles of RF lenses while we wait for the real camera.


----------



## Kit Lens Jockey (Sep 20, 2018)

jolyonralph said:


> I totally agree. But there are some weird people out there with only one camera body, and if that's an EOS R ..


If all you own or want to own is an EOS R, then yes, the choice is easy. But for those who have or want to have a body with 1D levels of performance, this lens offering puts them in a bind... By offering the same lens in two mounts without a top level camera with the new mount, you're forcing people who want to use the lens on a top level body to opt to buy the lens in the older, lower performance lens mount. I can't see them doing this. I would expect that a higher performance RF camera comes out so that you can both have the newer lens mount and a top performing body if you want to, not forcing you to choose between the two of those things.


----------



## peterzuehlke (Sep 20, 2018)

Sharlin said:


> Canon have been pretty clear that the R body is not the big thing. The RF mount is. Bodies come and go. A professional R body will come in due time. Those RF lenses released now will last for a decade or two.


the question is should you buy the R version 24-70 IS or the EF version now, when it is out. Since the EF goes on all the canon dslrs?


----------



## Otara (Sep 20, 2018)

Id take the lenses as a sign that a pro body isnt far away, given the almost complete lack of notice of the R being released, we just dont know when.


----------



## AJ (Sep 20, 2018)

Sounds like EF and RF will move in parallel.


----------



## BeenThere (Sep 20, 2018)

peterzuehlke said:


> the question is should you buy the R version 24-70 IS or the EF version now, when it is out. Since the EF goes on all the canon dslrs?


Many who want a 24-70 f/2.8 already have one without IS. In that situation, I would just hold on and wait for the pro R body and upgrade lens then. Of course if you are earning plenty of $$ with this lens, you just buy what you need now.


----------



## josephandrews222 (Sep 20, 2018)

C'mon Canon Rumors readers...don't some of those 1.2 images over at dpreview...don't they make you drool? Don't you want whatever lens generates those images.

I know I do!


----------



## Ozarker (Sep 21, 2018)

If a new EF 24-70mm f/2.8L IS has image quality as good as the current non-IS version it could be interesting. EF is dead. Long live EF!


----------



## jd7 (Sep 21, 2018)

josephandrews222 said:


> C'mon Canon Rumors readers...don't some of those 1.2 images over at dpreview...don't they make you drool? Don't you want whatever lens generates those images.
> 
> I know I do!


I have to say I haven't been able to get that excited about the RF 50L images over at dpreview and my initial enthusiasm for the lens has faded. The images look fine but I don't feel like they are a step above what you would get with a 50 Art or an Otus 55, albeit the RF 50L offers half a stop more. The RF 50L Am I missing something?


----------



## Aaron D (Sep 21, 2018)

Sharlin said:


> Agreed, it's about time Canon add a card slot to their lenses.



OK remember that was my idea—card slot-in-lens! Until I start getting heat for there being NO GRIP?! What?!!!


----------



## jeanluc (Sep 21, 2018)

I bet this means the next R body will be a high resolution one, despite the recent 26 mp business....

The 5dsr is due for a modern sensor, the RF lenses look very very good, a 1d mirrorless body may be harder to make for a while, and that interview with a canon exec who said high MP is on their radar are my “logic”....


----------



## Otara (Sep 21, 2018)

EF isnt dead until they start releasing 400mm 2.8 etc in RF format. The roadmap to me looks like they intend to use adapters for many lenses for years to come, while offering a few RF lenses that offer a compelling reason to get the mount, eg the new 50mm 1.2 until enough R cameras are out there to change to RF only.


----------



## Random Orbits (Sep 21, 2018)

peterzuehlke said:


> I don't get it. A pro-grade standard zoom that only mounts on a consumer mirrorless body. Everyone is going to give up their one series and 5 series bodies and buy a couple of R bodies, (cause you can't put these on your old camera as a backup) for these couple of lenses. I know Canon is the 800 lb gorilla but this is pushing it.



I think the RF 50L and the RF 28-70 f/2L are statement lenses that show Canon's intention of pushing the image quality with the new mount. They also are intended to stop defections to Sony. Sony had a 3 generation head start. It makes sense for Canon to design the entry level first and to use the lessons learned in developing the subsequent bodies.


----------



## Ozarker (Sep 21, 2018)

jd7 said:


> I have to say I haven't been able to get that excited about the RF 50L images over at dpreview and my initial enthusiasm for the lens has faded. The images look fine but I don't feel like they are a step above what you would get with a 50 Art or an Otus 55, albeit the RF 50L offers half a stop more. The RF 50L Am I missing something?


 Auto focus over the Zeiss, for one.


----------



## CarlMillerPhoto (Sep 21, 2018)

No way we'll see it in EF mount. The telephoto refreshes we saw were the last of that dead mount.


----------



## jd7 (Sep 21, 2018)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Auto focus over the Zeiss, for one.


Yes true. And perhaps weather sealing too? Still, from an IQ point of view I’m just not excited about the RF 50L at his point. It seems very good of course, but I’m not seeing anything which makes me think it’s better than what is already available for EF ... and it’s not like the RF 50L is small, light and cheap.


----------



## takesome1 (Sep 21, 2018)

A 24x70 II class lens released in RF, with or without IS, paired with the next R release and it being 50mp plus, together this equals an instant Pre-order for me.

Waiting on the future.


----------



## Ozarker (Sep 21, 2018)

jd7 said:


> Yes true. And perhaps weather sealing too? Still, from an IQ point of view I’m just not excited about the RF 50L at his point. It seems very good of course, but I’m not seeing anything which makes me think it’s better than what is already available for EF ... and it’s not like the RF 50L is small, light and cheap.



Might be true. The fact is, though, that most high end modern lenses are all very good as far as IQ. This is what I imagine, anyway. I've only used Canon and then also had a Tamron 15-30 that was good all the way around. I'm not too averse to manual focus (I have about 40 MF lenses), but AF done right is so much easier for me. My eyesight is pretty bad. 

I actually prefer the heavy lenses. They just feel right for me. As I get older I think it is important to work a little harder too.  The 28-70 f/2 is really the only thing exciting to me in R at this time. Like you, I'm waiting to see. Hoping for a better camera body before I could consider adding mirrorless. I know it is a pipe dream, but hoping they also do a longer f/2 zoom.


----------



## Jethro (Sep 21, 2018)

takesome1 said:


> A 24x70 II class lens released in RF, with or without IS, paired with the next R release and it being 50mp plus, together this equals an instant Pre-order for me.
> 
> Waiting on the future.


It's an important lens formula to have in native FFM mount for people considering committing to the EOS R (and whatever other bodies are to come). Certainly to me. I'd expect this as a bundled lens with the next (semi-pro) offering.


----------



## fullstop (Sep 21, 2018)

Etienne said:


> I hope the RF zooms are substantially smaller and lighter than the EF versions.
> I'd rather have an RF 16-35 f/4L than an f/2.8L purely based on size and weight.


yes, me too. but Canon will first do f/2.8 lenses. at least as big and more expensive than the EF ones. they want and need to establish R mount as fully "pro-grade" future Canon system ... as quickly as possible.

ofc they also need to launch at least one "pro-grade" EOS R camera- or more than one body (1. stills high speed, 2. stills hi-rez, 3. high specs video) - asap.

so i see little chance for a EF mount 24-70/2.8 L IS - unless they launch it as "final new EF lens release" along with a 1DX III for 2020 Olympics in Tokyo. But it would slow down adoption of EOS R system as "new standard" ...

Canon needs to build critical mass fast in the mirrorless FF market, they dont go for #2 or #3 slot behind Sony and Nikon.

Nikon has the same challenge. Bring a D6 and/or a Z9? Launch mor legacy F-mount lenses or not?

Interesting transitional times. Luckily as an amateur i can sit back and watch how things unfold, before i decide on my next imaging gear system. definitely no rush to buy.


----------



## edoorn (Sep 21, 2018)

Sounds good!

Now Canon needs to release a pair of balls too and bring us a pro R camera 

btw, as a pro you could sit back and wait it out too; that's what I am doing. Shooting the 5D4 for two years now and it would be economically unwise to already replace them. I won't make an extra buck doing that. Once the write off of these camera's is complete, in 2 or 3 years or so, I'll replace them and then I see what's a good system to use.


----------



## Talys (Sep 21, 2018)

fullstop said:


> Etienne said:
> 
> 
> > I hope the RF zooms are substantially smaller and lighter than the EF versions.
> ...


If you guys are hoping that Canon will make f/4 RF lenses, I'm 100% certain they will, and probably pretty quickly. I too would like this, because there are many focal lengths that I prefer a slower, lighter lens. I fear that f/4 RF's will still be quite pricey compared to EF f/4's. I mean, just look at Sony G lenses -- they are often much more expensive than EF equivalents, especially when looking at street prices.

On the other hand, if the hope is that RF f/4 or f/2.8's are going to be much smaller and lighter than EF equivalents, I think you're going to be disappointed, because there are no free rides.

Almost all of the weight and size determined by the optics and the desired durability of the lens (ie plastic EFS lens will weigh a lot less, because it's plastic). Canon can improve the optics with better glass, better coatings, better processes, whatever... but unless they have a new optical formula that produces as good an image with less glass that takes up less space, a smaller, lighter lens just isn't going to happen. And if there were such a formula, it could be used in EF as well, unless it absolutely needed a shorter FFD.

As we see with Sony and the RF's so far, from wide angle to general purpose/portraiture FL lenses, there's a tiny bit of size to be saved on the length, but not the barrel diameter, and nothing worth speaking of to be saved on the weight. As you get to telephoto focal lengths, there's nothing to be gained at all.

The mount isn't sorcery, so unless people are willing to compromise on something, like the quality of the image, or unless there is new materials science applied, like a lighter alloy, I suspect RF lenses will basically look and feel like newer, jazzier versions of EF lenses.


----------



## fullstop (Sep 21, 2018)

There are not only GM and "Zeiss"-labelled lenses for Sony FE. 

Likewise there will also be multiple lines of Canon RF lenses, "L" and "non-L":
A. Ultra-premium-L" ... 50/1.2, 28-70/2.0 and the like
B. "Pro-grade-L" - f/2.8 zooms, f/1.4 primes, big whites teles, T/S etc.
C. "Prosumer-L" ... f/4.0 zooms, eg RF 24-105
D. "Prosumer Non-L" ... eg. 24-105/3.5-6.3 "kit" lens, f 1.8-2.8 primes, macro lenses ... eg RF 35/1.8 Pseudo-Macro 1:2

At first Canon will mainly offer big, fast, "premium / ultrahigh margin" RF lenses [see 28-70/2, 50/1.2] to maximize profits by taking easy money from drooling early adopters. 

Category A and B "L" lenses will be just as big/heavy as EF lenses - if not more due to faster aperture and/or higher IQ targets - and they will definitely be more expensive.

Category C and D will hopefully allow for some size/weight savings in WA to short tele focal lengths over equivalent EF glass. Optical design advantages of well-chosen R-mount parameters are maybe "not magic" but definitely "very real". 

I also expect some small or even "pancake" RF lenses ... nice and tiny f/1.8 to f/2.8 primes anywhere from 16mm to 35mm focal lengths and some compact and affordable variable aperture xx - f/5.6 zooms - similar to e.g. EF 24-105/3.5-5.6 or even better a RF 24-120/4-5.6 ... maybe already as "kit lens" for an entry level EOS R body. Those are the RF lenses I am waiting for ... unless I get the kit I want from Sony or Nikon before Canon has got its act together. 

If Samyang can make AF lenses like 24/2.8 and 35/2.8 for less-than-optimal Sony FE mount so should Canon for much better-suited R mount ... even with IS added. It is definitely POSSIBLE. Just do it. I'd buy them even at 50% higher price than the Samyangs.


----------



## Phil995511 (Sep 21, 2018)

It's time he finally arrived on the market !!


----------



## RGF (Sep 21, 2018)

24-70 F2.8 would be nice but canon needs to introduce some pro / prosumer R cameras first.

Great glass on a mediocre body is like lipstick on a pig


----------



## RayValdez360 (Sep 21, 2018)

The real question is will the RF mount be put on a an upcoming cinema camera. Canon is being really secretive about the entire future of RF.


----------



## Apfelmark (Sep 21, 2018)

RayValdez360 said:


> The real question is will the RF mount be put on a an upcoming cinema camera. Canon is being really secretive about the entire future of RF.


Curious about this, too. The single most compelling feature of my Cinema EOS over any DSLx is the built in ND. Don't think that 20mm flange distance leaves enough room for that shuffle kind ND from the C100, but only an electronic VND.


----------



## CarlMillerPhoto (Sep 21, 2018)

Apfelmark said:


> Curious about this, too. The single most compelling feature of my Cinema EOS over any DSLx is the built in ND. Don't think that 20mm flange distance leaves enough room for that shuffle kind ND from the C100, but only an electronic VND.



I was looking inside my C100 and the ND internals are surprisingly thin. I think they'd be able to fit it in with the 20mm flange. Not having internal NDs would be a complete non-starter for a cinema camera.


----------



## Sharlin (Sep 21, 2018)

RayValdez360 said:


> Put the card slot in the lens and use them extra pins they are bragging about.



Maybe they could make an EF-RF adapter where instead of a filter you can insert a memory card


----------



## Apfelmark (Sep 21, 2018)

CarlMillerPhoto said:


> I was looking inside my C100 and the ND internals are surprisingly thin. I think they'd be able to fit it in with the 20mm flange. Not having internal NDs would be a complete non-starter for a cinema camera.


The distance of the whole mechanics including the front protective glass to the sensor looks like about 20mm, maybe a bit more. Adding the mount probably exceeds the available distance. Some EF lenses even protrude into the mount, so you can't just consume all that available space with a ND.
Hope we'll see the answer early next year.


----------



## Etienne (Sep 21, 2018)

peterzuehlke said:


> I don't get it. A pro-grade standard zoom that only mounts on a consumer mirrorless body. Everyone is going to give up their one series and 5 series bodies and buy a couple of R bodies, (cause you can't put these on your old camera as a backup) for these couple of lenses. I know Canon is the 800 lb gorilla but this is pushing it.


Obviously you missed the memos plastered over the entire photo world: Canon's future is mirrorless, as clearly evidenced by the R mount 24-70 f/2 and 50 f/1.2


----------



## Etienne (Sep 21, 2018)

Talys said:


> If you guys are hoping that Canon will make f/4 RF lenses, I'm 100% certain they will, and probably pretty quickly. I too would like this, because there are many focal lengths that I prefer a slower, lighter lens. I fear that f/4 RF's will still be quite pricey compared to EF f/4's. I mean, just look at Sony G lenses -- they are often much more expensive than EF equivalents, especially when looking at street prices.
> 
> On the other hand, if the hope is that RF f/4 or f/2.8's are going to be much smaller and lighter than EF equivalents, I think you're going to be disappointed, because there are no free rides.
> 
> ...


They will likely be smaller and lighter. Sony's f/4 16-35 is smaller (1" shorter) and lighter (by 100g), and it performs better than the Canon version. That is significant.


----------



## scyrene (Sep 21, 2018)

jd7 said:


> Yes true. And perhaps weather sealing too? Still, from an IQ point of view I’m just not excited about the RF 50L at his point. It seems very good of course, but I’m not seeing anything which makes me think it’s better than what is already available for EF ... and it’s not like the RF 50L is small, light and cheap.



Well compared to the Otus aside from adding AF the Canon is also a bit cheaper. Over the Art, I guess the AF is more reliable, and maybe other things like sealing and build quality? Also over both it has 1/3 stop more aperture, although that makes little practical difference. Surely we're pushing the very edge of what's possible at 50mm now - it's good there are several options providing excellent sharpness etc. But expecting the new Canon 50mm to be much better again than these newer lenses (rather than the old 50mm f/1.2 which it seems to trounce) is probably unrealistic.


----------



## scyrene (Sep 21, 2018)

CarlMillerPhoto said:


> No way we'll see it in EF mount. The telephoto refreshes we saw were the last of that dead mount.



LOL


----------



## edoorn (Sep 21, 2018)

these lenses are targeted at a higher positioned camera than the one that's about to released, at least that's what I am thinking. A pro version in 2019?


----------



## dock77 (Sep 21, 2018)

I guess the question is do you go with RF lenses and give up the ND filter adapter, which I'm really looking forward for video shooting?


----------



## Architect1776 (Sep 21, 2018)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...



Very exciting. Can't afford the R series yet but am saving to convert to it. I would like the new normal range zoom but unless they really blow things out of the water will keep my 100-400mm MII and other EF lenses. But all in all I am really liking the direction this is going.


----------



## Talys (Sep 21, 2018)

Etienne said:


> They will likely be smaller and lighter. Sony's f/4 16-35 is smaller (1" shorter) and lighter (by 100g), and it performs better than the Canon version. That is significant.



It's only on the wide angle lenses that you see a little bit of length difference; as the FL increases to general purpose and telephoto lengths, there is no size benefit at all, and 100g is a variance that you see from Sony to Canon EF lenses one way or the other, keeping in mind that the internals are not the same; one uses STM and the other has mechanical focus, the manufacture materials, especially on the f/4's can be quite different.

Specifically on the wide angle trinity zooms, the size/weight of a 16-35 (whether f/4 or f/2.8) was never an issue. for me. I mean, I could hold one all day on a full size DSLR body and never tire; even so, I'm not really sure why I would such a wide lens. Starting at 24-70 and especially at 70-200, where I am likely to get a lot more hours holding it at eye level, the f/2.8 get heavier and larger than f/4 lenses, to the point where I often prefer the f/4 for weight reasons.

If there were a way to make a 70-200/2.8 IS , without any sacrifices, in the size and weight of a 70-200/4 IS, I would preorder one in a heartbeat even if it cost four times today's price for 70-200/2.8, but I literally think this is impossible without a revolution in optics.


----------



## Graphic.Artifacts (Sep 21, 2018)

Canon double's down on Lens IS over IBIS.

Seems like the overall market has already decided that it would prefer IBIS. Canon should be out there making the case for IS over IBIS if that is the way they are going. I get that IS may be the best solution for telephoto lenses but why is it better for a 24-70 f2.8 and if it is why did they just release a 24-70 f2.8 without it.

... edited to delete some bitching


----------



## tron (Sep 21, 2018)

Graphic.Artifacts said:


> Canon double's down on Lens IS over IBIS.
> 
> Seems like the overall market has already decided that it would prefer IBIS. Canon should be out there making the case for IS over IBIS if that is the way they are going. I get that IS may be the best solution for telephoto lenses but why is it better for a 24-70 f2.8 and if it is why did they just release a 24-70 f2.8 without it.
> 
> ... edited to delete some bitching


Maybe the reason they try to avoid it is described by your nickname!


----------



## Random Orbits (Sep 21, 2018)

Graphic.Artifacts said:


> Canon double's down on Lens IS over IBIS.
> 
> Seems like the overall market has already decided that it would prefer IBIS. Canon should be out there making the case for IS over IBIS if that is the way they are going. I get that IS may be the best solution for telephoto lenses but why is it better for a 24-70 f2.8 and if it is why did they just release a 24-70 f2.8 without it.
> 
> ... edited to delete some bitching



Lens IS is better than IBIS. But the best is having both lens IS and IBIS working together. The Canon body with IBIS will come, and when it does, it'll be great because so many Canon lenses already have IS.


----------



## Graphic.Artifacts (Sep 21, 2018)

tron said:


> Maybe the reason they try to avoid it is described by your nickname!


Nice one! Been stuck in the office all week editing which allways puts me in a sour mood. Think I'll go for a walk.


----------



## Graphic.Artifacts (Sep 21, 2018)

Random Orbits said:


> Lens IS is better than IBIS. But the best is having both lens IS and IBIS working together. The Canon body with IBIS will come, and when it does, it'll be great because so many Canon lenses already have IS.


That'd be great if it happens.


----------



## lenspacker (Sep 22, 2018)

it´s a dilemma - - on the one hand I try to start with the new R-system and with the new designed lenses. On the other hand, I can`t use the R-lenses on my old 5d and 1d - bodies - - so I prefer to buy the lens with the old system and use an adapter for the R-system. But what is the future - in this case I have a lot of ef-lenses and no R-lenses - and i have to use an adapter for the next 10... years. At the moment I`m not happy with these options....


----------



## Etienne (Sep 22, 2018)

Random Orbits said:


> Lens IS is better than IBIS. But the best is having both lens IS and IBIS working together. The Canon body with IBIS will come, and when it does, it'll be great because so many Canon lenses already have IS.


Lens IS is not better than IBIS, especially when the lens doesn't have IS, and Canon continues to release lenses without IS. I suspect that Canon is still working on IBIS but have not got it right yet.
IBIS can compensate for rotation, keeping the horizon stable for instance. Lens IS cannot do that.


----------



## jonbenz (Sep 22, 2018)

I was expecting all the new lenses comming to this new mount were at least one stop faster (with all this buzz/engineering-justification for dropping EF mount). Otherwise, it seems to me just a very expensive (paint job/aesthetics) updated EF version.


----------



## kaptainkatsu (Sep 22, 2018)

the 24-70 2.8 is the missing lens in my lineup because 1: I don't particularly use that focal length zoom range and 2: waiting for an IS version. If Canon releases both an RF and EF version I would be torn on which version to get. I really want to love the EOS R but the video specs just don't do it for me. I can deal with the 4K crop (I have the 10-18 EFS lens) and fine with just 4k30 (I have a 1DX2 that can do 4K60) but what really is a bummer is no 1080p120. I can almost make do with the 720p1080 but there is no autofocus with that mode on the EOS R. 

I went to a Canon demo and did handle an EOS R and I really love the ergonomics and functionality of the new camera. But again the video specs are lack luster. I may just wait for the next version or buy an A7III or possibly round out my lens lineup a bit better (35 1.4 and 85 1.4 are calling for me)


----------



## Dantana (Sep 22, 2018)

jonbenz said:


> I was expecting all the new lenses comming to this new mount were at least one stop faster (with all this buzz/engineering-justification for dropping EF mount). Otherwise, it seems to me just a very expensive (paint job/aesthetics) updated EF version.



So, you expected nothing but bigger, heavier lenses? That seems pretty limited.


----------



## jonbenz (Sep 22, 2018)

Dantana said:


> So, you expected nothing but bigger, heavier lenses? That seems pretty limited.



I understand that there is not as easy as it sounds, but for instance, they made a new mount expensier bigger heavier lens with the same speed (RF 50mm 1.2L vs EF 50mm 1.2L). And for that they are charging 900$ more. Ok, it is far much better optically but what would you expect from an updated 12 years old formula and tech?

I think they wouldn't charge that much if it were released in EF mount (just an opinion).

I'm not an optical engineer and really don't know how big and heavy it would result a zoom lens 24-70 2.0 L. I guess we all dream about one of these with at least the same size it already has.

Regards


----------



## AuroraChaserDoug (Sep 22, 2018)

jonbenz said:


> I understand that there is not as easy as it sounds, but for instance, they made a new mount expensier bigger heavier lens with the same speed (RF 50mm 1.2L vs EF 50mm 1.2L). And for that they are charging 900$ more. Ok, it is far much better optically but what would you expect from an updated 12 years old formula and tech?
> 
> I think they wouldn't charge that much if it were released in EF mount (just an opinion).
> 
> ...


The RF 28-70mm F/2.0 has 95mm filter threads. It would have been even larger if it was a 24-70mm. That's big glass. 

I agree that a new EF 50mm f/1.2L would not have seen a $900 uptick in pricing but the RF 50mm f/1.2L is not the same lens with a different mount. I believe the RF 50mm f/1.2L is Canon making a statement as to the future of the RF mount and EOS R. The sharper glass of the RF mount will take advantage of 75-100 MP sensors. Maybe an RF 24-70mm f/2.8 will go back to a 77mm filter thread and still be sharper than the EF 24-70mm f2.8L. Even if an RF 24-70 f/2.8 keeps the 82mm filter thread, it would be worth it if it had IS.


----------



## jd7 (Sep 22, 2018)

scyrene said:


> Well compared to the Otus aside from adding AF the Canon is also a bit cheaper. Over the Art, I guess the AF is more reliable, and maybe other things like sealing and build quality? Also over both it has 1/3 stop more aperture, although that makes little practical difference. Surely we're pushing the very edge of what's possible at 50mm now - it's good there are several options providing excellent sharpness etc. But expecting the new Canon 50mm to be much better again than these newer lenses (rather than the old 50mm f/1.2 which it seems to trounce) is probably unrealistic.


I could believe the Canon RF 50L may have an edge in build quality over the Sigma Art - the Canon L gear does seem to be generally very well built. That said, I have never had a reason to question the build quality of either of my two Art lenses (or my Sigma 85 EX) and I don't really know. As for AF, I haven't been unhappy with the AF on my Sigma Arts but I know some people seem to have problems with their copies so not sure what to think about AF. Anyway, will be interesting to see how the Sigma lenses go with the on sensor AF system in the EOS R.

As for it being unrealistic to expect something much better than lenses like the 50 Art and Otus 55, that may be right but the point is I'm not seeing the RF 50L as demonstrating the new RF mount offering a significant IQ advantage over the EF mount. And while the RF 28-70/2L is offering something we haven't seen in the EF mount, I am not aware of anyone making a 1.5kg 28-70 EF mount lens at all, so I wonder what would be possible if someone wanted to make it. Obviously it's early days yet and maybe other RF lenses will show the RF mount does allow higher IQ, I'm just saying I don't feel excited about the RF 50L by what I've seen so far.


----------



## Talys (Sep 22, 2018)

jd7 said:


> As for it being unrealistic to expect something much better than lenses like the 50 Art and Otus 55, that may be right but the point is I'm not seeing the RF 50L as demonstrating the new RF mount offering a significant IQ advantage over the EF mount. And while the RF 28-70/2L is offering something we haven't seen in the EF mount, I am not aware of anyone making a 1.5kg 28-70 EF mount lens at all, so I wonder what would be possible if someone wanted to make it. Obviously it's early days yet and maybe other RF lenses will show the RF mount does allow higher IQ, I'm just saying I don't feel excited about the RF 50L by what I've seen so far.



I don't see why anyone would expect a new lens mount mean better image quality. The only thing that you get is a shorter FFD, and I don't think that any camera manufacturer or lens manufacturer has ever said that longer FFDs hinder image quality. Other than the distance to the sensor, RF has no impact at all on what's possible for image quality. They can add a hundred more contacts or take them all out, and the image that hits the sensor won't be any different. At the end of the day, the optics are independent of the electronics.

That said, I think it's ok for us to expect Nikon and Canon to launch some awesome new lenses in conjunction with these splashy new bodies, and with Tokyo 2020 around the corner. I mean, why not, right?

Also, with regards to the current EF50L 1.2, I don't think anyone really assumed that Canon couldn't build a sharper lens. Just, for various reasons (a legitimate one being, I think, most photographers buying an f/1.2 lens aren't looking for pixel-peeping sharpness in that lens).

Incidentally, I will guess that Canon has a nice new 70-200/2.8 design that they're holding back for an RF launch, though I would expect it to not be meaningfully lighter or smaller than the current EF version.


----------



## RayValdez360 (Sep 22, 2018)

A dude did a vdieo about IBIS from Sony vs Lens IS
from Canon and the results were almost identical. At the end the dude said IBIS is better because it works any lens


----------



## jd7 (Sep 22, 2018)

Talys said:


> I don't see why anyone would expect a new lens mount mean better image quality. The only thing that you get is a shorter FFD, and I don't think that any camera manufacturer or lens manufacturer has ever said that longer FFDs hinder image quality. Other than the distance to the sensor, RF has no impact at all on what's possible for image quality. They can add a hundred more contacts or take them all out, and the image that hits the sensor won't be any different. At the end of the day, the optics are independent of the electronics.


Guess you were late to the party  See page 9 Canon's EOS R system white paper
http://www.canonrumors.com/eosr/canon_eos_r_white_paper.pdf

To be fair they seem to be concentrating on the edges of the image area more than the centre ... but looking at the TDP lens tests I don't see the RF 50/1.2L dominating in the corners either.



Talys said:


> Also, with regards to the current EF50L 1.2, I don't think anyone really assumed that Canon couldn't build a sharper lens. Just, for various reasons (a legitimate one being, I think, most photographers buying an f/1.2 lens aren't looking for pixel-peeping sharpness in that lens).


I am happy with the IQ from Art but I've always liked the rendering of the EF 50/1.2L too. I certainly don't think sharpness is the only thing that matters.


----------



## SilverBox (Sep 22, 2018)

tmroper said:


> My Leica Summilux 35mm 1.4 is TINY compared to all these Canon beasts (including the 35L 1.4), and doesn't seem to have all that much glass. So it must be more a matter of the AF and IS motors, etc.


While the af motors take up some space, Leica has different design parameters when designing lenses, they optimize for optics and compactness with little regard to cost or production time. Canon could probably make a smaller 35mm f/1.4 but will the public spend 2-3x as much for that lens? You can get a 24-70ii and a 70-200ii for the price of the Summuilux. 

Roger over at lensrentals gets into it a bit in the comments on this article


----------



## Cali Capture (Sep 22, 2018)

2020 folks! When it comes to the R mount keep 2020 in mind. Then think Japan. Then put it all together and you say, Oh the Olympics are in JAPAN in 2020! So when will they be releasing a D style body for the R mount? It's 2019 in a few months so this looks like it will be right in their wheelhouse. I would expect a high MP version within a year, especially to take advantage of the great pop in filter adapter!


----------



## masterpix (Sep 22, 2018)

For most people, myself for example, a series of zoom lenses: 11-24mm, 24-105mm, 100-400mm covers a full range, That might appeal enough to convert to the R series.


----------



## Tremotino (Sep 22, 2018)

jolyonralph said:


> I totally agree. But there are some weird people out there with only one camera body, and if that's an EOS R ..


I'm one of these


----------



## Cali Capture (Sep 22, 2018)

masterpix said:


> For most people, myself for example, a series of zoom lenses: 11-24mm, 24-105mm, 100-400mm covers a full range, That might appeal enough to convert to the R series.


The EOS 11-24 with the drop in filter on an R body is probably a better option than a new 11-24mm R lens. This will allow you to put some really great filter on an otherwise filter restricted lens. I'm waiting for a higher MP R body for my EOS 11-24mm, I think it will be a great tool. Also curious what a circular polarizer would do on such a wide lens.


----------



## jolyonralph (Sep 22, 2018)

Shouldn't it be possible to use a linear polarizer on mirrorless?


----------



## dcm (Sep 22, 2018)

linear versus circular polarizers - I think this will answer your question.

https://luminous-landscape.com/polarizers/


----------



## jolyonralph (Sep 23, 2018)

dcm said:


> linear versus circular polarizers - I think this will answer your question.
> 
> https://luminous-landscape.com/polarizers/



Doesn't really answer the question at all, unfortunately. Metering and focus on a DLSR are done entirely differently to how they're done on a mirrorless camera. 

In any SLR the mirror uses a beam splitter which gets screwed up if you put a linear polarizer in front of it.

My understanding is that on a mirrorless camera a linear polarizer makes no difference to a circular polarizer in terms of focusing and metering capabilities - unless there is other internal wizardry that relies on quirks of light polarization which I'm not aware of. 

In which case linear polarizing filters, which can produce a much more dramatic effect, can be used! 

Now, in either case, I wouldn't want to use either a linear or circular polarizer with the 11-24 or even the 16-35 at the wide end when there is blue sky or it will ruin your shots 100%.


----------



## Ladislav (Sep 23, 2018)

I almost have a feeling that now when they have "a premium" RF mount they will just release for EF whatever they had for it in testing for years just to justify the development they put into it. I even don't need it to have as good IQ as non-IS version. Just to be a solid premium L performer with solid build, AF and IS and I will go for it. Half of my catalog is taken by 24-70 and with style of my shooting I can't be without IS. I may need to go for 24-105 Mk.II for now because my Tamron is already beaten a lot and I'm not going for 3rd party option again for my main lens.

While I'm impressed by EOS R, I'm not an early adopter and I'm not impressed by battery life of MILC systems. Anything I save on weight of the body I will loose on carrying additional batteries. I would much rather stay with DSLR and EF mount for few more years. If Canon releases 24-70/2.8 L IS, I will most probably buy second 5D4 as well because I will be set for many years to come.


----------



## tron (Sep 23, 2018)

Etienne said:


> I hope the RF zooms are substantially smaller and lighter than the EF versions.
> I'd rather have an RF 16-35 f/4L than an f/2.8L purely based on size and weight.


You may hope but this seems hardly the case. The RF 24-105 may seem smaller and lighter than EF 24-105 4L IS II BUT it has the same size and weight with EF24-105 4L IS (= the first version).


----------



## fullstop (Sep 23, 2018)

tron said:


> You may hope but this seems hardly the case. The RF 24-105 may seem smaller and lighter than EF 24-105 4L IS II BUT it has the same size and weight with EF24-105 4L IS (= the first version).



RF 24-105 is noticably smaller and optically overall a bit better than the current EF 24-105 II. The only comparison that makes sense. 

But I would have also hoped for a more significant size reduction.


----------



## tron (Sep 23, 2018)

fullstop said:


> RF 24-105 is noticably smaller and optically overall a bit better than the current EF 24-105 II. The only comparison that makes sense.
> 
> But I would have also hoped for a more significant size reduction.


If you read Canon's white paper you will see that neither is better than the other. In some cases it is better and in some worse (it contains MTF charts). There is no clear winner. Try and search it. You will find it. Also the EF24-105 II is no better than the version I for the same reason. You can find this on many sites (TDP, DxoMark, etc). The only real advantage for me is the better IS (5 stops vs 4 stops for the EF 24-105 II and 3 stops for the older 24-105 L). Nothing else. And 5 stop IS seems that it will be the new norm since Canon included it in the new 400 and 600 big white lenses. Which I welcome of course!


----------



## fullstop (Sep 23, 2018)

i've read the white paper and was the first one to link it in this forum. 

Overall I prefer the (theoretical MTF chart-based) IQ of RF 24-105 over EF Mk. II. And it is smaller.


----------



## tron (Sep 23, 2018)

fullstop said:


> i've read the white paper and was the first one to link it in this forum.
> 
> Overall I prefer the (theoretical MTF chart-based) IQ of RF 24-105 over EF Mk. II. And it is smaller.


Smaller than the II not the I. And to say overall means nothing. You are just biased towards the R system in order to support your arguments. The RF 24-105 is not better than 24-105 II and not smaller than 24-105 I. All 3 have similar IQ. I would only understand if you had a special need for RF 50 1.2 which really is better than the ancient EF.


----------



## Roy Hunte (Sep 24, 2018)

Kit Lens Jockey said:


> If Sony's lenses are any guide, they won't be any smaller or lighter.
> 
> Projecting a full frame image circle onto a sensor at a wide aperture takes a lot of glass, that's just how it is. It doesn't matter all that much if you move the lens a little closer or further away from the sensor. Opens up a few more possibilities for lens design, but still...
> 
> ...


Trade in later,lol.


----------



## Roy Hunte (Sep 24, 2018)

6degrees said:


> F2.8L Zoom lenses are just reinventing the wheels and boring.
> 
> How about 100-200mm F2 or 135-200mm F2?


They would be massive.


----------



## Random Orbits (Sep 24, 2018)

Etienne said:


> Lens IS is not better than IBIS, especially when the lens doesn't have IS, and Canon continues to release lenses without IS. I suspect that Canon is still working on IBIS but have not got it right yet.
> IBIS can compensate for rotation, keeping the horizon stable for instance. Lens IS cannot do that.



Uh yes, lens IS is better than IBIS. A lens without IS does not have lens IS, now does it?


----------



## Etienne (Sep 24, 2018)

fullstop said:


> i've read the white paper and was the first one to link it in this forum.
> 
> Overall I prefer the (theoretical MTF chart-based) IQ of RF 24-105 over EF Mk. II. And it is smaller.



100%
I'll take every bit of size and weight reduction that I can get. I use 16-50mm for 80-90% of my photo/video. In fact my most common kit with the 5D3 was 16-35mm f/2.8L with 50mm f/1.4 and/or 35mm f/2 IS (sold those, except the 35 f/2 IS, looking for replacements now). Next most common is 85mm, then everything else.
I welcome the size and weight reduction in the wide/normal range. Plus: shoot video looking through the viewfinder, see everything through EVF in low light, see settings in EVF while shooting. The biggest disappointments in EOS-R so far are: No IBIS, weak 4K, and incomplete video tools (zebra, audio levels during record etc). Canon will probably get it right eventually, though I wonder why they omit the video tools in a camera that they say is videocentric.


----------



## Etienne (Sep 24, 2018)

Random Orbits said:


> Uh yes, lens IS is better than IBIS. A lens without IS does not have lens IS, now does it?



IBIS gives IS to every lens. Is it really that hard to understand?


----------



## tron (Sep 24, 2018)

305g for the RF 35 1.8 vs the 335g for the EF 35 2.0 IS.

Yes serious weight reduction. I can see it. And 3.5mm shorter with same diameter. Wow! I can see that too.
And ONE more time: All 3 24-105 L lenses have about the same IQ and the RF 24-105 has EXACTLY the same size with EF 24-105L f/4 IS (version 1) and weighs 30grams more (=practical the same weight).


----------



## tron (Sep 24, 2018)

Etienne said:


> IBIS gives IS to every lens. Is it really that hard to understand?


It is not! There are many nice-to excellent lenses without IS which would benefit from IBIS. However IBIS is really useful only if it is 100% artifact free in all possible handshake cases. I do not know about its latest implementations but we can always google it.


----------



## Random Orbits (Sep 24, 2018)

Etienne said:


> IBIS gives IS to every lens. Is it really that hard to understand?


It's not hard to understand at all. What I said was that lens IS is more effective than IBIS, and then you replied that IBIS is better than lens IS when the lens doesn't have IS. That makes no sense because that is a no IS case. Lens IS + IBIS > Lens IS > IBIS > no IS.

If all the R common zooms are IS (16-35/24-70 and naturally all the telephotos already are), then IBIS is less necessary for a lot of cases. The RF 28-70 doesn't have IS, but it's geared toward even shooters and there subject movement dictates shutter speeds much more than IS. At 3+ lb, I can't see many people using the 28-70 as a general purpose lens -- a RF 24-70 f/2.8 IS makes more sense.


----------



## Quirkz (Sep 25, 2018)

Aaron D said:


> Bring an RF 24-70 2.8 IS, add a card slot and I'm IN!



Card slot on the lens? Intriguing.


----------



## Hector1970 (Sep 25, 2018)

I think this is the future fate of EF lens. Nothing new that's not already well into the pipeline will be delivered. IS will be added where its missing and perhaps new coatings but no fundamentally new lens. They will slowly fade away. In time there will probably be great second hand bargains. I couldn't see the current EF gear holding its value with the new mount.


----------



## tron (Sep 25, 2018)

Quirkz said:


> Card slot on the lens? Intriguing.


Add a sensor too and we don't need a camera


----------



## Aaron D (Sep 25, 2018)

Quirkz said:


> Card slot on the lens? Intriguing.



I know, I know…. I should also ask for a neck strap.


----------



## FramerMCB (Sep 25, 2018)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Auto focus over the Zeiss, for one.


And quite a bit cheaper for another...


----------



## jeffa4444 (Sep 28, 2018)

Etienne said:


> I hope the RF zooms are substantially smaller and lighter than the EF versions.
> I'd rather have an RF 16-35 f/4L than an f/2.8L purely based on size and weight.



They are not.


----------



## Michael Clark (Oct 2, 2018)

Etienne said:


> IBIS gives IS to every lens. Is it really that hard to understand?



The same amount of sensor movement that gives four stops of IS to a 50mm lens only gives one stop of IS to a 200mm lens, and only one-half stop to a 400mm lens. Is it really that hard to understand?


----------



## Etienne (Oct 2, 2018)

Michael Clark said:


> The same amount of sensor movement that gives four stops of IS to a 50mm lens only gives one stop of IS to a 200mm lens, and only one-half stop to a 400mm lens. Is it really that hard to understand?



A camera with IBIS can still use lenses with IS. Apparently not everyone can understand that, so I had to spell it out for you.


----------



## Michael Clark (Oct 2, 2018)

Etienne said:


> A camera with IBIS can still use lenses with IS. Apparently not everyone can understand that, so I had to spell it out for you.



If the lens based IS is being used and the camera based IS is disabled, then the cost of the camera based IS is useless and an unnecessary expense for the user who only uses telephoto lenses on a particular camera body. For IBIS and LBIS to work together requires another level of software development that also adds considerable cost to the system. Even Sony hasn't got there yet, and they rush everything to market before it's been tested properly.

No one is saying IBIS is not useful. We're only saying that sometimes it may be better than LBIS, but sometimes, though, it is not.


----------



## Etienne (Oct 2, 2018)

Michael Clark said:


> If the lens based IS is being used and the camera based IS is disabled, then the cost of the camera based IS is useless and an unnecessary expense for the user who only uses telephoto lenses on a particular camera body. For IBIS and LBIS to work together requires another level of software development that also adds considerable cost to the system. Even Sony hasn't got there yet, and they rush everything to market before it's been tested properly.
> 
> No one is saying IBIS is not useful. We're only saying that sometimes it may be better than LBIS, but sometimes, though, it is not.



Some of us want both options. There are already plenty of cameras without IBIS, but very few with. I would gladly pay extra for IBIS, and when, or if, needed, just turn it off.


----------

