# Further confirmation that the RF 15-35mm f/2.8L IS & RF 24-70mm f/2.8L IS are coming in September



## Canon Rumors Guy (Aug 7, 2019)

> We recently reported that 2 of the three lenses for the RF mount “holy trinity” would be coming in September, and it looks like Nokishita is reporting the same thing.
> Both the RF 15-35mm f/2.8L IS & RF 24-70mm f/2.8L IS have been added to the official product list from Canon and you can expect preordering to start within the next 3-4 weeks.
> As previously mentioned, the RF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS is scheduled to come in December of this year to complete the trinity.



Continue reading...


----------



## Gazwas (Aug 7, 2019)

Let's hope these lenses are released along side the 70MP + high resolution RS camera that has recently been talked about.


----------



## justaCanonuser (Aug 7, 2019)

The RF 24-70mm f/2.8L IS isn't a surprise. It is a sort of gold standard in the standard zoom range, and not all RF system users will be prepared buy the f/2 L version. Surely a fantastic lens, but expensive, big & heavy, and some people will miss IS.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 7, 2019)

justaCanonuser said:


> The RF 24-70mm f/2.8L IS isn't a surprise. It is a sort of gold standard in the standard zoom range, and not all RF system users will be prepared buy the f/2 L version. Surely a fantastic lens, but expensive, big & heavy, and some people will miss IS.


Agreed, except personally I’d miss the 24-28mm range not the IS. If the R was my primary camera, I’d be very interested in the RF 24-70/2.8 IS. For my current use of the R (mainly a travel camera), I’ll stick with the 24-105, or perhaps I will pick up the 24-240 when that comes out, depending on image quality.

The EF 24-70/2.8 II remains my most-used lens on the 1D X.


----------



## caffetin (Aug 7, 2019)

rf collection of lenses prob will be perfect combination with future r cameras.but very,very expensive.so it will be my dream to own it.


----------



## Viggo (Aug 7, 2019)

I don’t even use wide angle, but man I would love to have that 15-35 and 28-70


----------



## rosstcorbett (Aug 7, 2019)

Regarding British pricing, does anybody think the 15-35 may come slightly under £2000? The EF 16-35iii is around £1800 so I'm hoping it won't be a big price jump.


----------



## xanbarksdale (Aug 7, 2019)

Still wondering what price will be...


----------



## amorse (Aug 7, 2019)

Oh I want that 15-35 and I don't even have an RF mount camera yet.


----------



## PGSanta (Aug 7, 2019)

Awesome. I’m definitely preordering the 15-35. 
As for pricing, I don’t think there’s any chance it comes in under $2k; with the extra 1mm on the wide end, and IS, I’d be shocked if it was under $2299 on release.


----------



## Del Paso (Aug 7, 2019)

rosstcorbett said:


> Regarding British pricing, does anybody think the 15-35 may come slightly under £2000? The EF 16-35iii is around £1800 so I'm hoping it won't be a big price jump.


You could buy it in another EEC country, prices are often lower in Germany for instance, and still: zero custom duties...


----------



## jolyonralph (Aug 7, 2019)

Del Paso said:


> You could buy it in another EEC country, prices are often lower in Germany for instance, and still: zero custom duties...



As long as you buy it before the end of October!


----------



## Rivermist (Aug 7, 2019)

PGSanta said:


> Awesome. I’m definitely preordering the 15-35.
> As for pricing, I don’t think there’s any chance it comes in under $2k; with the extra 1mm on the wide end, and IS, I’d be shocked if it was under $2299 on release.


Agreed that the extra 1mm makes a difference, but I may wait before pulling the trigger on this one (I have the 16-35 IS L) first to see prices go down a bit and also to see what they do in the wider bracket, 12-24 or something like that. I love my 11-24L but it is very heavy, bulky and conspicuous, would the R mount and 12mm at the low end make the resulting lens much lighter and smaller? A manageable RF 12-22 or 12-24 would replace both the EF 11-24 and EF 16-35 IS in my bag. The RF 70-200 is an easier bet, while I like the quality of the 70-200 IS L 4 it is large for its zoom range, so the same zoom range in a smaller format and 2.8 is a no-brainer.


----------



## rosstcorbett (Aug 7, 2019)

Rivermist said:


> Agreed that the extra 1mm makes a difference, but I may wait before pulling the trigger on this one (I have the 16-35 IS L) first to see prices go down a bit and also to see what they do in the wider bracket, 12-24 or something like that. I love my 11-24L but it is very heavy, bulky and conspicuous, would the R mount and 12mm at the low end make the resulting lens much lighter and smaller? A manageable RF 12-22 or 12-24 would replace both the EF 11-24 and EF 16-35 IS in my bag. The RF 70-200 is an easier bet, while I like the quality of the 70-200 IS L 4 it is large for its zoom range, so the same zoom range in a smaller format and 2.8 is a no-brainer.



Are you using the 16-35 IS for video or just photography? I have been looking at that for video work but concerned about the focus noise with it not being a nano usm.


----------



## Viggo (Aug 7, 2019)

rosstcorbett said:


> Are you using the 16-35 IS for video or just photography? I have been looking at that for video work but concerned about the focus noise with it not being a nano usm.


Record sound off camera.


----------



## Rivermist (Aug 7, 2019)

Viggo said:


> Record sound off camera.


I do not do much video and for that I use the SL 2 and 18-135 STM lens, the crop format gives better depth of field at similar frame angles and the camera-lens is very compact. To answer your question I do not have experience shooting video with that lens. I'm away from home now but I can check this evening to give you some idea of the noise issue, if there is one.


----------



## xanbarksdale (Aug 7, 2019)

PGSanta said:


> Awesome. I’m definitely preordering the 15-35.
> As for pricing, I don’t think there’s any chance it comes in under $2k; with the extra 1mm on the wide end, and IS, I’d be shocked if it was under $2299 on release.



Agreed...really wondering if it's going to be closer to 2k or 3k. Keeping my fingers crossed!


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 7, 2019)

Interesting dilemma, the 11-24 doesn't take filters - until you put it on an adapter for the R, its f4 but way wider and doesn't have IS, however it will work on EF and RF; the RF 15-35 will take filters on the front, has IS and f2.8 but will only work on mirrorless. They will weigh comparable amounts and be similar sizes.

Do you shoot events or statics? What is your preferred shooting aperture? Interesting dilemma for some, I'll be sticking with the 11-24 as for me the near unique fov is king.


----------



## Rivermist (Aug 7, 2019)

privatebydesign said:


> Interesting dilemma, the 11-24 doesn't take filters - until you put it on an adapter for the R, its f4 but way wider and doesn't have IS, however it will work on EF and RF; the RF 15-35 will take filters on the front, has IS and f2.8 but will only work on mirrorless. They will weigh comparable amounts and be similar sizes.
> 
> Do you shoot events or statics? What is your preferred shooting aperture? Interesting dilemma for some, I'll be sticking with the 11-24 as for me the near unique fov is king.


I shoot events (35mm 2 IS and 85mm 1.4 IS), portrait (70-200 & 85 1.4) and travel (11-24 / 24-105 / 100-400 when I have room and can carry the weight, 16-35 / 24-105 / 70-300 DO if constrained). Events indoors / at night do require larger apertures, travel and portrait (with flash) are mostly 4.0 to 8.0 apertures. I currently use the RP and 5D mk3, but the latter will be replaced by the first IBIS Rx body that shows up.


----------



## RayValdez360 (Aug 7, 2019)

All these nice lenses but cant make a camera with 2 slots.


----------



## PGSanta (Aug 7, 2019)

RayValdez360 said:


> All these nice lenses but cant make a camera with 2 slots.


They could/can, but didn’t. It will be a non issue very soon.


----------



## Berowne (Aug 7, 2019)

privatebydesign said:


> Interesting dilemma, the 11-24 doesn't take filters - until you put it on an adapter for the R, its f4 but way wider and doesn't have IS, however it will work on EF and RF; the RF 15-35 will take filters on the front, has IS and f2.8 but will only work on mirrorless. They will weigh comparable amounts and be similar sizes.
> 
> Do you shoot events or statics? What is your preferred shooting aperture? Interesting dilemma for some, I'll be sticking with the 11-24 as for me the near unique fov is king.



... we say "Qual der Wahl". But we should be happy anyway to have such nice choices! 

Greetings Andy


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 7, 2019)

RayValdez360 said:


> All these nice lenses but cant make a camera with 2 slots.


In my experience, of shooting professionally since 1978, I have never met a single professional photographer who values or adequately uses a 2 slot camera for anything other than in failover mode, which is nothing a bigger card couldn't do. Two card slots in my general experience is a 'feature' that has been pushed heavily by the press and influencers and is a feature not generally concerning actual working pros.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 7, 2019)

privatebydesign said:


> In my experience, of shooting professionally since 1978, I have never met a single professional photographer who values or adequately uses a 2 slot camera for anything other than in failover mode, which is nothing a bigger card couldn't do. Two card slots in my general experience is a 'feature' that has been pushed heavily by the press and influencers and is a feature not generally concerning actual working pros.


So you're saying you _didn't_ use one of the commonly available dual film roll cameras, back in the day?


----------



## Architect1776 (Aug 7, 2019)

Rivermist said:


> Agreed that the extra 1mm makes a difference, but I may wait before pulling the trigger on this one (I have the 16-35 IS L) first to see prices go down a bit and also to see what they do in the wider bracket, 12-24 or something like that. I love my 11-24L but it is very heavy, bulky and conspicuous, would the R mount and 12mm at the low end make the resulting lens much lighter and smaller? A manageable RF 12-22 or 12-24 would replace both the EF 11-24 and EF 16-35 IS in my bag. The RF 70-200 is an easier bet, while I like the quality of the 70-200 IS L 4 it is large for its zoom range, so the same zoom range in a smaller format and 2.8 is a no-brainer.



I like your 12-24mm concept with IS I use crop only now, 7D, 10-18mm and love it on a FF R series the 12-24 would be a dream if made f4.


----------



## Stuart (Aug 7, 2019)

For cars i can accept that i'm not buying a new Jaguar, but for cameras i still want to spend a similar amount on a body and these new lenses. Please Santa i've been a very good boy...


----------



## Del Paso (Aug 7, 2019)

jolyonralph said:


> As long as you buy it before the end of October!


That's exactly what I meant !


----------



## Del Paso (Aug 7, 2019)

Anyway, these new appetizing lenses mean that I'll have to "invent" some car - repair (electronic fuel-injection is so unreliable and costly to replace) to justify the expense.


----------



## dtaylor (Aug 7, 2019)

I'm sorry, but can these lenses give me a better DxO dynamic range score? No???

*CANON. IS. *******.*


----------



## Photo Hack (Aug 7, 2019)

privatebydesign said:


> In my experience, of shooting professionally since 1978, I have never met a single professional photographer who values or adequately uses a 2 slot camera for anything other than in failover mode, which is nothing a bigger card couldn't do. Two card slots in my general experience is a 'feature' that has been pushed heavily by the press and influencers and is a feature not generally concerning actual working pros.


Strange, I’m not sure if someone’s “experience” is a reliable gauge on the usefulness or necessity of a tool. In my experience, I’ve never needed a seat belt, along with most of the people I know. 

How do you feel about Raid 1, 10, etc for someone’s post production work? Probably another feature not used by “working pros”? 

It would be a bummer to lose a lot of data for myself as a “working pro” and tell the client, “oh those fancy cameras and extra hard drives are just marketing snake oil”. 

Heck my kids have never “needed” a car seat either and most of the kids I see in car seats aren’t secured properly anyways. Clearly car seats are just a feature pushed by influencers. Real parents don’t need them.


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 7, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> So you're saying you _didn't_ use one of the commonly available dual film roll cameras, back in the day?


Yes, that is what I am saying


----------



## RayValdez360 (Aug 7, 2019)

privatebydesign said:


> In my experience, of shooting professionally since 1978, I have never met a single professional photographer who values or adequately uses a 2 slot camera for anything other than in failover mode, which is nothing a bigger card couldn't do. Two card slots in my general experience is a 'feature' that has been pushed heavily by the press and influencers and is a feature not generally concerning actual working pros.


 I have had cards fail over time. it is also one of the main reasons I use the c100 and c200 for video over the 5d. Everytime I use the eos r I have to hurry home to back up the data so i dont risk a chance of getting sued, getting yelled at, getting beat up/shoot/ getting a bad reputation. SInce i do like at least 8 jobs a week.


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 7, 2019)

Photo Hack said:


> Strange, I’m not sure if someone’s “experience” is a reliable gauge on the usefulness or necessity of a tool. In my experience, I’ve never needed a seat belt, along with most of the people I know.
> 
> How do you feel about Raid 1, 10, etc for someone’s post production work? Probably another feature not used by “working pros”?
> 
> ...


To me experience is far more valuable than mere opinion, everybody has opinions, far fewer have experience. Of course that doesn't mean that one persons experience is common or more relevant than another's, however I've needed a seat belt, ie it has saved me from death or serious injury, half a dozen times, I wore seatbelts long before it was the law.

RAID 1 and 10? I use RAID 5 as a way of protecting myself from inevitable drive failure over time, there are stats on HDD failure and they have a service life, in my career I will exceed the service life of the drives, I see that as an entirely different matter. Does anybody have reliable figures on image loss specifically related to this one issue? Or more reasonably, does anybody have figures on the number of images, as a percentage, saved because of shooting to two cards simultaneously?

It would, but my point was that amongst myself and the working pros I know file loss due to not having a two card slot camera is non existent. 

My experience is a single data point, my opinion is irrelevant.


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 7, 2019)

RayValdez360 said:


> I have had cards fail over time. it is also one of the main reasons I use the c100 and c200 for video over the 5d. Everytime I use the eos r I have to hurry home to back up the data so i dont risk a chance of getting sued, getting yelled at, getting beat up/shoot/ getting a bad reputation. SInce i do like at least 8 jobs a week.


You could 'back up' your data on site with a readily available stand alone HDD with built in card reader. No hurrying _"home to back up the data so i dont risk a chance of getting sued, getting yelled at, getting beat up/shoot/ getting a bad reputation" _ just a well managed and disciplined digital workflow. I don't understand the fail over time comment either, why would anybody use a questionably aged card on a mission critical shooting situation with no on site failure mitigation where there is even the slightest possibility of _"getting sued"_? Indeed why would anybody ever use a questionable card for anything other than a door stop?


----------



## Photo Hack (Aug 7, 2019)

privatebydesign said:


> To me experience is far more valuable than mere opinion, everybody has opinions, far fewer have experience. Of course that doesn't mean that one persons experience is common or more relevant than another's, however I've needed a seat belt, ie it has saved me from death or serious injury, half a dozen times, I wore seatbelts long before it was the law.
> 
> RAID 1 and 10? I use RAID 5 as a way of protecting myself from inevitable drive failure over time, there are stats on HDD failure and they have a service life, in my career I will exceed the service life of the drives, I see that as an entirely different matter. Does anybody have reliable figures on image loss specifically related to this one issue? Or more reasonably, does anybody have figures on the number of images, as a percentage, saved because of shooting to two cards simultaneously?
> 
> ...


So by your seat belt experience, wouldn’t it be foolish of me to state the equivalent, example?

I’ve never needed a seat belt, nor have any of my friends. Most of the people I see using seat belts, don’t wear them properly. Therefore, I see this as a feature pushed by scientists and the government and not actually needed by professional drivers.


To someone like yourself, I would hope a statement like that would be very foolish and illogical, because it is. You don’t need any data if you already know that seat belts are effective for their designed purpose and car accidents happen.

We all know the purpose(s) of dual card slots and they’re effective at mitigating and preventing the problems they’re designed to protect against, when used properly.

Do you really need any data on how often a card fails? You actually can see that data, as you already know by your claim of a shelf life in your hard drives. Digital media and the disks they’re stored on have a shelf life and failure rates you can research on your own.

What’s the difference between in camera vs in computer? The risks are the same. Why have redundancy and backup only after the data leaves the camera? 

I used the Raid 1 & 10 example as that’s pretty much what is happening in dual card slots if you’re using it for redundancy. We use Raid 1 for our working drives, backed up externally and swapped with off location storage. We mirror this practice with our CF and SD cards. Mirror, swap, different location, etc. to prevent loss, damage, theft, etc. 

Reputation, cost, legal, etc are among MANY reasons to have a good digital workflow, as you perceive to be doing yourself. I would disagree with your workflow as it’s not right for us and we have a higher standard of mitigation.


----------



## Photo Hack (Aug 7, 2019)

privatebydesign said:


> You could 'back up' your data on site with a readily available stand alone HDD with built in card reader. No hurrying _"home to back up the data so i dont risk a chance of getting sued, getting yelled at, getting beat up/shoot/ getting a bad reputation" _ just a well managed and disciplined digital workflow. I don't understand the fail over time comment either, why would anybody use a questionably aged card on a mission critical shooting situation with no on site failure mitigation where there is even the slightest possibility of _"getting sued"_? Indeed why would anybody ever use a questionable card for anything other than a door stop?


Or he could use two card slots? Lol, this is like saying, you could drive 3 mph and avoid traffic if you don’t want to use a seat belt. Maybe just use the seat belt?


----------



## ddixon (Aug 7, 2019)

I'm anxiously awaiting this 24-70 release. Through a combination of renting and owning I've tested the EF 24-70 f4, EF 24-70 f2.8, and the RF 24-105 f4 - all on my EOS RP. I found the two f4 lenses to have equal sharpness, but the 2.8 was better than both. And, I was surprised to find I did not miss the IS. I can get an excellent condition used EF 2.8 for about $1300. I know the RF will have IS, but it will probably be heavier and maybe even larger than the EF+adapter. So, to get me to spring for the extra $1K for the RF, it first has to be _not_ huge, and the IQ has to be even _better_ than the EF version. If not, I'll get the EF and put the difference toward the RF 70-200. Looking forward to the release.


----------



## Kit. (Aug 7, 2019)

Photo Hack said:


> So by your seat belt experience, wouldn’t it be foolish of me to state the equivalent, example?
> 
> I’ve never needed a seat belt, nor have any of my friends. Most of the people I see using seat belts, don’t wear them properly. Therefore, I see this as a feature pushed by scientists and the government and not actually needed by professional drivers.


While I consider a 5-point harness superior in safety to a 3-point seat belt, I haven't installed it in my cars and would not recommend to make it mandatory for commercial drivers.


----------



## Kit. (Aug 7, 2019)

Photo Hack said:


> Or he could use two card slots? Lol, this is like saying, you could drive 3 mph and avoid traffic if you don’t want to use a seat belt. Maybe just use the seat belt?


If he really wants his data to be safe, he should use two cameras, preferably with two photographers as well. Two card slots are just not safe enough.


----------



## Photo Hack (Aug 7, 2019)

Kit. said:


> While I consider a 5-point harness superior in safety to a 3-point seat belt, I haven't installed it in my cars and would not recommend to make it mandatory for commercial drivers.


Would you consider a 3 point seat belt superior to a zero point? I believe that’s the question.

The safety or mitigation should at least be equal to the amount or risk someone is willing to tolerate.

Shooting personal photos? 1 card, no problem for me.

Shooting portraits and events? 2 card, great!

Shooting a large scale commercial job? 2 cards, on-site backup, great! Add off site backup, even better.

Convenience and environment will also dictate the standard operating procedures, just as you would expect in car safety. More risk, more safety.


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 7, 2019)

Photo Hack said:


> So by your seat belt experience, wouldn’t it be foolish of me to state the equivalent, example?
> 
> I’ve never needed a seat belt, nor have any of my friends. Most of the people I see using seat belts, don’t wear them properly. Therefore, I see this as a feature pushed by scientists and the government and not actually needed by professional drivers.
> 
> ...



No, we don't know that! We have half assed anecdotes and messages pushed by manufacturers and influencers. On the other hand seat belt laws were implemented because of hard data gained in a systematic and authenticated way over many years across relevant numbers.

All I am saying is I believe the necessity of dual card slots and the way they are pushed as being a requirement for a camera to be considered 'pro' is vastly overstated, and my varied and long term single point anecdotal experience backs that up.

Seatbelts and long term digital storage are poor references for comparisons. Digital medium format is the preserve of the very richest amateurs and pros with the highest paying clients, yet dual cards are not considered a 'must have' feature. There are far too many anomalies where dual card slots are just not relevant to back up the meme that stills pro cameras must have them to be taken seriously.


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 7, 2019)

Photo Hack said:


> Or he could use two card slots? Lol, this is like saying, you could drive 3 mph and avoid traffic if you don’t want to use a seat belt. Maybe just use the seat belt?


Way to take the point out of context. The CONTEXT was he is using an R (a single card camera) and feels he has to _rush home to prevent from getting sued, _an opinion I felt was laughable.


----------



## YuengLinger (Aug 7, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> So you're saying you _didn't_ use one of the commonly available dual film roll cameras, back in the day?


One botched roll would be 36 images, right? One corrupt card, over a thousand.

Is there a reliable survey that does indicate how wedding photographers and photojournalists feel about two card slots?


----------



## Canon1966 (Aug 7, 2019)

As these will include IS, they will probably be well over $2500+++


----------



## Kit. (Aug 7, 2019)

Photo Hack said:


> Would you consider a 3 point seat belt superior to a zero point? I believe that’s the question.


I believe you need the actual statistics to determine which analogy actually applies.



Photo Hack said:


> The safety or mitigation should at least be equal to the amount or risk someone is willing to tolerate.
> 
> Shooting personal photos? 1 card, no problem for me.
> 
> Shooting portraits and events? 2 card, great!


Do you want it to be mandatory? Like, a government should fine photographers that use two cameras with one card each instead of one camera with two cards?


----------



## gbc (Aug 7, 2019)

privatebydesign said:


> In my experience, of shooting professionally since 1978, I have never met a single professional photographer who values or adequately uses a 2 slot camera for anything other than in failover mode, which is nothing a bigger card couldn't do. Two card slots in my general experience is a 'feature' that has been pushed heavily by the press and influencers and is a feature not generally concerning actual working pros.


I suppose the lack of a double-film roll camera sort of proves your point...


----------



## navastronia (Aug 7, 2019)

My, some people get very defensive when others criticize Canon for failing to release a mirrorless camera with 2 card slots.

If you're angry when people bring up the 2 card slot problem, ask yourself, "Why do I feel this way?"

If the answer is that you don't think Canon should release cameras with 2 card slots, that's fine.

If you think other people should not _want_ 2 card slots, that's less reasonable, since everyone who wants 2 has some explanation, and Canon itself hasn't released serious cameras without 2 since about 2008 (someone can correct my date if this is wrong).


----------



## RayValdez360 (Aug 7, 2019)

privatebydesign said:


> You could 'back up' your data on site with a readily available stand alone HDD with built in card reader. No hurrying _"home to back up the data so i dont risk a chance of getting sued, getting yelled at, getting beat up/shoot/ getting a bad reputation" _ just a well managed and disciplined digital workflow. I don't understand the fail over time comment either, why would anybody use a questionably aged card on a mission critical shooting situation with no on site failure mitigation where there is even the slightest possibility of _"getting sued"_? Indeed why would anybody ever use a questionable card for anything other than a door stop?


also it is annoying to carry extra stuff. I just like to work with at most 2 camera bodies on my body. I did consider it. I also heard a few negatives like software issues with the WD one but i dont know the frequency of those issues. Its not about using an aged card. Its about have a a lower chance of my entire day vanishing. I do not trust the reliability of any storage medium. Old or new. In my life I think high quality Discs are the most reliable storage medium if you store them properly and dont touch the data side. P.S. how does one determine if a card is aged anyway
?


----------



## Rivermist (Aug 7, 2019)

privatebydesign said:


> No, we don't know that! We have half assed anecdotes and messages pushed by manufacturers and influencers. On the other hand seat belt laws were implemented because of hard data gained in a systematic and authenticated way over many years across relevant numbers.
> 
> All I am saying is I believe the necessity of dual card slots and the way they are pushed as being a requirement for a camera to be considered 'pro' is vastly overstated, and my varied and long term single point anecdotal experience backs that up.
> 
> Seatbelts and long term digital storage are poor references for comparisons. Digital medium format is the preserve of the very richest amateurs and pros with the highest paying clients, yet dual cards are not considered a 'must have' feature. There are far too many anomalies where dual card slots are just not relevant to back up the meme that stills pro cameras must have them to be taken seriously.


I tend to agree, on my dual-card 5D3 I put the raw files on the SD card and for the sake of it I write jpg large onto the compact flash, and have never had to use the CF card backup, SD cards are very reliable in my experience. It did not bother me that my 6D (second body) had one card only, now replaced by the RP, also single card. I'll grant to wedding or sports pro photographers that they need the security of dual cards, but for a pro doing location or studio photography tethered is often a better approach. The biggest risk of mirrorless IMHO is damage or dirt to the sensor, not card failure, so dual cameras a safe bet.


----------



## Kit. (Aug 7, 2019)

navastronia said:


> My, some people get very defensive when others criticize Canon for failing to release a mirrorless camera with 2 card slots.
> 
> If you're angry when people bring up the 2 card slot problem, ask yourself, "Why do I feel this way?"


And if I'm not angry, but just helpful? You know, helping people that _want_ to discuss something like card slots in the topic about lenses...


----------



## PGSanta (Aug 7, 2019)

Geezus. This long after the R is released and I can’t believe people are still debating the card slot issue. 

There should be a quarantine forum for you freaks to sling at each other. 

If you need two card slots, that’s cool it’s totally understandable, the R isn’t for you, or you need to utilize one of the work arounds so you can start investing in the RF system now instead of waiting for a more mature line up. 

Canon has already suggested the next camera will have 2 slots. Can we just move on.


----------



## gdanmitchell (Aug 7, 2019)

As a photographer who uses Canon full frame for landscape photography — and who often ends up carrying the gear on his back — while these are necessary and interesting lenses, I'm watching for the RF equivalents of the 16-35 f/4, 24- 70 f/4, and 70-200 f/4.


----------



## gdanmitchell (Aug 7, 2019)

RayValdez360 said:


> All these nice lenses but cant make a camera with 2 slots.


 
"Can't?" 

Canon does make cameras with dual slots, so your point is nonsense... or a troll... or both.

You are correct that they have not put two slots in the lower-level mirrorless cameras they started out with. But there's no doubt that they will do so in mirrorless bodies that continue the lineage of the 5D and 1D series bodies.


----------



## Mr Majestyk (Aug 8, 2019)

Hopefully 15-35 is good for astro, even more hopefully we'll see all new sensors and pro RF mount cameras soon.


----------



## Adventure Kid (Aug 8, 2019)

I’ve been really happy with my EF 16-35 F/4 mounted on both the R/6D. Had a chance to play with the EF 16-35 F/2.8 mkiii. It wasn’t enough for me to jump the $1k gap. 

Maybe this new one will. Nice having that extra 1mm, as I like to shoot a lot of landscapes, while the wife on the other hand portraits. Either way, I’m glad Canon is delivering high quality glass.


----------



## Ozarker (Aug 8, 2019)

RayValdez360 said:


> All these nice lenses but cant make a camera with 2 slots.


 It is coming.


----------



## padam (Aug 8, 2019)

privatebydesign said:


> Interesting dilemma, the 11-24 doesn't take filters - until you put it on an adapter for the R, its f4 but way wider and doesn't have IS, however it will work on EF and RF; the RF 15-35 will take filters on the front, has IS and f2.8 but will only work on mirrorless. They will weigh comparable amounts and be similar sizes.
> 
> Do you shoot events or statics? What is your preferred shooting aperture? Interesting dilemma for some, I'll be sticking with the 11-24 as for me the near unique fov is king.


This lens will likely be a bit lighter than the EF 16-35 f2.8 III. The 11-24 + adapter is way bigger, heavier and not as balanced, but the pricing of the two won't be far off each other in the beginning, so one could say the latter offers more glass for the money - literally.


----------



## dominic_siu (Aug 8, 2019)

Unfortunately it won’t be available before my Okinawa trip in Sept


----------



## justaCanonuser (Aug 8, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> Agreed, except personally I’d miss the 24-28mm range not the IS. If the R was my primary camera, I’d be very interested in the RF 24-70/2.8 IS. For my current use of the R (mainly a travel camera), I’ll stick with the 24-105, or perhaps I will pick up the 24-240 when that comes out, depending on image quality.
> 
> The EF 24-70/2.8 II remains my most-used lens on the 1D X.


Thanks for correcting my typo (28-70/2 instead of 24-70/2.8) in such a nice way . You are right, the missing 24-28mm range makes quite a substantial difference on the wide angle side. I use such fast standard zooms frequently, too, since many years and models, starting with a manual Sigma 28-70 zoom being my first interchangeable lens, for my Nikon FM-2 (I changed to Canon, when I went digital, and did not regret that yet).


----------



## justaCanonuser (Aug 8, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> So you're saying you _didn't_ use one of the commonly available dual film roll cameras, back in the day?


The dualslotism of film photography was double exposure, which wasn't always welcomed by the customers of pro photographers


----------



## koenkooi (Aug 8, 2019)

ddixon said:


> I'm anxiously awaiting this 24-70 release. Through a combination of renting and owning I've tested the EF 24-70 f4, EF 24-70 f2.8, and the RF 24-105 f4 - all on my EOS RP. I found the two f4 lenses to have equal sharpness, but the 2.8 was better than both. And, I was surprised to find I did not miss the IS. I can get an excellent condition used EF 2.8 for about $1300. I know the RF will have IS, but it will probably be heavier and maybe even larger than the EF+adapter. So, to get me to spring for the extra $1K for the RF, it first has to be _not_ huge, and the IQ has to be even _better_ than the EF version. If not, I'll get the EF and put the difference toward the RF 70-200. Looking forward to the release.



My plan is to rent the RF24-105, RF24-70, RF24-240 and EF70-200 F4 II for a week and see which I like best. I hope it's the 24-240, unless I win a lottery 
The rental place is close enough and affordable enough that I am almost completely over my GAS for the f/1.2 primes.


----------



## ThomsA (Aug 8, 2019)

The soon to be closed rumor blog Nokishita just announced that "Canon will announce in the coming days: [...] 
- RF24-70mm F2.8 L USM
- RF15-35mm F2.8 L USM
- Lens hood EW-88E
- Lens hood EW-88F"

Plus two cameras ("EOS 90D" / "EOS M6 Mark II")


----------



## M_S (Aug 8, 2019)

I will wait for the Pro EOS R to come out and descide then, if I will go that path. Definitly will wait for some comparisons with the EF counterparts to descide as well. EF can be attached on so many brands now, that going RF is kind of limiting it again to one ecosystem. At least when it comes to normal focal lengths. For the time beeing my 5dsr and my smartphone will do.


----------



## ozturert (Aug 8, 2019)

My assumption: 15-35mm 2500 usd
24-70mm 2250 usd


----------



## PureClassA (Aug 8, 2019)

The 15 - 35 L 2.8 would be the perfect lens for the R to compliment the video capabilities when married to that 1.75x crop. Been using the 16-35 f4 L with the adapter. The extra stop and no adapter would be welcome. May even sell the f4. Just have to figure out if still really need a super wide for all my EF gear.


----------



## Viggo (Aug 8, 2019)

M_S said:


> I will wait for the Pro EOS R to come out and descide then, if I will go that path. Definitly will wait for some comparisons with the EF counterparts to descide as well. EF can be attached on so many brands now, that going RF is kind of limiting it again to one ecosystem. At least when it comes to normal focal lengths. For the time beeing my 5dsr and my smartphone will do.


But the RF lenses can only be used on the R bodies. So having all Canon glass work like native is very appealing to me at least. Except I’m personally done with EF-lenses.


----------



## ddixon (Aug 8, 2019)

koenkooi said:


> My plan is to rent the RF24-105, RF24-70, RF24-240 and EF70-200 F4 II for a week and see which I like best. I hope it's the 24-240, unless I win a lottery
> The rental place is close enough and affordable enough that I am almost completely over my GAS for the f/1.2 primes.



Yes, there's nothing like hands on testing to curb GAS. I just spent $50 to rent that EF 70-200 f4 mk2 to see how much better it is than my mk1 copy. Yes, it's better, but for me, not worth spending $1200 on, especially when the RF version is about to land. And, I can always rent for special occasions, like last year when I rented the 100-400L for a niece's graduation speech.


----------



## PGSanta (Aug 9, 2019)

ThomsA said:


> The soon to be closed rumor blog Nokishita just announced that "Canon will announce in the coming days: [...]
> - RF24-70mm F2.8 L USM
> - RF15-35mm F2.8 L USM
> - Lens hood EW-88E
> ...



Nokishita is closing down? What will all of these other rumor sites that just rehash their reporting do now?


----------



## Durf (Aug 9, 2019)

The 15-35 f/2.8 might be the vloggers dream lens for the EOS R, that is; if it isn't the size of a pickle bucket, weighs 8lbs, and costs 3500 dollars....


----------



## miggyt (Aug 9, 2019)

Canon's inclusion of IS in all their soon-to-be-announced lenses also means that Canon will not be doing IBIS anytime soon. Sad.


----------



## PGSanta (Aug 9, 2019)

miggyt said:


> Canon's inclusion of IS in all their soon-to-be-announced lenses also means that Canon will not be doing IBIS anytime soon. Sad.



Or it means some bodies will have it, and some won’t.


----------



## Photo Hack (Aug 9, 2019)

miggyt said:


> Canon's inclusion of IS in all their soon-to-be-announced lenses also means that Canon will not be doing IBIS anytime soon. Sad.


Weird, Sony and Nikon also keep making lenses with IS..... what do you think that means?


----------



## M_S (Aug 9, 2019)

Viggo said:


> But the RF lenses can only be used on the R bodies.



Yeah, that's what I meant in writing "limiting to one ecosystem."


----------



## ThomsA (Aug 9, 2019)

PGSanta said:


> Nokishita is closing down? What will all of these other rumor sites that just rehash their reporting do now?



Their (translated) words are "(* This blog will be closed in October 2019 [Delete all content])". Maybe they will keep their Twitter channel?


----------



## navastronia (Aug 10, 2019)

miggyt said:


> Canon's inclusion of IS in all their soon-to-be-announced lenses also means that Canon will not be doing IBIS anytime soon. Sad.



This is not necessarily true. IS is reported more effective on longer lenses than IBIS.


----------



## navastronia (Aug 10, 2019)

Durf said:


> The 15-35 f/2.8 might be the vloggers dream lens for the EOS R, that is; if it isn't the size of a pickle bucket, weighs 8lbs, and costs 3500 dollars....



I mean, it will quite possibly be all 3 of those things, so . . .


----------



## Del Paso (Aug 10, 2019)

justaCanonuser said:


> The dualslotism of film photography was double exposure, which wasn't always welcomed by the customers of pro photographers


I I were you, I'd copyright "dualslotism".


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 11, 2019)

Rivermist said:


> Agreed that the extra 1mm makes a difference, but I may wait before pulling the trigger on this one (I have the 16-35 IS L) first to see prices go down a bit and also to see what they do in the wider bracket, 12-24 or something like that. I love my 11-24L but it is very heavy, bulky and conspicuous, would the R mount and 12mm at the low end make the resulting lens much lighter and smaller? A manageable RF 12-22 or 12-24 would replace both the EF 11-24 and EF 16-35 IS in my bag. The RF 70-200 is an easier bet, while I like the quality of the 70-200 IS L 4 it is large for its zoom range, so the same zoom range in a smaller format and 2.8 is a no-brainer.



The RF 70-200/2.8 may be shorter when retracted to 70mm, but it won't be lighter than any of the EF 70-200/4 lenses. It will be just as long (plus the extra 24mm for the difference in registration distance) when extended to 200mm. (based on the patent application)



YuengLinger said:


> One botched roll would be 36 images, right? One corrupt card, over a thousand.
> 
> Is there a reliable survey that does indicate how wedding photographers and photojournalists feel about two card slots?



My own personal experience would be that most photojournalists aren't that concerned with a second card slot. On the other hand, many wedding photographers, particularly those who shoot alone without a second shooter, are. In my opinion, shooting a wedding with a camera with two card slots but without another photographer to be in other spots that you can't be is a much bigger risk than shooting a wedding with two photographers who each have cameras with single card slots. 




Rivermist said:


> I tend to agree, on my dual-card 5D3 I put the raw files on the SD card and for the sake of it I write jpg large onto the compact flash, and have never had to use the CF card backup, SD cards are very reliable in my experience. It did not bother me that my 6D (second body) had one card only, now replaced by the RP, also single card. I'll grant to wedding or sports pro photographers that they need the security of dual cards, but for a pro doing location or studio photography tethered is often a better approach. The biggest risk of mirrorless IMHO is damage or dirt to the sensor, not card failure, so dual cameras a safe bet.



In the current environment for high level pro sports shooters, they're pushing (uploading) images to their respective clients (wire services, newspaper/website, etc.) every time there is a gap in the action (TV timeout, end of period, etc.). Those that wait until the end of a game to submit anything have already been scooped and not many are interested in their images, even if they are better than the ones everyone has already published at that point. If they have a bad card they'll know it very quickly. There's little chance they will shoot and then lose an entire event due to a card failure.

I'm also curious as to why you save the raw files to SD and the smaller JPEG-Large files to CF when the 5D Mark III writes faster to the CFslot than to the SD slot when cards at least as fast as the slots are used. Does any of the shooting you do rely on fast frame rates and deeper buffers.




ozturert said:


> My assumption: 15-35mm 2500 usd
> 24-70mm 2250 usd



I'm guessing close to $3K for the 15-35mm and $2700-2800 for the 24-70mm. RF lenses so far have been consistently more expensive than their EF counterparts when there is an EF counterpart.

The EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L II debuted at $2,300 without IS in 2012. Although the dollar is stronger against the yen now than in 2012, $2,300 in 2012 was worth $2,576 in 2019 dollars. There's also the looming spectre of proposed import tariffs if they ever go into effect.

If the EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III was $2,200 when introduced in 2016, then an RF 15-35mm f/2.8L IS is going to debut at more than $2,500 three years later.


----------



## miggyt (Aug 13, 2019)

PGSanta said:


> Or it means some bodies will have it, and some won’t.


the RF 15-35/2.8L & 24-70/2.8L are not exactly long lenses


navastronia said:


> This is not necessarily true. IS is reported more effective on longer lenses than IBIS.


the RF 15-35/2.8L & 24-70/2.8L are not exactly long lenses. the chances of IBIS has grown dim.


----------



## miggyt (Aug 13, 2019)

Photo Hack said:


> Weird, Sony and Nikon also keep making lenses with IS..... what do you think that means?


only with longer lenses where IS proves effective. definitely not on the 15-35/2.8 & 24-70/2.8 focal lengths.


----------



## miggyt (Aug 13, 2019)

PGSanta said:


> Or it means some bodies will have it, and some won’t.


the chances are very slim. but im happy to see canon prove me wrong.


----------



## PGSanta (Aug 13, 2019)

miggyt said:


> only with longer lenses where IS proves effective. definitely not on the 15-35/2.8 & 24-70/2.8 focal lengths.



Imagine if Canon's IBIS works WITH lens IS for even BETTER stabilization than what Sony offers..... cuz it's going to happen.


----------



## Photo Hack (Aug 13, 2019)

Just a friendly PSA to event photographers (really anyone who values their work).

Local photographer we know (not on a personal level) in Madison, WI area just had Her gear stolen after a wedding. I don’t know if it was during or after, but she’s stated that all of the wedding coverage is gone.

We swap out 16gb SD cards throughout the day on our Mark IVs and keep them separate from our gear and leave large 64gb CF cards in camera.

One simple act of swapping cards and keeping them on her person or other safe spot could’ve saved her $3,000 or more. I know her prices start higher than that, but safe to assume most wedding photographers here are charging this much.

Hoping she has insurance on her gear and some sort of indemnification coverage. Bitter pill to swallow if she doesn’t as the gear list she says was stolen is over $15k.

If you use a single slot, back it up periodically. Keep the backups and originals separate. Personally not a workflow I want to go through anymore, hard to manage 4 cameras or more through a whole day when we often go without any meaningful breaks.


----------



## Photo Hack (Aug 13, 2019)

Also be careful who you hire or contract. The last time someone local had their gear stolen, it was eventually found out to be the second shooter who stole it. Yeah, not relevant to this thread but a “pro” body with two slots is talked about more often than not. 

So even if you’re using two slots, keeping both in camera only isn’t best practice in my opinion.


----------



## kawabata (Oct 13, 2019)

I bought the RF 24-70 2.8 and there’s no option for focus bracketing. Hard for me to believe this is right.


----------



## Ozarker (Oct 13, 2019)

SwissFrank said:


> how often is it not nailing focus? I can't take an out-of-focus shot with my RF 50 if I tried


Same with my RF lenses. Nail it, nail it, nail it, nearly every single time. That was not the case with my EF glass.


----------



## kawabata (Oct 13, 2019)

If I take a picture of something with a large depth of field with a low f stop then it’s impossible for all to be in focus. Focus bracketing allows me to take a series of shots, sometimes 30 or more that get merged in post processing where the entire shot is in focus, or whatever part I want to be in focus is in focus.


----------

