# Is a Canon RF 14-28mm f/2L USM on the way? [CR1]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Mar 18, 2020)

> There have been a few rumors that Canon will do a “holy trinity” of RF mount f/2L zoom lenses, as you know, we already have the RF 28-70mm f/2L USM, which is an amazing piece of glass.
> An unknown source now claims that an RF 14-28mm f/2L USM is on the way sometime in 2020, this goes with a previous rumor of an RF 70-135mm f/2L USM coming as well.
> That would be quite the trifecta of zoom lenses from Canon.
> More to come…



Continue reading...


----------



## AccipiterQ (Mar 18, 2020)

I demand a 70-200 f/2L with dual card slots.


----------



## ethanz (Mar 18, 2020)

AccipiterQ said:


> I demand a 70-200 f/2L with dual card slots.



Dual card slots on the camera is not safe enough. Customers demand dual dual redundancy and backup. With the new RF mount boasting extra data bandwidth, it can send the files straight to the lens card slots. Brilliant idea.


----------



## Viggo (Mar 18, 2020)

I’m just sitting here repeating : “14-28 f2 L” that is something , mmm....


----------



## Jack Douglas (Mar 18, 2020)

ethanz said:


> Dual card slots on the camera is not safe enough. Customers demand dual dual redundancy and backup. With the new RF mount boasting extra data bandwidth, it can send the files straight to the lens card slots. Brilliant idea.


Now that's a great idea but would they be immune to the virus?

Jack


----------



## Ozarker (Mar 18, 2020)

My goodness! Who could have imagined an f/2 zoom trinity 3 years ago? Gonna take me years and years to complete the set. Godspeed, men. Godspeed.


----------



## SV (Mar 18, 2020)

We're gonna need bigger biceps


----------



## bitcars (Mar 18, 2020)

A trinity line with IS and another trinity line of F2..

I feel bad for Nikon and Sony shooters.. Neither is even an option for them.


----------



## Daner (Mar 18, 2020)

f/2 trinity (14-28, *28-70*, 70-135)
*f/2.8 trinity with IS* (*15-35, 24-70, 70-200*) (Achievement unlocked)
f/4+ trinity with IS (?-35, *24-105*, 100-500)


----------



## Jack Douglas (Mar 18, 2020)

bitcars said:


> A trinity line with IS and another trinity line of F2..
> 
> I feel bad for Nikon and Sony shooters.. Neither is even an option for them.


I feel bad for the companies. It's almost as if Canon were planning an ambush for the last few years.  

Jack


----------



## IcyBergs (Mar 18, 2020)

If this trinity does come to fruition, it won't be these first two that tempt me - but a possible 70-135 f2 portrait zoom would be very tantalizing.


----------



## BeenThere (Mar 18, 2020)

Viggo said:


> I’m just sitting here repeating : “14-28 f2 L” that is something , mmm....


Yes, but think of the vignetting. Oh, the horror!


----------



## Viggo (Mar 18, 2020)

BeenThere said:


> Yes, but think of the vignetting. Oh, the horror!


That is true, but with the new sensors you can push like you’re giving birth without issues


----------



## Ozarker (Mar 18, 2020)

BeenThere said:


> Yes, but think of the vignetting. Oh, the horror!


For what I personally do with my gear I have yet to find a single lens where vignette is a problem. It is either corrected very well in camera or it is an effect I desire in the photo. But yes, some will find it to be terrible for their use.


----------



## sanj (Mar 18, 2020)

With IBS, f2 would be the way to go. But $$$$


----------



## H. Jones (Mar 18, 2020)

Well, there goes all the Nikon shooters who dissed the 11-24 f/4 saying they far prefer the 14-24mm f/2.8


----------



## unfocused (Mar 18, 2020)

I know there are folks that love themselves some bokeh. I'm not one of them. Ansel Adams and the rest of the f64 school have got to be rolling in their graves. Minimum $9,000 for this "trinity" that doesn't go past 135mm doesn't tempt me. I'd much rather have a big white if I could afford that kind of money.


----------



## IcyBergs (Mar 18, 2020)

unfocused said:


> I know there are folks that love themselves some bokeh. I'm not one of them. Ansel Adams and the rest of the f64 school have got to be rolling in their graves. Minimum $9,000 for this "trinity" that doesn't go past 135mm doesn't tempt me. I'd much rather have a big white if I could afford that kind of money.



f/2.br0ke


----------



## Jack Douglas (Mar 18, 2020)

unfocused said:


> I know there are folks that love themselves some bokeh. I'm not one of them. Ansel Adams and the rest of the f64 school have got to be rolling in their graves. Minimum $9,000 for this "trinity" that doesn't go past 135mm doesn't tempt me. I'd much rather have a big white if I could afford that kind of money.


I love my single big white, for it's purpose but the 11-24 gives me no regrets. 

Jack


----------



## cayenne (Mar 18, 2020)

I have the 11-24 f/4 L lens....and it is great fun.

This new RF lens sounds interesting, but I'm wondering why they aren't going as wide at the older EF lens?

Would it just be too big or something to do 11-24 at f/2?

C


----------



## Ozarker (Mar 18, 2020)

cayenne said:


> I have the 11-24 f/4 L lens....and it is great fun.
> 
> This new RF lens sounds interesting, but I'm wondering why they aren't going as wide at the older EF lens?
> 
> ...


Well, that’s just Canon being modest.


----------



## Architect1776 (Mar 18, 2020)

bitcars said:


> A trinity line with IS and another trinity line of F2..
> 
> I feel bad for Nikon and Sony shooters.. Neither is even an option for them.



But....but...but only dynamic range counts, nothing else is important.


----------



## Antono Refa (Mar 18, 2020)

unfocused said:


> I know there are folks that love themselves some bokeh. I'm not one of them. Ansel Adams and the rest of the f64 school have got to be rolling in their graves.



Three points:

1. AFAIK, the f/64 school shot landscape, where it makes sense to have everything in focus. The RF 70-135mm would be used for portraiture, where blurring the background is a lot more useful.

2. Faster aperture on wide lenses can be useful for star trails, AFAIK, something else the f/64 school didn't shoot.

3. f/64 on MF to LF cameras has the depth of field of f/8 to f/16 on FF. I'll fall off my chair if the f/2 trinity's aperture wouldn't close as far as f/16, probably f/22.



unfocused said:


> Minimum $9,000 for this "trinity" that doesn't go past 135mm doesn't tempt me. I'd much rather have a big white if I could afford that kind of money.



You don't have to buy an f/2 lens. I'm not going to.


----------



## navastronia (Mar 18, 2020)

Yep, this would be the only wide angle lens I'd need. Hope Canon produces it.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Mar 18, 2020)

cayenne said:


> I have the 11-24 f/4 L lens....and it is great fun.
> 
> This new RF lens sounds interesting, but I'm wondering why they aren't going as wide at the older EF lens?
> 
> ...


F4 is big enough!


----------



## Ozarker (Mar 18, 2020)

navastronia said:


> Yep, this would be the only wide angle lens I'd need. Hope Canon produces it.


28mm is really too wide for my needs, but I need a 14-28mm really bad.


----------



## sanj (Mar 18, 2020)

BeenThere said:


> Yes, but think of the vignetting. Oh, the horror!


Having f2 does not mean that you have to use f2. You can shoot at 5.6 and have no issues. But when you need the f2 you will be happy that you have it.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Mar 18, 2020)

Even if it gives me ridiculous photos, I love it ... and isn't life about having fun and photography the same.



Jack


----------



## Jack Douglas (Mar 18, 2020)

Shot at 11 but cropped after the fact to get better alignment.


Perhaps this will help someone determine that they really need a crazy wide lens!

Jack


----------



## Ozarker (Mar 18, 2020)

Jack Douglas said:


> Shot at 11 but cropped after the fact to get better alignment.
> View attachment 189273
> 
> Perhaps this will help someone determine that they really need a crazy wide lens!
> ...


It isn’t so much that I need a wide lens, butt that I need a narrower wife.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Mar 18, 2020)

CanonFanBoy said:


> It isn’t so much that I need a wide lens, butt that I need a narrower wife.


Ooh that sounds kind of ......


----------



## Jack Douglas (Mar 18, 2020)

Jack Douglas said:


> Ooh that sounds kind of ......


I have the best wife. She encourages me to by camera gear. Yes, believe it or not it's true. I restrain myself.

But I'm not allowed to use it on her.

Jack


----------



## jvillain (Mar 18, 2020)

I was pretty impressed at first then I realized that all these zooms are just 2X. That means Canon is finally catching up to Sigma who have had their 18-35 and 50-100 1.8s for years. The Canon FF lenses will deliver more being FF lenses but the lens designs aren't that radical any more.


----------



## Canon1966 (Mar 18, 2020)

Viggo said:


> I’m just sitting here repeating : “14-28 f2 L” that is something , mmm....


sounds good. Probably come in at $3000


----------



## Ozarker (Mar 18, 2020)

Jack Douglas said:


> I have the best wife. She encourages me to by camera gear. Yes, believe it or not it's true. I restrain myself.
> 
> But I'm not allowed to use it on her.
> 
> Jack


Same here. I am not allowed to take her photo except under very exceptional circumstances.


----------



## deleteme (Mar 18, 2020)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...


An f2 lens of 14-28mm would be a technical feat that would astound the market. However, it seems to me to be the realm of a halo product with minimal practicality for the bulk of users. 
I know I will get a hail of comments claiming "I will die without this lens.." but the fact remains that in only the most specialized cases would an f2 lens in this range show even a marginal benefit and then one has to contend with the issues of arising from f2 potentially erasing any advantage of speed.

Now, the 70-135 f2 is a different story...


----------



## deleteme (Mar 18, 2020)

cayenne said:


> I have the 11-24 f/4 L lens....and it is great fun.
> 
> This new RF lens sounds interesting, but I'm wondering why they aren't going as wide at the older EF lens?
> 
> ...


The 11-24 is plenty big at f4. If it were even possible, I would bet the f2 version would be in the range of 8-10 lbs. 
Oh, I forgot! Mirrorless should make lenses smaller! 
I guess then we are OK at f2.


----------



## shawn (Mar 18, 2020)

I have the 28-70 f/2 L and honestly it's not that great. It has a ton of focus breathing at mid portrait distances which means you really have to get close to your subject, I find that somewhat annoying in practice. It behaves more like a 28-60 with a macro mode. Not having that true 70mm at closer distances reduces the amount of pop off the background which is one thing you expect with a f/2 lens.


----------



## AccipiterQ (Mar 18, 2020)

sanj said:


> With IBS, f2 would be the way to go. But $$$$



I think IBS is irritable bowel.....

Seriously though,exactly my thought....f2.8 with IS &IBIS can't compare to f2 & IBIS. At least for me.


----------



## Treyarnon (Mar 18, 2020)

a 14-28 F2 would make a hell of an astro lens....


----------



## Ozarker (Mar 18, 2020)

Normalnorm said:


> An f2 lens of 14-28mm would be a technical feat that would astound the market. However, it seems to me to be the realm of a halo product with minimal practicality for the bulk of users.
> I know I will get a hail of comments claiming "I will die without this lens.." but the fact remains that in only the most specialized cases would an f2 lens in this range show even a marginal benefit and then one has to contend with the issues of arising from f2 potentially erasing any advantage of speed.
> 
> Now, the 70-135 f2 is a different story...


Sometimes practicality is of no concern. A Timex is far more practical than a Rolex. Sometimes people just want and there’s those willing to provide.

This lens isn’t even on my wish list, but I still want it.  The means to acquire are a whole other story. Ain’t gonna happen. 
Probably a $5k lens.


----------



## Del Paso (Mar 18, 2020)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Sometimes practicality is of no concern. A Timex is far more practical than a Rolex. Sometimes people just want and there’s those willing to provide.
> 
> This lens isn’t even on my wish list, but I still want it.  The means to acquire are a whole other story. Ain’t gonna happen.
> Probably a $5k lens.


There's a 1-2 year-long waiting list to get a sports Rolex.
How long for a Timex ?
Expensive products have a very stable market, and, fortunately, Canon didn't commit the mistake to introduce mostly inexpensive lenses for the R models.
This distinguishes them from Nikon and even Sony.
They had a chance to develop uncommon lenses, partly thanks to their new mount, and took it !


----------



## LensFungus (Mar 18, 2020)

The two main reasons for people's financial crisis in 2020:
- coronavirus
- Canon L glass


----------



## ordinaryfilmmaker (Mar 18, 2020)

CanonFanBoy said:


> My goodness! Who could have imagined an f/2 zoom trinity 3 years ago? Gonna take me years and years to complete the set. Godspeed, men. Godspeed.



What do you like about these three lenses apart from the other RF lenses? What sets them apart?


----------



## Larsskv (Mar 18, 2020)

bitcars said:


> A trinity line with IS and another trinity line of F2..
> 
> I feel bad for Nikon and Sony shooters.. Neither is even an option for them.



I believe Nikon shooters will have f2 zooms eventually. I am not sure about Sony, though. Their narrower lens mount is likely a significant disadvantage for extreme lens designs such as the f2 FF zooms.


----------



## unfocused (Mar 18, 2020)

Antono Refa said:


> ...AFAIK, the f/64 school shot landscape, where it makes sense to have everything in focus. The RF 70-135mm would be used for portraiture, where blurring the background is a lot more useful...



Actually, only a few of the f/64 group were landscape photographers. Edward Weston shot landscapes, but is better known for his nudes and for his still life images. And, even his landscapes weren't really about the land. Imogen Cunningham is best known for portraits and nudes. Other members are less well known, but are not known primarily as landscape photographers. If you include Peter Stackpole and Dorothea Lange (Stackpole claimed to be a member, but that is in dispute and Lange claimed not to be a member, but that is also in dispute) you have additional examples that were not landscape photographers.

The defining feature of f/64 was the belief in straight photography. They chose f/64 because they felt in best approximated the way the human eye sees -- everything in focus. It was largely a rejection of the romanticism and soft focus of the late 19th, early 20th century and has its roots in Paul Strand's "White Fence." It might also be summarized as an effort to have photography stand on its own as a unique medium, instead of as a imitation of painting, which is what the romanticists were accused of.

Today's fondness for bokeh hearkens back to those 19th century images. Nothing wrong with it, but as I said, it would have Adams and the rest of the f/64 school rolling in their graves because it is exactly what they rejected. That doesn't mean they were right. But, I'm personally more of the straight photography school, so the extreme wide aperture lenses have little appeal to me personally. Hence, my point that if I had the money, I'd rather have a big white.


----------



## navastronia (Mar 18, 2020)

unfocused said:


> Actually, only a few of the f/64 group were landscape photographers. Edward Weston shot landscapes, but is better known for his nudes and for his still life images. And, even his landscapes weren't really about the land. Imogen Cunningham is best known for portraits and nudes. Other members are less well known, but are not known primarily as landscape photographers. If you include Peter Stackpole and Dorothea Lange (Stackpole claimed to be a member, but that is in dispute and Lange claimed not to be a member, but that is also in dispute) you have additional examples that were not landscape photographers.
> 
> The defining feature of f/64 was the belief in straight photography. They chose f/64 because they felt in best approximated the way the human eye sees -- everything in focus. It was largely a rejection of the romanticism and soft focus of the late 19th, early 20th century and has its roots in Paul Strand's "White Fence." It might also be summarized as an effort to have photography stand on its own as a unique medium, instead of as a imitation of painting, which is what the romanticists were accused of.
> 
> Today's fondness for bokeh hearkens back to those 19th century images. Nothing wrong with it, but as I said, it would have Adams and the rest of the f/64 school rolling in their graves because it is exactly what they rejected. That doesn't mean they were right. But, I'm personally more of the straight photography school, so the extreme wide aperture lenses have little appeal to me personally. Hence, my point that if I had the money, I'd rather have a big white.



This is a good read. Thank you for sharing!


----------



## Del Paso (Mar 18, 2020)

Larsskv said:


> I believe Nikon shooters will have f2 zooms eventually. I am not sure about Sony, though. Their narrower lens mount is likely a significant disadvantage for extreme lens designs such as the f2 FF zooms.


By then, it could be too late for Nikon, which I'd regret for sentimental reasons, Nikon was always part of the landscape...


----------



## highdesertmesa (Mar 18, 2020)

cayenne said:


> I have the 11-24 f/4 L lens....and it is great fun.
> 
> This new RF lens sounds interesting, but I'm wondering why they aren't going as wide at the older EF lens?
> 
> ...



Because this doesn’t replace the EF 11-24. There is rumored to be an RF 10-24 coming for that.


----------



## sanch (Mar 18, 2020)

The 14-28 f/2 makes sense and it is versatile. But the 70-135 f/2 makes no sense. I can't imagine people carrying the trinity of lenses in their travel. And if you are not travelling ,you might do well with a prime.


----------



## ethanz (Mar 18, 2020)

SV said:


> We're gonna need bigger biceps



I think even people like Fro with massive biceps have challenges holding these beasts for long periods of time.


----------



## navastronia (Mar 18, 2020)

sanch said:


> The 14-28 f/2 makes sense and it is versatile. But the 70-135 f/2 makes no sense. I can't imagine people carrying the trinity of lenses in their travel. And if you are not travelling ,you might do well with a prime.



This post is like the Bat Signal for CanonFanBoy  , but before he gets here, I want to say that despite me having no interest in the 70-135/2, it most certainly does make a ton of sense for portrait photographers who want to have the "right" focal length for subjects with different face types/shapes (not all FLs are flattering to all faces - those with large noses might look better with more compression, etc) while also having good low light/shallow DoF capability.

EDIT: after writing that, I am now a little bit interested in the 70-135/2. Damn!


----------



## KirkD (Mar 18, 2020)

My wallet is still in pain from having purchased the RF 15-35 f2.8L. This 14-28 f2 would be amazing but it was enough of a stretch to purchase the 15-35. I'm tapping out of this one but love that they are making one (maybe). By the way, Fro won't need to work out anymore if he starts shooting with these f2 trinity lenses.


----------



## Ozarker (Mar 18, 2020)

ordinaryfilmmaker said:


> What do you like about these three lenses apart from the other RF lenses? What sets them apart?


Well, so far there is just one f/2 zoom. Do you mean what do I like about it vs. the RF 24-70mm f/2.8? I can answer that only based on looks since I have neither touched nor seen another RF zoom.

I like the way the RF 28-70mm f/2 looks better. I also like the extra stop. Compared to my former EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II... I like the extra stop and the size/shape better. I do not miss the 4mm at the short end. I like the heavier weight. I like the photos I get better. I like the bokeh better.

My Grandson will get all my stuff when I die... so I am thinking about him.


----------



## Ozarker (Mar 18, 2020)

navastronia said:


> This post is like the Bat Signal for CanonFanBoy  , but before he gets here, I want to say that despite me having no interest in the 70-135/2, it most certainly does make a ton of sense for portrait photographers who want to have the "right" focal length for subjects with different face types/shapes (not all FLs are flattering to all faces - those with large noses might look better with more compression, etc) while also having good low light/shallow DoF capability.
> 
> EDIT: after writing that, I am now a little bit interested in the 70-135/2. Damn!


I think the man accidentally got the numbers switched around.  But seriously, as a guy who loves to shoot portraits, it makes more sense for me to carry a faster lens that doesn't go out to 200mm.

While I would only very very rarely have any use for an RF 14-28mm f/2L (I rarely use my 28-70), I still want the f/2L zoom trinity. It might take me 10 years, but I will have it if I am still alive. An RF 70-135mm f/2L would get a whole lot of use from me and that will be my next lens.  When? It's gonna be a little while. Still broke.


----------



## PiezoSwitch (Mar 18, 2020)

SV said:


> We're gonna need bigger biceps



We can justify our purchases by telling our spouses that we'll be more buff and more attractive. Camera equipment with benefits!


----------



## Ozarker (Mar 18, 2020)

PiezoSwitch said:


> We can justify our purchases by telling our spouses that we'll be more buff and more attractive. Camera equipment with benefits!


Well, an f/2 zoom beats a tube sock in the pants all day long.


----------



## TMACIOSZEK (Mar 18, 2020)

You just blocked me on twitter because you made an asinine political comment and I replied to it?

Please delete me from here too then. Asshole.


----------



## Ozarker (Mar 18, 2020)

TMACIOSZEK said:


> You just blocked me on twitter because you made an asinine political comment and I replied to it?
> 
> Please delete me from here too then. Asshole.


Don't know who blocked you on Twitter, but you have the ability to delete your account here at CR yourself... don't you? Instead of picking a cat fight across platforms?


----------



## TMACIOSZEK (Mar 18, 2020)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Don't know who blocked you on Twitter, but you have the ability to delete your account here at CR yourself... don't you? Instead of picking a cat fight across platforms?



CanonRumorsGuy knows exactly who I'm talking about.


----------



## Ozarker (Mar 18, 2020)

TMACIOSZEK said:


> CanonRumorsGuy knows exactly who I'm talking about.


Oh. You're still here. I thought you had left.


----------



## Daner (Mar 18, 2020)

sanch said:


> The 14-28 f/2 makes sense and it is versatile. But the 70-135 f/2 makes no sense. I can't imagine people carrying the trinity of lenses in their travel. And if you are not travelling ,you might do well with a prime.



I like the RF 24-105 f/4 on my EOS R just fine for one-bag travel. It is smaller, lighter, more versatile, and better for my needs than the 24-70f/2.8 5D4 combination that I had before.

That being the case, I can imagine that a 70-135 f/2 would be a wonderful portrait lens, and considerably more versatile than the RF 85 f/1.2 DS that I am currently pining for (especially with the IBIS on the R5).


----------



## slclick (Mar 18, 2020)

I'm not even in the R system yet but I am still thinking how nice it is my EF glass will be just fine...16-35 f/4L IS has never left me wanting.


----------



## slclick (Mar 18, 2020)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Don't know who blocked you on Twitter, but you have the ability to delete your account here at CR yourself... don't you? Instead of picking a cat fight across platforms?


Boomer doesn't know what twitter is


----------



## slclick (Mar 18, 2020)

TMACIOSZEK said:


> CanonRumorsGuy knows exactly who I'm talking about.


Now I wish we could block here! (The ignore is a half measure)


----------



## Deleted member 68328 (Mar 18, 2020)

To me, this zoom is not appealing when compared to the RF 15-35mm.

1) You gain 1mm on the wide end side, but lose 7mm on the other side. No bueno.
2) f/2.0 vs f/2.8 at these focal lengths will not help for bokeh and as regards light gathering, I think you can easily compensate by doing +1 stop ISO
Worse...
3) You lose IS and combo IBIS + IS on the R5 which is supposed to be a 7-8 stops gain
4) Most certainly, bulbous lens => no filter thread. For serious landscape photography, I can't see this as being bueno.

So what's my use case here?


----------



## canonmike (Mar 18, 2020)

SV said:


> We're gonna need bigger biceps


Not to mention, deep, deep pockets or CC's with huge limits.


----------



## Ozarker (Mar 18, 2020)

slclick said:


> Boomer doesn't know what twitter is


My mama always told me that was a crude word for lady parts.  I don't sign up for porn.


----------



## highdesertmesa (Mar 18, 2020)

yoms said:


> To me, this zoom is not appealing when compared to the RF 15-35mm.
> 
> 1) You gain 1mm on the wide end side, but lose 7mm on the other side. No bueno.
> 2) f/2.0 vs f/2.8 at these focal lengths will not help for bokeh and as regards light gathering, I think you can easily compensate by doing +1 stop ISO
> ...




1mm between 15 and 14mm is significant
f2 will l help for bokeh for those of us shooting at MFD and f/2. I've already seen some amazing RF 15-35 wide open at 15mm + MFD shots, so this should be even better.
You only lose the 1-2 stops above the default 5 stops with IBIS. An f/2 zoom with 5 stops of IBIS will be incredible
We won't know if the front element will be filterable or not. If not, it might be designed to accept a rear drop-in filter.
Can't tell you what your use case would be, but I think I can find a few 

For those saying you lose 28-35mm with the f/2: while true, at least there won't be overlap in the f/2 trinity, which I personally like.


----------



## Pixel (Mar 18, 2020)

There may or may not be a market to buy these lenses by the time they hit the streets.


----------



## Ozarker (Mar 18, 2020)

highdesertmesa said:


> 1mm between 15 and 14mm is significant
> f2 will l help for bokeh for those of us shooting at MFD and f/2. I've already seen some amazing RF 15-35 wide open at 15mm + MFD shots, so this should be even better.
> You only lose the 1-2 stops above the default 5 stops with IBIS. An f/2 zoom with 5 stops of IBIS will be incredible
> We won't know if the front element will be filterable or not. If not, it might be designed to accept a rear drop-in filter.
> ...


Focal length overlap. Always bothered me too.  I know why some people appreciate it (possibly less lens changes), but it bothers me. Just not quite orderly enough.


----------



## joestopper (Mar 18, 2020)

SV said:


> We're gonna need bigger biceps



You dont need it, but you will develope it when using it.
The best part: Saves the annual fee for the gym. That money can now go into the lens. Amortizes in less than ten years!


----------



## highdesertmesa (Mar 18, 2020)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Focal length overlap. Always bothered me too.  I know why some people appreciate it (possibly lens lens changes), but it bothers me. Just not quite orderly enough.



Yes, exactly. Why no overlap at 70mm but overlap at the wide end? Shouldn't there be equal overlap at both ends? The OCD in me gets set off by that (hah). I can see for event shooting that having the widest reach on the wide end could be helpful. But for landscape, if I have the 15-35 on the camera and need to shoot at 35mm, I will probably change to the middle zoom for the best IQ.

Currently I'm thinking I will land with the f/2.8 trinity but substituting the RF 50 f/1.2 in the middle. That makes way more sense to me, and I already have the 50 and 70-200, so it's a single lens away from being complete.

Then for the f/2 trinity, I have the 28-70, and I think I will want to pair that with the rumored 24 f/1.2 and 135 f/1.4 primes.


----------



## slclick (Mar 18, 2020)

I never got hung up on FL overlap. I purchase each lens to do a certain job, offer a particular look. How they align with other lenses is just happenstance. I get having that mindset though but there are certain focal lengths I just avoid like 41-84. It's great we all see differently.


----------



## David - Sydney (Mar 18, 2020)

yoms said:


> To me, this zoom is not appealing when compared to the RF 15-35mm.
> 
> 1) You gain 1mm on the wide end side, but lose 7mm on the other side. No bueno.
> 2) f/2.0 vs f/2.8 at these focal lengths will not help for bokeh and as regards light gathering, I think you can easily compensate by doing +1 stop ISO
> ...


Astro (low light/no filters/tripod mount). Assumes controlled coma. Minimise star trailing by faster shutter speeds with wider aperture
Events/concerts (low light/no filters/wider angle/bokeh generally not an issue). IS would be great since handheld but IBIS will certainly help
Losing on the tele-end can be helped by cropping with R5 although perspective will change of course. Although you could use it for landscape, filters would be costly


----------



## Ozarker (Mar 18, 2020)

highdesertmesa said:


> Yes, exactly. Why no overlap at 70mm but overlap at the wide end? Shouldn't there be equal overlap at both ends? The OCD in me gets set off by that (hah). I can see for event shooting that having the widest reach on the wide end could be helpful. But for landscape, if I have the 15-35 on the camera and need to shoot at 35mm, I will probably change to the middle zoom for the best IQ.
> 
> Currently I'm thinking I will land with the f/2.8 trinity but substituting the RF 50 f/1.2 in the middle. That makes way more sense to me, and I already have the 50 and 70-200, so it's a single lens away from being complete.
> 
> Then for the f/2 trinity, I have the 28-70, and I think I will want to pair that with the rumored 24 f/1.2 and 135 f/1.4 primes.


See, for storage, I would have to have one Pelican case for the zooms and one for the primes.

When I was building my EF zoom trinity I had the 24-70, 70-200, and then flatly refused to buy the 16-35. Then Canon came out with the 11-24 and I thought, "There will once again be order in the world." I went to the big Camera store in Las Vegas to lay my eyes on it. I had the cash in my pocket. I held it. I hugged it. The wife was with me. Just because it looked so cool I decided to hold the Tamron 15-35. When I did that the wife asks, "Will that fit your camera?" Stupidly I replied, "*sigh* Yes." She talked me down from the $3,000 Canon ledge and I walked out with the Tamron.

Don't get me wrong, that Tamron was a very nice lens. However, it always bothered me. Overlap. Not just overlap, but a third party brand that screwed up my color scheme in the Pelican case. 

I never did get the 11-24 to make things right. Then along came the RF system and I seen me a window of opportunity to bring balance back to the universe.

So I told her over the next few months:

"I need this new camera because I need more megapixels and won't have to AFMA."
"I am getting too blind to manual focus my vintage lenses. I really do need focus peaking."
"I can keep using my same old EF lenses. No problem, honey."
"I'm just going to sell a couple of lenses I don't use much."
"You know, if I sell the rest of these I can get this and this lens in RF and won't have to use that adapter."

So here I am today. The universe is still out of balance, but there is Lady Justice and her scale standing across the far horizon. Someday...... someday.


----------



## slclick (Mar 18, 2020)

CanonFanBoy said:


> See, for storage, I would have to have one Pelican case for the zooms and one for the primes.
> 
> When I was building my EF zoom trinity I had the 24-70, 70-200, and then flatly refused to buy the 16-35. Then Canon came out with the 11-24 and I thought, "There will once again be order in the world." I went to the big Camera store in Las Vegas to lay my eyes on it. I had the cash in my pocket. I held it. I hugged it. The wife was with me. Just because it looked so cool I decided to hold the Tamron 15-35. When I did that the wife asks, "Will that fit your camera?" Stupidly I replied, "*sigh* Yes." She talked me down from the $3,000 Canon ledge and I walked out with the Tamron.
> 
> ...


Imagine fitting the Sigma 24-35 Art into the typical kit, it totally messed with people's heads. (a damn fine lens)


----------



## PiezoSwitch (Mar 18, 2020)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Don't get me wrong, that Tamron was a very nice lens. However, it always bothered me. Overlap. Not just overlap, but a third party brand that screwed up my color scheme in the Pelican case.



I love taking photographs and I have owned and used multiple camera systems (still do) so there is a certain neutrality that I have about camera equipment. If I take a photo I like I don't care what brand of camera I used to take it. I own camera equipment to take photos.

BUT and this is a big BUT.

I like having nice gear. I won't go overboard and purchase something outrageously expensive especially if I don't have a definite use for it. But I have more gear than I probably need. I like well made, well engineered equipment, tactile feedback and feel means something to me. So holding a white L Canon lens or a beefy well engineered RF lens appeals to me in a way that most 3rd party lenses won't (Zeiss OTUS being a major exception in my mind, Sigma ART). So your comment about the Tamron reasonates with me as well.


----------



## sanj (Mar 18, 2020)

Larsskv said:


> I believe Nikon shooters will have f2 zooms eventually. I am not sure about Sony, though. Their narrower lens mount is likely a significant disadvantage for extreme lens designs such as the f2 FF zooms.


I think Sony will have it sooner.


----------



## sanj (Mar 18, 2020)

yoms said:


> To me, this zoom is not appealing when compared to the RF 15-35mm.
> 
> 1) You gain 1mm on the wide end side, but lose 7mm on the other side. No bueno.
> 2) f/2.0 vs f/2.8 at these focal lengths will not help for bokeh and as regards light gathering, I think you can easily compensate by doing +1 stop ISO
> ...


It will have a filter thread.


----------



## 6degrees (Mar 18, 2020)

Canon RF 85mm F1.2 L
Canon RF 35mm F1.2 L
Canon RF 14-28mm F2 L
Canon R5


----------



## davidespinosa (Mar 18, 2020)

highdesertmesa said:


> Then for the f/2 trinity, I have the 28-70, and I think I will want to pair that with the rumored 24 f/1.2 and 135 f/1.4 primes.



There's a 35 f/1.2 rumor, but no 24 or 135 rumor yet.
I wish !


----------



## slclick (Mar 18, 2020)

A 135 1.2 would be as big as a 200 f/2L


----------



## Ozarker (Mar 19, 2020)

slclick said:


> A 135 1.2 would be as big as a 200 f/2L


Even I would balk at that. Imagine the price? The price of the RF 14-28 f/2L will be higher than the 28-70 if the 11-24L is any indicator. A 135 f/1.2L I think will never happen.


----------



## highdesertmesa (Mar 19, 2020)

davidespinosa said:


> There's a 35 f/1.2 rumor, but no 24 or 135 rumor yet.
> I wish !











Canon RF 24mm f/1.2L & RF 85mm f/1.2L in the works [CR1]


We're told that beyond new f/2.8 RF zoom lenses, that Canon is working on two new L prime lenses, an RF 24mm f/1.2L USM and an RF 85mm f/1.2L for release in l



www.canonrumors.com













Patent: Canon RF 135mm f/1.4L USM


Well here's a fun optical formula from Canon discovered by Canon News, a Canon RF 135mm f/1.4L USM. The Canon EF 135mm f/2L USM is an all-time classic, and t



www.canonrumors.com


----------



## highdesertmesa (Mar 19, 2020)

slclick said:


> A 135 1.2 would be as big as a 200 f/2L



The reference was to a 35 f/1.2 and 135 f/1.4 – not 135 f/1.2.


----------



## slclick (Mar 19, 2020)

highdesertmesa said:


> The reference was to a 35 f/1.2 and 135 f/1.4 – not 135 f/1.2.


I just looked up at the last post and there it was maybe I didn't go up the ladder high enough to appease you but oh well. I've been in multiple earthquakes today while dealing with other various things, you know


----------



## Juangrande (Mar 19, 2020)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Oh. You're still here. I thought you had left.


Doc Holliday:
Oh. Johnny, I apologize; I forgot you were there. You may go now.


----------



## dslrdummy (Mar 19, 2020)

CanonFanBoy said:


> My goodness! Who could have imagined an f/2 zoom trinity 3 years ago? Gonna take me years and years to complete the set. Godspeed, men. Godspeed.


Gonna take me years to start the set.


----------



## navastronia (Mar 19, 2020)

6degrees said:


> Canon RF 85mm F1.2 L
> Canon RF 35mm F1.2 L
> Canon RF 14-28mm F2 L
> Canon R5



YES


----------



## highdesertmesa (Mar 19, 2020)

slclick said:


> I just looked up at the last post and there it was maybe I didn't go up the ladder high enough to appease you but oh well. I've been in multiple earthquakes today while dealing with other various things, you know



Go up the ladder high enough? I was talking about the post right above yours  I knew it was a simple oversight and no rudeness was intended.


----------



## slclick (Mar 19, 2020)

highdesertmesa said:


> Go up the ladder high enough? I was talking about the post right above yours  I knew it was a simple oversight and no rudeness was intended.


It just came across as schooling me, I don't need that shit...glad it wan't intended. Thanks


----------



## dominic_siu (Mar 19, 2020)

KirkD said:


> My wallet is still in pain from having purchased the RF 15-35 f2.8L. This 14-28 f2 would be amazing but it was enough of a stretch to purchase the 15-35. I'm tapping out of this one but love that they are making one (maybe). By the way, Fro won't need to work out anymore if he starts shooting with these f2 trinity lenses.


Same here, but if 1428F2 release, I would trade my 1535 for 1428


----------



## john1970 (Mar 19, 2020)

I recently purchased the f2.8 trinity and am very content with my purchases. The f2 zooms are an engineering marvel, but for me they are too heavy to handle for daily use. I thought the 82 mm filters on the f2.8 were large until I saw the 95 mm filters on the f2. Wow!!


----------



## Larsskv (Mar 19, 2020)

sanj said:


> I think Sony will have it sooner.



How is Sony supposed to make a “decent in the corners” f2 zoom with their narrow lens mount? Will they change their lens mount, or build it bazooka-sized?


----------



## Master-H (Mar 19, 2020)

Daner said:


> f/2 trinity (14-28, *28-70*, 70-135)
> *f/2.8 trinity with IS* (*15-35, 24-70, 70-200*) (Achievement unlocked)
> f/4+ trinity with IS (?-35, *24-105*, 100-500)


f2 with about 2x zoom
f2.8 IS with about 3x zoom
f4 IS with about 4x zoom


----------



## shelms488 (Mar 19, 2020)

ethanz said:


> Dual card slots on the camera is not safe enough. Customers demand dual dual redundancy and backup. With the new RF mount boasting extra data bandwidth, it can send the files straight to the lens card slots. Brilliant idea.



Hey you know what they say. 3 is 2, 2 is 1, 1 is none. 
Also I bet we could get better read/write performance if we tied all the cards together in a in-camera SD card RAID array. LOL


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Mar 19, 2020)

Daner said:


> f/2 trinity (14-28, *28-70*, 70-135)
> *f/2.8 trinity with IS* (*15-35, 24-70, 70-200*) (Achievement unlocked)
> f/4+ trinity with IS (?-35, *24-105*, 100-500)



I'm pretty sure there will be a 70-200 F4.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Mar 19, 2020)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Focal length overlap. Always bothered me too.  I know why some people appreciate it (possibly less lens changes), but it bothers me. Just not quite orderly enough.


Except that focal overlap is there for a reason. A 24-70 isn't really a 24-70...it's closer to 25.5 to 65mm in reality. A 70-200 isn't really a 70-200...it's actually a 75-190mm. So where zooms are concerned....they often fall a bit short or long at either end of their claimed focal scale. Primes are general a lot more accurate, but again this focal length figure shifts according to the point of focus. Focus breathing causes the focal length to change too. Again....zooms tend to fare worse than primes in this regards. I once owned a Sigma 120-300 f2.8 OS (not for long I might add). Along side my canon 70-200 f2.8, I found that it underexposed by 1/3 of a stop...indicating that it wasn't really an 2.8 optic. The 120mm was a lot longer than that, closer to 135mm in my estimates. The 300mm end was way shorter too. If I brought the focus to MFD....then it wasn't much longer than my 70-200. I recon 240mm max. There was so little reason on keeping that lens compared to the vastly lighter, faster focssing and sharper 70-200mm f2.8 LIS II. I sold the Sigma and a few other bits to fund a S/H ef 400mm F2.8 LIS, which quite frankly was in a different league and it was the last Sigma lens I bought.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Mar 19, 2020)

I think for me, the f2 range are nice, but too big and heavy. Too much of a compromise between primes and zooms to justify swapping my fast primes and f2.8 zooms. I run with both depending on lighting conditions at wedding venues. I also find the focal ranges to be a bit limiting. I would prefer the wide to be 14-35mm. The extra length on the long end is exceptionally useful. The 28mm end of the 28-70/f2 is way shorter than the 24mm end that I enjoy with my f2.8 zoom. Making this far less versatile as a one lens walkabout. The rumours of a 70-135mm f2 are again a little short and I can't see much more value over a 135mm f2 prime. A 16-35/f2.8, 50 f1.2, 85 f1.2 and a 135mm f2 are way more versatile than the f2 trinity. 
Plus the issues of the Eos R body, poor UI and quirky AF implementation...leaves me still very cold for the current Canon mirror less set up. Hopefully the R5 will rectify this?
In the mean time....I'm still rocking a pair of 5DmkIII's, a full set of ef fast primes and a full set of ef 2.8 zoomsters....


----------



## Etienne (Mar 19, 2020)

I actually prefer f/4 at the ultra-wide side because of the weight saving.
But 70-135 f/2 IS would be amazing, if it doesn't weigh too much.


----------



## Etienne (Mar 19, 2020)

jvillain said:


> I was pretty impressed at first then I realized that all these zooms are just 2X. That means Canon is finally catching up to Sigma who have had their 18-35 and 50-100 1.8s for years. The Canon FF lenses will deliver more being FF lenses but the lens designs aren't that radical any more.


Seriously dude? 
Those sigma lenses are APS-C. They are not even remotely in the same category as these Canon f/2 zooms.


----------



## Etienne (Mar 19, 2020)

john1970 said:


> I recently purchased the f2.8 trinity and am very content with my purchases. The f2 zooms are an engineering marvel, but for me they are too heavy to handle for daily use. I thought the 82 mm filters on the f2.8 were large until I saw the 95 mm filters on the f2. Wow!!



I tend to agree. It's nice to know the f/2 zooms are out there should the need arise, but I doubt I'll go that route in the end.
My choices will likely be, when available: 16-35 f/4 IS, 50 f/1.4 or the rumored 40 f/1.8, and the 100-500 or the 70-200 f/2.8 IS. I'm probably the odd one out in that I'm not really into the standard zooms. I prefer a standard prime and zooms on the wide and tele for a compact kit.


----------



## Ozarker (Mar 19, 2020)

GMCPhotographics said:


> Except that focal overlap is there for a reason. A 24-70 isn't really a 24-70...it's closer to 25.5 to 65mm in reality. A 70-200 isn't really a 70-200...it's actually a 75-190mm. So where zooms are concerned....they often fall a bit short or long at either end of their claimed focal scale. Primes are general a lot more accurate, but again this focal length figure shifts according to the point of focus. Focus breathing causes the focal length to change too. Again....zooms tend to fare worse than primes in this regards. I once owned a Sigma 120-300 f2.8 OS (not for long I might add). Along side my canon 70-200 f2.8, I found that it underexposed by 1/3 of a stop...indicating that it wasn't really an 2.8 optic. The 120mm was a lot longer than that, closer to 135mm in my estimates. The 300mm end was way shorter too. If I brought the focus to MFD....then it wasn't much longer than my 70-200. I recon 240mm max. There was so little reason on keeping that lens compared to the vastly lighter, faster focssing and sharper 70-200mm f2.8 LIS II. I sold the Sigma and a few other bits to fund a S/H ef 400mm F2.8 LIS, which quite frankly was in a different league and it was the last Sigma lens I bought.


Maybe so, but those reasons are not a concern for me. The only overlap I am talking about is 16-35/24-70 which is 11mm. There may not be a logical reason for this being an issue. That's not the point in my case.


----------



## twoheadedboy (Mar 19, 2020)

This looks great, but I would really also like a 20mm and/or 14mm f/1.4 IS (or f/1.2 to go with the 50 and 85) fixed focal length tripod killer to refresh those lenses in the EF line. Honestly I'd probably be happier with an 18mm and be fine with zooms wider than that but I'm just basing off what Canon has already produced in that area. Then again I'd also like Canon to make a 28mm f/1.4, had to resort to the Sigma for that (which is a great lens, don't get me wrong, just prefer Canon glass). The fact that they have two f/2 zooms, an f/4, and a variable aperture zoom on the way that hit this focal length, plus a great 35mm f/1.8, plus will certainly need a 24mm for folks who prefer that focal length, means I'm probably never getting that, or not for many years.


----------



## Trey T (Mar 19, 2020)

BeenThere said:


> Yes, but think of the vignetting. Oh, the horror!


They will get rid of the vignetting if it includes a $10k price tag


----------



## Deleted member 68328 (Mar 19, 2020)

highdesertmesa said:


> 1mm between 15 and 14mm is significant
> f2 will l help for bokeh for those of us shooting at MFD and f/2. I've already seen some amazing RF 15-35 wide open at 15mm + MFD shots, so this should be even better.
> You only lose the 1-2 stops above the default 5 stops with IBIS. An f/2 zoom with 5 stops of IBIS will be incredible
> We won't know if the front element will be filterable or not. If not, it might be designed to accept a rear drop-in filter.
> ...



1. No it isn't. See this focal length simulator simulator. Also I didn't say 14mm is useless in comparison to 15mm, but the trade-off for losing 7mm on the other side is meh.

2. No it won't. At 14mm f/2.0 focused at 1 meter, image is still sharp 1.43m behind the subject. Check this calculator. How many extra meters would you need to have a creamy bokeh? Impossible.

3. We don't know yet. How can you assume the IS of the RF 15-35mm only accounts for 1-2 stop(s) of the overall combo IS + IBIS for a yet to be released R5 camera? Also f/2.8 + 2 extra stops IS is superior to f/2.0 without these 2 extra stops for _static_ subject shooting.

4. If not filterable, it'll most certainly have a rear drop-in filter which is nice to have, but still meh. The base filter kit for landscape is composed of ND and CPOL filters. You can't combine filters or rotate your CPOL filter with a rear drop-in system.

------------

5. For astro, you're better off with a fixed focal length like the Sigma 14mm

6. For concert and low-light photography in general, I understand the benefit of 1 stop extra. But honestly, given Canon sensors perform well at high ISO and given the high MP count of the R5 sensor (more MP do compensate for noise actually), shooting concert/low-light situations at f/2.8 is a no brainer. If you're only shooting that with your UWA zoom, then ok. Otherwise, the trade-off isn't worthwhile.

Don't get me wrong, choices are always nice to have. I mean go for it Canon! But had it started at 11mm like the EF version, it would have been a significant differentiator from the RF 15-35mm.


----------



## cayenne (Mar 19, 2020)

Jack Douglas said:


> F4 is big enough!




Well, sure, it is a bit "chunky", but I've managed to carry it in my bag and use it at concerts still, so it can be done....


----------



## gdanmitchell (Mar 19, 2020)

TBH, after we see the price...
... and size...
... and weight of such a thing...
... we'll all realize that there would be a much bigger demand for an f/4 version.
I get it that a few people always want the absolutely biggest aperture lens for everything, but the percentage of ultra-wide angle photography that would benefit from f/2 over, say f/2.8, is extraordinary tiny.


----------



## cayenne (Mar 19, 2020)

Canon1966 said:


> sounds good. Probably come in at $3000




I'm guessing more than that.

The currently equivalent 11-24L f/4 lens is MSRP $2999....I'd have to guess a faster R one would be a tad more $$.

C


----------



## Ale_F (Mar 19, 2020)

AccipiterQ said:


> I demand a 70-200 f/2L with dual card slots.


No IBIS... no 30p.


----------



## BeenThere (Mar 19, 2020)

gdanmitchell said:


> TBH, after we see the price...
> ... and size...
> ... and weight of such a thing...
> ... we'll all realize that there would be a much bigger demand for an f/4 version.
> I get it that a few people always want the absolutely biggest aperture lens for everything, but the percentage of ultra-wide angle photography that would benefit from f/2 over, say f/2.8, is extraordinary tiny.


Agree, and especially true for a zoom where some other compromises must be made.


----------



## Architect1776 (Mar 19, 2020)

Ale_F said:


> No IBIS... no 30p.



you mean 24p       
That is the real panic.


----------



## Steve Balcombe (Mar 19, 2020)

yoms said:


> Don't get me wrong, choices are always nice to have. I mean go for it Canon! But had it started at 11mm like the EF version, it would have been a significant differentiator from the RF 15-35mm.


Surely f/2 is the differentiator?


----------



## navastronia (Mar 19, 2020)

In related news from Sony, their 12-24 f/2.8 may cost $4,000.









Sony's Rumored 12-24 f/2.8 GM Lens May Cost $4,000: Report


Sony is preparing to add an ultra-wide "holy trinity" lens to its G Master lineup, the 12-24mm f/2.8 GM, but don't get too excited. According to the most




petapixel.com


----------



## sanj (Mar 19, 2020)

The quality of the zoom lens is fantastic now. The primes are better. But I prefer the flexibility of a zoom over the slight advantage of the primes. Having said that I will get the RF 50 mm when I get the R5.


----------



## highdesertmesa (Mar 19, 2020)

yoms said:


> 1. No it isn't. See this focal length simulator simulator. Also I didn't say 14mm is useless in comparison to 15mm, but the trade-off for losing 7mm on the other side is meh.
> 
> 2. No it won't. At 14mm f/2.0 focused at 1 meter, image is still sharp 1.43m behind the subject. Check this calculator. How many extra meters would you need to have a creamy bokeh? Impossible.
> 
> ...




Maybe 14 vs 15mm isn't enough of a difference for you. Nikon's 14-24 – why not just make it a 15-24 and higher IQ? Because many people want and or need 14mm.
1 meter? That's hardly MFD, which was what I specified. Try 28cm, and the 14-24 might have a slightly better MFD at that. If you're not a wide-open MFD shooter, then not sure why you'd be commenting on this point. At 1m, yes, who cares.
RF 15-35 has (up to) five stops of IS. Rumored additive effect of IBIS is supposed to top out around 6.5 to 7 stops. Perhaps with wide angles, we'll see more benefit in the IS+IBIS vs telephotos. Yes, for still subjects the f/2.8 is great. But f/2 buyers are often event shooters, so the f/2 is an advantage for many.
Meh or not, the current Canon 14mm prime has a rear drop in filter. It's the price you pay for 14mm. Canon may surprise us with a filterable 14-24, but surely it will be 95-105mm. This is one drawback of all large aperture lenses and understandable it would be a big drawback to many buyers.
Not sure that we're really at odds here – I think we're just describing different use cases in which we see benefit or no benefit.


----------



## highdesertmesa (Mar 19, 2020)

gdanmitchell said:


> TBH, after we see the price...
> ... and size...
> ... and weight of such a thing...
> ... we'll all realize that there would be a much bigger demand for an f/4 version.
> I get it that a few people always want the absolutely biggest aperture lens for everything, but the percentage of ultra-wide angle photography that would benefit from f/2 over, say f/2.8, is extraordinary tiny.



You would consider event shooters an extraordinarily tiny demographic? Combined with getting 14mm over 15mm, f/2 will be worth it to some. Canon's obviously run the sales projections on all their low run, high cost RF lenses in the works. This isn't a Z-mount Noct by any stretch.

An f/4 version may not differentiate a 14-24 enough over the rumored RF 10-24 f/4 and RF 15-35 f/4 IS.


----------



## Mr Majestyk (Mar 19, 2020)

So Sony rumours claims the Sony 14-24 f/2.8 GM will cost $4K, which would put this at about $6K based on that pricing. It won't be that dear but it will be dearer than the 28-70 f/2. Much much harder to do highly optically corrected f/2 ultrawide angle zoom.


----------



## joestopper (Mar 19, 2020)

Mr Majestyk said:


> So Sony rumours claims the Sony 14-24 f/2.8 GM will cost $4K, which would put this at about $6K based on that pricing. It won't be that dear but it will be dearer than the 28-70 f/2. Much much harder to do highly optically corrected f/2 ultrawide angle zoom.



I believe that the entire f/2 trinity will priced within +-500 apart from each other. Look at f/2.8 trinity how close the prices are.


----------



## JumboShrimp (Mar 20, 2020)

Big, heavy, expensive, limited. Waste of Canon's resources. Perhaps they might sell a dozen or so ...


----------



## chong67 (Mar 20, 2020)

When? Keep teasing. Just release it.

I like F2. No more noise in low light.


----------



## unfocused (Mar 20, 2020)

JumboShrimp said:


> Big, heavy, expensive, limited. Waste of Canon's resources. Perhaps they might sell a dozen or so ...


As long as they make a profit, and Canon isn't in the habit of producing products that don't make a profit, who cares?


----------



## davidespinosa (Mar 20, 2020)

highdesertmesa said:


> Canon RF 24mm f/1.2L & RF 85mm f/1.2L in the works [CR1]
> 
> 
> We're told that beyond new f/2.8 RF zoom lenses, that Canon is working on two new L prime lenses, an RF 24mm f/1.2L USM and an RF 85mm f/1.2L for release in l
> ...



Thanks !
The 135mm looks promising.
But I bet the 24mm turned into the 35mm f/1.2, at least for the moment.


----------



## MadScotsman (Mar 20, 2020)

AccipiterQ said:


> I demand a 70-200 f/2L with dual card slots.



TWO card slots?

What a joke.

If the image wasn't saved on at least THREE cards simultaneously it obviously wasn't worth taking in the first place.

I'm a REAL professional, and would never insult my customer and fail them by putting their images at risk on a mere TWO card slots.

I REFUSE to by any new lens if it's not AT LEAST three slots. 

This is why pros don't take Canon seriously.


----------



## sanj (Mar 20, 2020)

JumboShrimp said:


> Big, heavy, expensive, limited. Waste of Canon's resources. Perhaps they might sell a dozen or so ...


Hahhaha. Brilliant. Thanks for a good laugh.


----------



## BillB (Mar 20, 2020)

sanj said:


> Hahhaha. Brilliant. Thanks for a good laugh.


That's what a good CR1 rumor can do.


----------



## c.drum (Mar 20, 2020)

sanj said:


> With IBS, f2 would be the way to go. But $$$$



Ah yes, Irritable Bowel Syndrome really warrants the need for f2.


----------



## SteveC (Mar 20, 2020)

MadScotsman said:


> TWO card slots?
> 
> What a joke.
> 
> ...



You can probably cram at least ten cards into the RF drop in filter adapter, if you remove the filter.

The cards will make direct physical contact with the sensor, increasing their throughput.


----------



## joestopper (Mar 21, 2020)

JumboShrimp said:


> Big, heavy, expensive, limited. Waste of Canon's resources. Perhaps they might sell a dozen or so ...



Alone to people in this thread they will sell dozens ...


----------



## Antono Refa (Mar 21, 2020)

MadScotsman said:


> I REFUSE to by any new lens if it's not AT LEAST three slots.



That's not good enough - off site backup is a must via real time wireless upload to the cloud.


----------



## highdesertmesa (Mar 21, 2020)

SwissFrank said:


> For me the *big* problem with an f/2 trinity is... *what is the point?*
> 
> In the old days, an f/2.8 trinity made sense as at least they could all be autofocused using all focus points, but that's not a worry any more. Aperture could be literally anything nowadays.
> 
> ...



"I don't get it, so how could anyone else possibly want it?"

Thankfully Canon isn't listening to you.


----------



## sanj (Mar 21, 2020)

SwissFrank said:


> For me the *big* problem with an f/2 trinity is... *what is the point?*
> 
> In the old days, an f/2.8 trinity made sense as at least they could all be autofocused using all focus points, but that's not a worry any more. Aperture could be literally anything nowadays.
> 
> ...


Shooting at ISO 1600 and not 3200 is the point. Amongst others.


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 22, 2020)

sanj said:


> Shooting at ISO 1600 and not 3200 is the point. Amongst others.


Just playing devils advocate here ...

Nowadays what difference does that make, iso 3,200 from basically every modern camera is more than usable for pretty much everything, f2 often doesn't give you the dof you need.

I can see a use for both f2 and f2.8 zooms but the size weight and cost of these f2 zooms makes even faster primes even more appealing.


----------



## tron (Mar 22, 2020)

That can be a serious piece of a lens collection. I would be highly tempted but for my f/2.8L zooms (EF and RF) and the Sigma 14 1.8. But as unfocused said primes would be quite appealing. How about a 14 1.4L for example?  
Come on Canon you Can! (Pun intended since that was a previous decade moto by the way)


----------



## joestopper (Mar 22, 2020)

davidespinosa said:


> Thanks !
> The 135mm looks promising.
> But I bet the 24mm turned into the 35mm f/1.2, at least for the moment.



I dont think so: While 35mm is more for street photography, 24 is a classical landscape prime. We will certainly see the RF 24.


----------



## MadScotsman (Mar 22, 2020)

joestopper said:


> We will certainly see the RF 24.



Yes. Please.


----------



## Ozarker (Mar 22, 2020)

SwissFrank said:


> Thanks for the answer, instead of just attacking me for asking the question.
> 
> I'm trying to think though, even in candlelight I can shoot a 35/1.4 wide open 1/15th on 1600 film (and did so 1000s of times). At 14-15mm, you wouldn't even need IS to be on to obey the reciprocal rule.
> 
> ...


What matters isn't that it is common for the average photographer or not. What matters is whether or not a large enough number of people would rather shoot at a faster shutter speed in the same amount of light at f/2 vs f/2.8 to make it a profitable product.

You want a defined purpose. For you, there may not be one in any case. But that is not the point. For somebody else there is a purpose and it doesn't have to be explained or justified to anyone... even for the sake of argument. It is very simple: Some people are willing to pay more for a larger aperture. Whether or not you or I think it is a good idea, smart, worth it, or anything else, is none of our business. Canon has identified a lens/focal length combination Canon believes will be profitable and have produced it. Is Canon right or wrong? We will see.


----------



## sanj (Mar 22, 2020)

SwissFrank said:


> Thanks for the answer, instead of just attacking me for asking the question.
> 
> I'm trying to think though, even in candlelight I can shoot a 35/1.4 wide open 1/15th on 1600 film (and did so 1000s of times). At 14-15mm, you wouldn't even need IS to be on to obey the reciprocal rule.
> 
> ...


I am not the attacking type!  Been there, done that. Realized it does not work. f2 with save you a stop of ISO. If that matters to you or not, you decide. For me, 1600 ISO gives a visibly better IQ. The other purpose would be a background blur.


----------



## dominic_siu (Mar 23, 2020)

Can shoot at one whole stop faster with 2 times of light gathering capability means a lot for F2 zoom vs F2.8 zoom


----------



## highdesertmesa (Mar 23, 2020)

SwissFrank said:


> My mail clearly kicked off in bold with: *what is the point?*
> 
> I am not making a statement, I am asking a question.
> 
> So why do you say "Thankfully Canon isn't listening to you"? I'm simply asking what the purpose is. Why are you so aggressive to me?



Because your post reads like a nonsensical rant and your questions sound rhetorical? 

Given the choices between the RF 24-105L f/4, 24-70L f/2.8, and 28-70L f/2, I went with the f/2. Really sad I did every time I have to carry it a long distance and really glad I did every time I look at the images taken with it.

The RF 28-70L f/2 is like having several Otus primes in one lens: sacrificing f/1.4 but gaining autofocus. The rest of the f/2 trinity will likely be equally world-class. But those for whom the IQ, convenience over primes, and rendering do not outweigh the lack of IS and the extra size and weight, Canon has us covered there, too with f/2.8 and f/4 versions.

Maybe you just got caught up in the whirlwind of everyone else's naysaying, and you genuinely wanted to know. I say look at threads about and images taken with the 28-70 to better understand why someone would want the rumored 14-28 f/2.


----------



## highdesertmesa (Mar 23, 2020)

^ To further add: don't think that means that I actually will buy the wide and tele f/2 zooms from the f/2 trinity. I'm pretty happy to sit on the 28-70 like a toadstool and position other lenses around it. I bought the RF 70-200 instead of waiting for the 70-135 f/2 because my need is for a small, light lens with more reach than 135mm for travel. I plan on getting the RF 15-35 f/2.8 for travel as well. Then I'll put my RF 50 f/1.2 squarely in the middle for my own oddball trinity. But I can see why the wide and tele f/2 lenses would be nice for some.


----------



## Chris.Chapterten (Mar 23, 2020)

privatebydesign said:


> Just playing devils advocate here ...
> 
> Nowadays what difference does that make, iso 3,200 from basically every modern camera is more than usable for pretty much everything, f2 often doesn't give you the dof you need.
> 
> I can see a use for both f2 and f2.8 zooms but the size weight and cost of these f2 zooms makes even faster primes even more appealing.


Agreed! But iso 3200 on the EOS R doesn't look great at a pixel level.. I like to max out at iso 1000 if I can.. I find that to be very clean.


----------



## SecureGSM (Mar 23, 2020)

Chris.Chapterten said:


> Agreed! But iso 3200 on the EOS R doesn't look great at a pixel level.. I like to max out at iso 1000 if I can.. I find that to be very clean.


Are you talking RAW @ISO 3200 or OOC JPG?
At any rate. Anything up to ISO5800-ish should not be an issue. Not even at a pixel level.


----------



## Chris.Chapterten (Mar 23, 2020)

SecureGSM said:


> Are you talking RAW @ISO 3200 or OOC JPG?
> At any rate. Anything up to ISO5800-ish should not be an issue. Not even at a pixel level.



Talking about RAW images with no noise reduction applied. I find even iso 1600 reduces sharpness and adding noise reduction on top makes things worse. For normal digital display sizes, 3200 is fine though.


----------



## SecureGSM (Mar 23, 2020)

Chris.Chapterten said:


> Talking about RAW images with no noise reduction applied. I find even iso 1600 reduces sharpness and adding noise reduction on top makes things worse. For normal digital display sizes, 3200 is fine though.


Right. Could you please review the following page and see if Canon R RAW at iso3200 was substantially noisier than 5D4 for you? thank you.


Image comparison: Digital Photography Review


----------



## Chris.Chapterten (Mar 23, 2020)

SecureGSM said:


> Right. Could you please review the following page and see if Canon R RAW at iso3200 was substantially noisier than 5D4 for you? thank you.
> 
> 
> Image comparison: Digital Photography Review



Thanks for the link. I used to own a 5D IV and I would agree the noise between the two cameras is pretty much the same. Very happy to now have a couple of really nice f1.2 lenses to avoid ever having to go that high with the ISO


----------



## marioslrzn (May 18, 2020)

jvillain said:


> I was pretty impressed at first then I realized that all these zooms are just 2X. That means Canon is finally catching up to Sigma who have had their 18-35 and 50-100 1.8s for years. The Canon FF lenses will deliver more being FF lenses but the lens designs aren't that radical any more.


That’s not the same thing, to make a full frame 28-70 f2 takes a lot of research and development vs a tiny apsc lens which is about 1/4 the size


----------

