# A Canon RF 16-28mm f/2L USM is coming [CR1]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jun 29, 2019)

> A couple of days ago we reported that Canon was hard at work on a second f/2 zoom, with a suggestion that we’d see a “holy trinity” of f/2L zoom lenses from Canon.
> We’ve been told that the next f/2 zoom from Canon will be an RF 16-28mm f/2L USM, which will fit nicely with the RF 28-70mm f/2L USM. None of the f/2 zoom lenses will get image stabilization, but don’t fret, all future EOS R bodies will have in-body image stabilization.
> We have no word on what the telephoto f/2 zoom will be to complete the holy trinity of f/2 zooms.
> More to come…
> The image for this article is the Canon RF 28-70mm f/2L USM.



Continue reading...


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jun 29, 2019)

Cool


----------



## YuengLinger (Jun 29, 2019)

"[D]on't fret, all future Rf bodies will have image stabilization."

Because many of the photographers who can afford these lenses, and many who can justify them for business, really see a need for it--and because Canon can't ignore the trend forever. 

Looking forward to getting one of those IBIS beauties myself!

(And I will remember to take this with a grain of CR1 salt.)


----------



## Cochese (Jun 29, 2019)

So... The new 70-200 2.8. What if... What if it was to the RF mount that the 70-200 f/4 IS is to the EF mount. And the real "pro" 70-200 is an F/2 IS. Hence why canon took the "bold' step to make the new RF 70-200 a collapsible/ compact design.


----------



## YuengLinger (Jun 29, 2019)

Cochese said:


> So... The new 70-200 2.8. What if... What if it was to the RF mount that the 70-200 f/4 IS is to the EF mount. And the real "pro" 70-200 is an F/2 IS. Hence why canon took the "bold' step to make the new RF 70-200 a collapsible/ compact design.


Just avoiding another retractable barrel might be worth the added cost (and weight)...Grit, dust, water drops...Ugh.


----------



## Ozarker (Jun 29, 2019)

Cochese said:


> So... The new 70-200 2.8. What if... What if it was to the RF mount that the 70-200 f/4 IS is to the EF mount. And the real "pro" 70-200 is an F/2 IS. Hence why canon took the "bold' step to make the new RF 70-200 a collapsible/ compact design.


Collapsible? Not internal focusing, but collapsible? Is my EF 24-70 f/2.8L II collapsible? I don't think so. It just doesn't zoom internally. For me, that isn't a plus.


----------



## BillB (Jun 29, 2019)

YuengLinger said:


> "[D]on't fret, all future Rf bodies will have image stabilization."
> 
> Because many of the photographers who can afford these lenses, and many who can justify them for business, really see a need for it--and because Canon can't ignore the trend forever.
> 
> ...


And a tripod can be an option.


----------



## navastronia (Jun 30, 2019)

Cochese said:


> So... The new 70-200 2.8. What if... What if it was to the RF mount that the 70-200 f/4 IS is to the EF mount. And the real "pro" 70-200 is an F/2 IS. Hence why canon took the "bold' step to make the new RF 70-200 a collapsible/ compact design.



Wouldn’t a 70-200 f/2 be prohibitively large? Like, honestly, wouldn’t it end up weighing 50% more than the already-heavy f2.8?

If Canon wants a new trinity (lenses with focal lengths that line up to cover a large range), I think the tele zoom is a 70-135 or 70-150 to save on size, weight, and cost.


----------



## Hector1970 (Jun 30, 2019)

I'd have to do weight training before I'd consider buying this new trinity.
It will be interesting the weight of this lens.
As I've said before I don't see the attraction of a 16-28MM F2 Zoom unless its great for Astro.
It all depends on the type of photography that you do.
I'm sure there will be buyers for it or Canon wouldn't design and sell it.


----------



## WilliamJ (Jun 30, 2019)

I for one am really excited at the thought of three f2 zooms that can cover anything. As someone who’s yet to upgrade to full frame because I get great results with 18-35/50-100 1.8 combo, this is the best reason to move over to the rf system and get the best of all worlds without buying a bag full of primes and have to change my two/three lens shooting style.


----------



## Photo Hack (Jun 30, 2019)

Hector1970 said:


> I'd have to do weight training before I'd consider buying this new trinity.


For anyone who shoots a 5D or 1D with Typical L or Art lenses, it’s actually relatively the same foot print and weight with mirrorless system.

I compared my Mark IV with 85 art (huge lens) to an R with 28-70 and the R setup is nearly the same weight and actually shorter. I haven’t compared it to the new 85L 1.2 yet which would be a better comparison. 

From what I can see so far, the RF lenses are more balanced and heavier near the mount than EF, which balances out the whole system well with a smaller and lighter body.

If you’ve been using a pro DSLR and Fast zooms and primes, The R and these lenses aren’t going to be any significant difference in weight and will actually be a little shorter and more balanced. (That’s just assuming the unreleased lenses are similar to what’s already been released.)

But I second you on the weight training. I’m getting flabby these days and near the 8 hour mark of the day, my back muscles have had it.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Jun 30, 2019)

This would be a very nice lens for astro landscapes. I'm concerned about the price though. The new f2 trinity will probably be around $10k in total.


----------



## Tom W (Jun 30, 2019)

Wow! That is potentially spectacular!

Of course, I'll end up with f/2 envy on an f/4 budget.


----------



## Photo Hack (Jun 30, 2019)

WilliamJ said:


> I for one am really excited at the thought of three f2 zooms that can cover anything. As someone who’s yet to upgrade to full frame because I get great results with 18-35/50-100 1.8 combo, this is the best reason to move over to the rf system and get the best of all worlds without buying a bag full of primes and have to change my two/three lens shooting style.


We’ve had the bag full of primes, got some fast zooms, and now waiting to do the same with a professional R body and ditch our primes and 2.8 zooms for these f2 zooms. 

I used to show up to a wedding with 35, 50, 85, 135, and 200..... ugh spent so much time wallowing over which lenses to use.


----------



## jonebize (Jun 30, 2019)

A little disappointing imo. I wish they would have emphasized a somewhat longer focal length range. I wanted a 20-35mm f/2.0. The f/2.0 aperture at 16mm is not nearly as helpful at f/2.0 as it is at 35mm. I think this was a missed opportunity.

I guess their idea is that an event photographer will carry two bodies and a 16-28 and 28-70 simultaneously. My concept was to carry a 20-35 f/2.0 on one body and a 50 or 85mm prime on a second body.


----------



## PGSanta (Jun 30, 2019)

Hmmm. This seems like a landscapers dream. I bet it gets released with the high res R. 

Now, the question is should I hold off buying the 15-35 RF in favor of this one. I think I might.


----------



## M. D. Vaden of Oregon (Jun 30, 2019)

YuengLinger said:


> "[D]on't fret, all future Rf bodies will have image stabilization."
> 
> Because many of the photographers who can afford these lenses, and many who can justify them for business, really see a need for it--and because Canon can't ignore the trend forever.
> 
> ...



I know many photographers who can afford such a lens. Don't worry, sit back and count your penny jar. We'll take care of ordering this sort of thing.

Meanwhile, there's still plenty of other good lenses available at smaller prices for photographers with smaller budgets, or who may prefer financing. Not every new RF lens will be highly expensive either.


----------



## thom_sch (Jun 30, 2019)

Who needs such a zoom for astrophotogaphy? A simple 16mm F1. 8 prime would be better for it!


----------



## Cochese (Jun 30, 2019)

navastronia said:


> Wouldn’t a 70-200 f/2 be prohibitively large? Like, honestly, wouldn’t it end up weighing 50% more than the already-heavy f2.8?
> 
> If Canon wants a new trinity (lenses with focal lengths that line up to cover a large range), I think the tele zoom is a 70-135 or 70-150 to save on size, weight, and cost.m


That depends on what you consider prohibitively large, I suppose. I've rented/ used the 400mm F/2.8 for a week, never with a tripod/ monopod. And it wasn't a particular issue and a lot of fun to use. I wouldn't want to wander around a forest with it all of the time, but I never got fatigued holding it up. With exception of when I was trying to do multiple handheld shots in the late evening where I had to hold it incredibly still to get anything useable handheld at 1/2 a second. Though, with IBIS coming to the new R body, that probably wouldn't be an issue. In general though, Canon doesn't seem to give much of a shit about size and weight so far this generation. Their R camera is the largest mirrorless (and people seem to love it for that), their new 50 and 85 are massive, as is the 28-70. Likely this 16-28 will also be massive compared to EF models. 
On a personal note, I only upgraded to the 5DMIV early last year, but I have zero issues carrying it and my 70-200 f/2.8 II around as a general walkaround lens. Maybe unconventional, but it always gets the job done. 

Anyway, I'm sure somebody here could do the math and figure out how large the lens would have to be. Holdability would depend on how Canon Balanced the lens out and how much weight they could shave off of it. I mean, it looks as if Canon is working on a new trinity and why make the first two F/2 if they're going to make the third part an f/2.8? Seems like they're taking a lot of design risks with the RF lenses.


----------



## dominic_siu (Jun 30, 2019)

PGSanta said:


> Hmmm. This seems like a landscapers dream. I bet it gets released with the high res R.
> 
> Now, the question is should I hold off buying the 15-35 RF in favor of this one. I think I might.


Same as what I thought that I may hold off buying RF1535 because I have RF2870, 1628 would fit nicely to my kit


----------



## Maximilian (Jun 30, 2019)

Wow!

Just "Wow!" - if true.


----------



## 6degrees (Jun 30, 2019)

So my guess was right: https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/i...m-lens-for-the-rf-mount-cr1.37286/post-780876


----------



## Del Paso (Jun 30, 2019)

Cochese said:


> So... The new 70-200 2.8. What if... What if it was to the RF mount that the 70-200 f/4 IS is to the EF mount. And the real "pro" 70-200 is an F/2 IS. Hence why canon took the "bold' step to make the new RF 70-200 a collapsible/ compact design.


A very interesting theory, hope you are right! This would be a really new (F.2) trinity.


----------



## Del Paso (Jun 30, 2019)

Warning to all Canonistas: expensive year ahead!


----------



## SecureGSM (Jun 30, 2019)

Cochese said:


> So... The new 70-200 2.8. What if... What if it was to the RF mount that the 70-200 f/4 IS is to the EF mount. And the real "pro" 70-200 is an F/2 IS. Hence why canon took the "bold' step to make the new RF 70-200 a collapsible/ compact design.


even if such a lens was made collapsible, 105mm front element will result in way to large and heavy lens. It is a pretty safe bet that Canon will not venture into that territory. Canon likes safe betting.


----------



## wockawocka (Jun 30, 2019)

Based on current RF pricing this won't be worth the asking (imho).

For those excited about it for landscape use, why are we shooting landscapes at F2?


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Jun 30, 2019)

thom_sch said:


> Who needs such a zoom for astrophotogaphy? A simple 16mm F1. 8 prime would be better for it!



I'd love to have such a zoom for astro. 16mm prime would be good of course, but too wide in many scenarios. Primes are too limiting for landscapes.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Jun 30, 2019)

wockawocka said:


> For those excited about it for landscape use, why are we shooting landscapes at F2?



Just astro-landscapes. You normally shoot the sky at the widest aperture and then focus-stack.


----------



## fox40phil (Jun 30, 2019)

thom_sch said:


> Who needs such a zoom for astrophotogaphy? A simple 16mm F1. 8 prime would be better for it!


There is already a 14mm 1.8f from Sigma !


----------



## SecureGSM (Jun 30, 2019)

wockawocka said:


> Based on current RF pricing this won't be worth the asking (imho).
> 
> For those excited about it for landscape use, why are we shooting landscapes at F2?


i can see PJs using this lens wide open for a wide crowd shots in a poor light situation whilst having Canon RF 28-70 / 2.0 attached to a second body...
Dance floor, etc. i would certainly be keen to obtain such a lens ... 2020 will be an expensive year...


----------



## padam (Jun 30, 2019)

I guess that will cost ~ 2800$ and 1.1kg


----------



## YuengLinger (Jun 30, 2019)

Hector1970 said:


> I'd have to do weight training before I'd consider buying this new trinity.
> It will be interesting the weight of this lens.
> As I've said before I don't see the attraction of a 16-28MM F2 Zoom unless its great for Astro.
> It all depends on the type of photography that you do.
> I'm sure there will be buyers for it or Canon wouldn't design and sell it.


Yikes! You are right--the combined weight in a backpack will be tough to swim with!


----------



## YuengLinger (Jun 30, 2019)

kraats said:


> I will wait and see. I do not need a small body with heavy lenses. Maybe one wide angle zoom with f2 would be nice. The current 16-35 III is already very good and I am pleased with it ..... Canon is just showing its muscles with crazy heavy and expensive lenses ..... when it comes to mirrorless I am not sure if fullframe is the way to go. I think APC is. I like the philosophy of Fuji in this regard.


Or it could be the geniuses in marketing and engineering got together and said, "Once the camera is too big to keep in a pocket, who cares? Make the lenses as big as they need to be for ultimate IQ! The sky is the limit!"


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Jun 30, 2019)

fox40phil said:


> There is already a 14mm 1.8f from Sigma !



This lens (16-28 F2) would be amazing for indoor event photography like weddings, concerts, etc.


----------



## Photo Hack (Jun 30, 2019)

kraats said:


> I will wait and see. I do not need a small body with heavy lenses. Maybe one wide angle zoom with f2 would be nice. The current 16-35 III is already very good and I am pleased with it ..... Canon is just showing its muscles with crazy heavy and expensive lenses ..... when it comes to mirrorless I am not sure if fullframe is the way to go. I think APC is. I like the philosophy of Fuji in this regard.





YuengLinger said:


> Or it could be the geniuses in marketing and engineering got together and said, "Once the camera is too big to keep in a pocket, who cares? Make the lenses as big as they need to be for ultimate IQ! The sky is the limit!"


It’s too bad we don’t have sales stats on all Canon’s lenses. With every lens announcement or rumor, some people won’t understand the need for that particular lens. Don’t worry, there’s a need for that lens and Canon knows it.

The needs (and wants) of photographers, like many professions, hobbies, etc., are diverse. Think about how many bodies and lenses are out there from all manufacturers over all time. You have settled on less than probably a half of a half percent of the offerings and only really care about that tiny segment of the market. Well, everyone else is doing the same and goal of a good company is to find a niche and capitalize on the perceived need.

You’re probably right when it comes to the L lenses and full frame. I’m sure there will be a crop sensor and small primes in the future and for those really concerned with size and weight, there’s M.


----------



## DBounce (Jun 30, 2019)

This trinity is probably going to tip the scale at somewhere north of 10lbs... that's pretty dam heavy if you are actually carrying it as a regular part of your kit. Add in the "Pro" body and it might become rather unpleasant rather quickly. 
I thought the promise of mirrorless was smaller, faster, higher quality glass?


----------



## YuengLinger (Jun 30, 2019)

My point about lens size is that Canon has apparently decided there is no immediate benefit to designing for compactness and light weight. In other words, from Canon's point of view, once a photographer has decided to go "pro grade," or once a customer has decided that a phone isn't good enough and is then willing to carry expensive gear, just design for excellent IQ at wide-apertures and be free of portability constraints.

The lack of in-lens IS would be a puzzle if there were no hope of IBIS.

I'm not passing judgment on Canon for making big lenses. I'm looking forward to getting the rf 50mm 1.2L when a suitable body is released.

But *considering the focal lengths*, we certainly are seeing some historically large and heavy lenses for the 35mm format camera. Imagine the photographer in the attached (found at discoverdigitalphotography.com) photo with the upcoming RF trinity!


----------



## Don Haines (Jun 30, 2019)

blackcoffee17 said:


> This lens (16-28 F2) would be amazing for indoor event photography like weddings, concerts, etc.


And real estate......


----------



## SecureGSM (Jun 30, 2019)

correction: upcoming RF Trinity are F2.8 zoom lenses. as per announcement and these are not huge. F2.0 zooms are a specialty lenses.


----------



## tonblom (Jun 30, 2019)

I will consider this one, but I rather have a 14 or 15-35 F2.8. Just a little bit wider.


----------



## YuengLinger (Jun 30, 2019)

SecureGSM said:


> correction: upcoming RF Trinity are F2.8 zoom lenses. as per announcement and these are not huge. F2.0 zooms are a specialty lenses.


They seem to be going with more than one trinity.


----------



## Kit. (Jun 30, 2019)

YuengLinger said:


> They seem to be going with more than one trinity.


I would expect three.

One for prosumers (/4);
One for pro photographers (/2.8);
And one for pro weightlifters (/2.0).

All mix and match to some degree.


----------



## Photo Hack (Jun 30, 2019)

I think some us are getting ahead of ourselves about the what Canon is doing. I feel like we’re expecting f2 zooms in a 2.8 form factor. These new zooms have no comparison yet and are not the standard “trinity”. Haha not to mention this lens hasn’t even been announced and we’re trashing it’s size. 

Plus the total package with these f2 zooms is relatively the same weight and size package as a DSLR and 2.8 trinity. Why is this not being praised? Does anyone appreciate the accomplishment here? 

If the 2.8 RF trinity were these sizes and weights, these observations or criticisms would have some merit. 

What other f2 zooms are lighter and smaller than Canon’s? And who said mirrorless pro lenses were supposed to be significantly smaller and lighter? What other FF mirrorless system has comparable lenses that are the size of 1.8 primes? Have you guys used a Sony lately? Their pro lenses are just as big as DSLR lenses. 

I think some of you are confusing a camera body and camera lens. Yes, the bodies without a mirror are and can be made significantly smaller and lighter.

That all said, a lot of this is so premature as the 2.8 trinity hasn’t even been released and it’s been less than a year into Canons FF mirrorless journey. They will make smaller lenses, they will make everything that has demand. 

So much complaining over lenses most of you will never buy or need, while those of us in the market are absolutely thrilled to have an f2 zooms in the same weight and size package as our DSLR and current 2.8 zooms.


----------



## BeenThere (Jun 30, 2019)

YuengLinger said:


> They seem to be going with more than one trinity.


The holy and the unholy.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 30, 2019)

Photo Hack said:


> Plus the total package with these f2 zooms is relatively the same weight and size package as a DSLR and 2.8 trinity. Why is this not being praised? Does anyone appreciate the accomplishment here?


The R + 24-70/2 is a bit bulkier, and it's 400 g heavier than the 5DIV + 24-70/2.8 II. The lenses alone have a weight difference 625 g, i.e. the RF 24-70/2 weighs 75% more than the EF 24-70/2.8. If that delta holds true for the rest of the trinity (and it won’t, it will be much worse for the 70/200/2 teiezoom which will be larger than the EF 200/2), the f/2 RF zoom set will weigh 2.3 kg more than the EF 2.8 trinity, meaning the package with the body will be 2 kg heavier. That's not 'relatively the same weight', that means carrying around the R and the RF f/2 trinity is like carrying around the 5DIV and EF 2.8 trinity *plus a standard brick*. I'm not saying adding the weight of a brick (literally) to your kit for an extra stop of light isn't worth it, but claiming that adding the weight of a brick results in a 'relatively the same weight package' is ludicrous.


----------



## Photo Hack (Jun 30, 2019)

This might put some proper perspective on size and weight.

5D IV + 24-70 f2.8 = 1,725g
R + 28-70 f2.0 = 2,135g and .5” shorter
1Dx II + 24-70 f2.8 = 2,365g

R + RF 70-200 f2.8 IS = ????g
5D IV + 70-200 f2.8 IS = 2,585g
1Dx II + 70-200 f2.8 IS = 4,060g

Doesn’t seem so bad does it? Now also consider they’re able to move more weight of the lens closer to the mount through better lens design (larger elements near mount) PLUS the 1” or so of mirror space that is gone. That is more noticeable with regards to perceived weight.

You’re getting an unheard of f2 zoom that is unmatched in IQ and light gathering in a package that is shorter and better balanced than your current setup at the expense of a measly 400g.

Maybe one of you engineers out there could calculate the center load mass and compare the two. I would be willing to holding both setups for extended periods of time will be equally as fatiguing. The perceived increase of weight may only be 100g, maybe 200-300g?

Shooting super teles, many know it’s not necessarily the weight that is the problem, it’s how far that weight is from your hands or body that is most fatiguing.

Now if you shoot a 1D, I can guarantee their mirrorless version is going to be ever more of a dramatic loss in weight to the 5D equivalent.

Now watch, the 2.8 RF WITH IS will be slightly larger than the 2.8 without IS and everyone will be singing the same song of criticisms because they’ve had unrealistic expectations to begin with instead of seeing the engineering breakthroughs and firsts that Canon is doing vs the competition.


----------



## Photo Hack (Jun 30, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> The R + 24-70/2 is a bit bulkier, and it's 400 g heavier than the 5DIV + 24-70/2.8 II. The lenses alone have a weight difference 625 g, i.e. the RF 24-70/2 weighs 75% more than the EF 24-70/2.8. If that delta holds true for the rest of the trinity (and it won’t, it will be much worse for the 70/200/2 teiezoom which will be larger than the EF 200/2), the f/2 RF zoom set will weigh 2.3 kg more than the EF 2.8 trinity, meaning the package with the body will be 2 kg heavier. That's not 'relatively the same weight', that means carrying around the R and the RF f/2 trinity is like carrying around the 5DIV and EF 2.8 trinity *plus a standard brick*. I'm not saying adding the weight of a brick (literally) to your kit for an extra stop of light isn't worth it, but claiming that adding the weight of a brick results in a 'relatively the same weight package' is ludicrous.


See my response above. Go to a camera shop and put them side by side and shoot with them.

That’s also quite a leap to start talking about a 70-200 f2 that will probably never exist to try and exaggerate a point. Especially speculating that someone will be carrying around all 3 lenses with an added and absolutely unknown increase of 5lbs.

How much does this 16-28 f2 lens weight?
How much does this 70-200 f2 weigh? (Most likely a 70-135 f2) which is kind of silly if you legitimately think they’re making a 70-200 f2.

For many people, these lenses will replace multiple primes like myself. An increase of 400g is certainly worth carrying half the amount of lenses.

Again big picture and individual needs, something you’re not considering.

I also mean relatively the same weight and size compared to what most people who will be buying these lenses are used to carrying. That’s why I said DSLR, this is assuming someone who shoots 1D with 70-200 2.8 or 5D with an 85 Art, etc etc.

These lenses will be changing many of the lens requirements for many photographers so your comparison of 2.8 vs 2.0 zoom weight is a comparison that lives in a vacuum. I’m considering many different factors and therefore using the relative word also in broad sense, not only a direct comparison.


----------



## degos (Jun 30, 2019)

Don Haines said:


> And real estate......



An f2 lens is complete overkill for real estate. At 28mm that'd give about 4 metres DoF. Creamy blur for the back wall of the room...?

This is aimed at wedding shooters. Don't expect any special optimisation for astro shots, the 28-70 f2 had batwing coma.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 30, 2019)

Photo Hack said:


> This might put some proper perspective on size and weight.
> 5D IV + 24-70 f2.8 = 1,725g
> R + 28-70 f2.0 = 2,135g and *.5” shorter*


Perhaps you need a more realistic perspective on the R + 28-70/2 being 0.5" shorter...preferably one based on facts. Hint: the thickness measurements of camera bodies are at maximal dimension, you cannot just add the the body depth and lens length or subtract the 23 mm of shorter RF flange from the lens length to arrive at the lens-mounted dimension (well, apparently _you_ can...but doing so is, for lack of a better word...ludicrous).






Photo Hack said:


> See my response above. Your expectations are the only thing ludicrous here and expecting an f2 zoom to be the size and weight of a 2.8 zoom. Go to a camera shop and put them side by side and shoot with them.


Going to a camera store and comparing them is evidently something you haven't done, or else you would not have incorrectly stated the relative sizes.




Photo Hack said:


> That’s also quite a leap to start talking about a 70-200 f2 that will probably never exist to try and exaggerate a point.


Oh, I see. So when you stated, "Plus the total package with these f2 zooms is relatively the same weight and size package as a DSLR and 2.8 trinity," to which '2.8 trinity’ were you referring? Some random collection of three lenses you made up in your head? When used in the context of Canon lenses, the '2.8 trinity' clearly refers to 16-35/24-70/70-200. So if you refer to 'these f/2 zooms' and '2.8 trinity' in the same sentence, you are the one proposing an RF 70-200/2, and any discussion about a lens that will probably never exist began with you.

Also, I did not use that lens to exaggerate anything. I suggest you read my post more carefully, I simply used the weight difference between two existing lenses (EF 24-70/2.8 II and RF 28-70/2) and extrapolated that 75% weight increase to other (hypothetical) lenses in an f/2 trilogy. If anything, that's a conservative approach.

Please also re-read your initial statement: you claimed that a set of f/2 zooms would be of 'relatively similar size and weight' to a set of f/2.8 zooms. The 300 g weight difference and 23 mm shorter flange of the EOS R are not going to compensate for the increase in size and weight for even one f/2 vs. f/2.8 lens (as we see with the currently available body+lens combos), much less a trinity of lenses. If you think the RF mount is something magical that can allow lenses to let in an extra stop of light with no cost in terms of size and weight, your grasp of physics is luducrously tenuous.



Photo Hack said:


> If the lens is too heavy for you, don’t buy one haha. No need to complain about something you’ll never buy.


I routinely carry my 600/4L IS II, and shoot it handleld. I have no doubt that the 600 II is heavier (and more more expensive) than a ≤200mm RF f/2 zoom. Not that I was complaining (about lenses, that is...I always object when people mangle facts as you are doing).


----------



## Photo Hack (Jun 30, 2019)

I’m referring to the working dimensions when zoomed out.

And a 23% total increase of weight comparing a 5D with 2.8 vs an R with 28-70 is, in my opinion, relatively close when most of us who would use this lens are already used to walking around with two bodies and two fast zooms already.

For someone going from a 1D to a potential mirrorless equivalent it would probably be no difference in weight or actually lighter. Hopefully we’ll know by the end of the year.

For me personally when I shoot two bodies and 35 + 85 art when I’m looking for faster than 2.8 I am more than willing to drop 1700g from a whole other camera setup and compromise with one camera and f2 zoom.

I’ve never proposed a 70-200 f2. I’d like to see where you got that quote from. And by total package I’m talking about the body and lens attached not all three lenses together.

If you’re hung up on 400g cool. I don’t see a 23% increase in weight for gathering twice as much light in a shorter foot print to be as dramatic of difference as some seem to think.

It’s working for me and Canons team seems to think it will work for enough people to invest a lot of money into development.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 30, 2019)

Photo Hack said:


> I’m referring to the working dimensions when zoomed out.





Photo Hack said:


> R + 28-70 f2.0 = 2,135g and .5” shorter
> R + RF 70-200 f2.8 IS = ????g but way shorter


So in one case you’re referring to the ‘working dimensions when zoomed out,’ but in the other you’re not? Nothing like moving the goalposts, ‘eh? 

I see you edited your post to add the bit that the 70-200 ‘probably will telescope’, but there’s no probably about it – it’s an extending zoom (unless maybe you believe Canon put a zoom lock switch on a fixed zoom lens?). Based on the patent, the RF 70-200 is longer than the EF version, and the combined body + lens length is the same as the EF version on a DSLR.



Photo Hack said:


> I’ve never proposed a 70-200 f2. I’d like to see where you got that quote from.


As I already stated, you mentioned ‘these f2 zooms’ (plural), comparing them to the ‘2.8 trinity for DSLR’ in the same sentence. If you can’t grasp that you’re proposing an RF 70-200/2, you need to have your metacognition tested.

This discussion is going nowhere. You’re making false statements and re-interpreting your own posts, you should just quit while you’re behind.


----------



## Photo Hack (Jun 30, 2019)

Yes I know how camera bodies are measured. 

I’m also under the impression that the telephoto f2 zoom will be the likes that has been mentioned by previous patents and by others here as being a 70-135 or 70-150. I’m going to go ahead and say that is the accepted lens when referring to this new sort of “trinity”. 

I find you very condescending to assume that I believe there’s going to be a 70-200 f2 and I don’t know how cameras are measured.


----------



## Photo Hack (Jun 30, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> So in one case you’re referring to the ‘working dimensions when zoomed out,’ but in the other you’re not? Nothing like moving the goalposts, ‘eh?
> 
> I see you edited your post to add the bit that the 70-200 ‘probably will telescope’, but there’s no probably about it – it’s an extending zoom (unless maybe you believe Canon put a zoom lock switch on a fixed zoom lens?). Based on the patent, the RF 70-200 is longer than the EF version, and the combined body + lens length is the same as the EF version on a DSLR.
> 
> This discussion is going nowhere. You’re making false statements and re-interpreting your own posts, you should just quit while you’re behind.


You’re right about the 70-200. It wasn’t an intentional moving of goals posts. I’ll correct it for a more logical and linear comparison. 

I don’t know of any false statements I’m making or re-interpreting anything I’ve said. Sounds more to me like a lot of straw man arguments based on misinterpreting what I’ve said.


----------



## Photo Hack (Jun 30, 2019)

But I’ll second you on this is going nowhere. I’m not even sure what your points are or what you’re arguing anymore. You think a 23% increase of weight isn’t relatively close considering the overall picture of a f2 zoom on a mirrorless body vs a f2.8 zoom on equivalent DSLR. Cool. Thanks. I disagree.

This is a game changer for me and thousands of other pro photographers who make a full time living using this gear.

I’m excited and can’t wait for IBIS and two card slots and to start using this for paid jobs and ditch all my EF lenses (assuming the RF 70-200 2.8 is released) and DSLRS. 

This lens will allow us to sell half our bodies and lenses, carry around half the gear, lens swapping, and focus more on the job and the benefit of less money tied up into gear.


----------



## tron (Jun 30, 2019)

fox40phil said:


> There is already a 14mm 1.8f from Sigma !


Very true. And I do have it since last July


----------



## Rixy (Jun 30, 2019)

I like


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 30, 2019)

Photo Hack said:


> Yes I know how camera bodies are measured.
> 
> I find you very condescending to assume that I believe there’s going to be a 70-200 f2 and I don’t know how cameras are measured.


Sorry, but clearly you don’t know how to measure cameras and lenses...or you do know how but just suck at it.

First, understand that the R + RF 28-70/2 is physically _longer_ than the 5DIV + EF 24-70/2.8 II with the lenses retracted. Then look at the TDP measurements (Bryan _does_ know how to measure things), showing that at full extension the RF 28-70/2 is 0.66” _longer_ than the EF 24-70/2.8 II. Now explain how a _longer_ body + retracted lens combo with a lens that’s _longer_ at ‘working dimensions when zoomed out’ results in a combination that’s 0.5” shorter, according to you.

Let's make it even simpler. First, look at the following two pictures:







Then, look at your previous statement:


Photo Hack said:


> 5D IV + 24-70 f2.8 = 1,725g
> R + 28-70 f2.0 = 2,135g and *.5” shorter*



So which is it? Do you really not know how to measure cameras? Or do you just suck at it?

As I said, you should have quit while you were behind. Instead, you doubled down...and have succeded in making yourself appear even more foolish. I have found that people can always manage to reveal further depths of incompetance, so you're welcome to keep going...but I really don't advise it.


----------



## Photo Hack (Jun 30, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> Sorry, but clearly you don’t know how to measure cameras and lenses...or you do know how but just suck at it.
> 
> First, understand that the R + RF 28-70/2 is physically _longer_ than the 5DIV + EF 24-70/2.8 II with the lenses retracted. Then look at the TDP measurements (Bryan _does_ know how to measure things), showing that at full extension the RF 28-70/2 is 0.66” _longer_ than the EF 24-70/2.8 II. Now explain how a _longer_ body + retracted lens combo with a lens that’s _longer_ at ‘working dimensions when zoomed out’ results in a combination that’s 0.5” shorter, according to you.
> 
> ...


The second set of pictures assumes they’re mounted in the same location of the body. I don’t own an R and instead bought RP for non work related shoots and to get familiar with my RF lenses until a pro comes out.

On the RP the lens mounts about an inch further into the grip than my Mark IV. The R from what I remember isn’t much further off than RP. Like everything I’ve discussed, I’m concerned about real world specs. That lens sits further into the grip where it matters for weight distribution. I also realize the grips aren’t the same size. 

It’s not complicated, there’s no mirror, lens sits much closer to sensor so comparing the total length of R vs DSLR is going to yield different measurements, hence why it’s relatively close or shorter depending on which combinations you’re using, 1D , 5D, R, RP, etc. 

I know it extends further than 24-70 but it also sits about an inch further into the grip.

Now you’re going to get out your pocket rule and say.... well actually it’s blah blah cm closer not about an inch and the 28-70 is actually .3875 inches shorter measured that way not .5”.

Which is exactly my point. The differences are so minute it’s not even worth debating or making a huge fuss over haha. I’m not over here buying a lens or camera based on a couple hundred grams difference or a half inch difference.

I pick up a 1D with a 2.8 zoom and wow that’s heavy to hold all day. A 5D with 2.8 zoom, not so bad. R w 2.0 zoom, eh it’s about right in the middle, nothing extreme. Nothing crazy.


----------



## Architect1776 (Jun 30, 2019)

DBounce said:


> This trinity is probably going to tip the scale at somewhere north of 10lbs... that's pretty dam heavy if you are actually carrying it as a regular part of your kit. Add in the "Pro" body and it might become rather unpleasant rather quickly.
> I thought the promise of mirrorless was smaller, faster, higher quality glass?



Think Physics.
Sony lenses are bigger and heavier than the Canon L equivalents.
For a 70-200 f2 perhaps Canon has some optical formulas that might not make the front smaller, But the mirrorless mount does allow for a smaller front diameter as the elements are pushed to the rear for better balance.


----------



## Photo Hack (Jun 30, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> First, understand that the R + RF 28-70/2 is physically _longer_ than the 5DIV + EF 24-70/2.8 II with the lenses retracted. Then look at the TDP measurements (Bryan _does_ know how to measure things), showing that at full extension the RF 28-70/2 is 0.66” _longer_ than the EF 24-70/2.8 II. Now explain how a _longer_ body + retracted lens combo with a lens that’s _longer_ at ‘working dimensions when zoomed out’ results in a combination that’s 0.5” shorter, according to you.


First like I said above, the lenses aren’t mounted the same on DSLR vs R or RP and this is all slightly relative. But here’s the absolute, RP and R lens mount is closer to the sensor and deeper into the grip about an inch. Probably less so on the R. 

The 28-70 is .66” longer extended unmounted but if it’s sitting about an inch closer to sensor there’s a half inch. The 28-70 can also sit slightly longer or equal to 24-70 mounted and still be shorter because it also has .5” less travel on extension. 

Both pictures are deceiving. Move the R body back so the LCD screens are equal and in line with where your hand will be holding it. Yes it will move slightly forward when up to the eye. But the camera spends way more time in my hand vs in my AND up to my eye. I also shoot live view often. 

I really think you’re missing the forest for the trees here.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 30, 2019)

Photo Hack said:


> The second set of pictures assumes they’re mounted in the same location of the body. I don’t own an R and instead bought RP for non work related shoots and to get familiar with my RF lenses until a pro comes out.
> 
> On the RP the lens mounts about an inch further into the grip than my Mark IV.


On the RP, they’re about the same size with lenses retracted. The longer extension of the RF 28-70/2 means that when extended, the RP combo is still _longer_, not *.5” shorter* as you claimed.






Photo Hack said:


> Now you’re going to get out your pocket rule and say.... well actually it’s blah blah cm closer not about an inch and the 28-70 is actually .3875 inches shorter measured that way not .5”.
> 
> Which is exactly my point. The differences are so minute it’s not even worth debating or making a huge fuss over haha.


It’s not shorter. You’re the one making a fuss, replying multiple times with the same incorrect statements, and claiming you know how to measure a camera. You obviously don’t. It’s that simple.

But instead of being mature and just admitting you were wrong, you are falling back on blah blah blah they’re pretty close, blah blah blah it doesn’t really matter anyway. Typical forum behavior, but commonness doesn’t make it any less pathetic. It’s amusing that you keep making yourself appear even more ridiculous. That does seem to be one thing for which you do have some aptitude.


----------



## dwilz (Jun 30, 2019)

Cochese said:


> So... The new 70-200 2.8. What if... What if it was to the RF mount that the 70-200 f/4 IS is to the EF mount. And the real "pro" 70-200 is an F/2 IS. Hence why canon took the "bold' step to make the new RF 70-200 a collapsible/ compact design.


I agree, when I first saw that RF 70-200 f/2.8 I thought, no way is that a pro level lens.


----------



## Photo Hack (Jun 30, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> On the RP, they’re about the same size with lenses retracted. The longer extension of the RF 28-70/2 means that when extended, the RP combo is still _longer_, not *.5” shorter* as you claimed.
> 
> View attachment 185381
> 
> ...









Let’s do some math here. These are the only pics I have as I’m not at my office. I took them right after I got the RP.

24-70 length is 4.72”. When extended its 5.97” which equals to 1.25” of travel.

28-70 length is 5.8”. When extended its 6.63”. Which is .83” of travel.

So 24-70 has about .5” more travel. You can also see that in the second picture you posted of lenses side by side. If it’s mounted nearly an inch or so further out than the 28-70, (making them about equal like your RP comparison picture) that means the 24-70 will extend about .5” further than the 28-70. 

I can get some pictures when I’m back at my office but honestly if you can’t do some basic math and see the difference in real world pictures, this isn’t worth the time.


----------



## Photo Hack (Jun 30, 2019)

Wow I didn’t even have to do the math. The zoom extension length is right below the spec I circled. Funny because I’ve had these screenshots for almost 2 months and already figured this stuff out before I jumped into the R system.

Ready to concede? Lol.

Just so we’re clear. You’re claiming when mounted the 28-70 is LONGER than 24-70 2.8 on 5D AND has a longer extension or Travel than the 24-70 right? And I’ve been saying it’s relatively the same or shorter relative to mounting and grip depth (ie real world usage). Based on my measurements on my RP it’s about .5” shorter and translating that to the R, I’m saying it’s shorter as well.

I said earlier that yeah, it’s probably spec wise .387” shorter or some garbage like that but I honestly don’t care what the EXACT specs are. That’s been my point the entire time that relative to what we’re used to using DSLR w a fast zoom, it’s not worth fussing over. If it’s close to .5” I round it. We’re not building a rocket ship.

But if I’m off a 1/4”, you’re off an entire inch or more haha.

That picture of the RP you posted really helps me out. You can see the eye cup is smaller and moved the body back further to match the 5D in comparison like I pointed out in the R comparison. Now the lens mount can be seen to be much shorter to 5D in comparison.

And you’re flat out wrong on the 28-70 having a further extension. Look at the specs. It’s .87” or whatever to the 1.23” of the 24-70. That’s a .5” difference. Yeah yeah more like .36” which is actually pretty much what I joked the technical spec would be.

The 28-70 unmounted is an inch longer than 24-70 and in your RP comparison picture it shows them nearly the same exact length when mounted and retracted. So that also supports my claim that the mount is about 1” back on the RP.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 1, 2019)

dwilz said:


> I agree, when I first saw that RF 70-200 f/2.8 I thought, no way is that a pro level lens.


I don’t get it. The EF 24-70/2.8 and RF 28-70/2 have extending barrels. Are they not ‘pro-level’ lenses?


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jul 1, 2019)

dwilz said:


> I agree, when I first saw that RF 70-200 f/2.8 I thought, no way is that a pro level lens.


Yep, no chance any professionals will use them. Not even one.


----------



## PGSanta (Jul 1, 2019)

3kramd5 said:


> Yep, no chance any professionals will use them. Not even one.


----------



## unfocused (Jul 1, 2019)

I hope Canon releases something new fairly soon because the fights on this forum just keep getting weirder.


----------



## Tom W (Jul 1, 2019)

Photo Hack said:


> Yes I know how camera bodies are measured.
> 
> I’m also under the impression that the telephoto f2 zoom will be the likes that has been mentioned by previous patents and by others here as being a 70-135 or 70-150. I’m going to go ahead and say that is the accepted lens when referring to this new sort of “trinity”.
> 
> I find you very condescending to assume that I believe there’s going to be a 70-200 f2 and I don’t know how cameras are measured.



I might be the odd man out, but what if, instead of 70-xxx, they made something like a 50-140 f/2 lens? It would most assuredly be a great portrait lens, especially if it were sharp and had great bokeh. It would definiately be the king of portraiture or at least royalty in that realm.


----------



## jonebize (Jul 1, 2019)

Photo Hack said:


> But I’ll second you on this is going nowhere. I’m not even sure what your points are or what you’re arguing anymore. You think a 23% increase of weight isn’t relatively close considering the overall picture of a f2 zoom on a mirrorless body vs a f2.8 zoom on equivalent DSLR. Cool. Thanks. I disagree.
> 
> This is a game changer for me and thousands of other pro photographers who make a full time living using this gear.
> 
> ...



Underrated posts. Thanks for keeping things in perspective. The new lenses truly are amazing.

EDIT: So what no one has talked about is: what is the actual concept or purpose of this lens? I think you could argue that the extra stop is not that helpful on the wide end of this range. I feel like maybe I am missing something. Obviously it's a great technological feat, but what is the intended utility?


----------



## Pape (Jul 1, 2019)

I dont understand this talk about telescope zooms are bad. They try to go to natural size of objective . Still they are tiny when not used.
I would think there is no way how zoom lenses what dont change size could be optically as good. Its always compromice if shrinking something.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jul 1, 2019)

Pape said:


> I dont understand this talk about telescope zooms are bad. They try to go to natural size of objective . Still they are tiny when not used.
> I would think there is no way how zoom lenses what dont change size could be optically as good. Its always compromice if shrinking something.


----------



## flip314 (Jul 1, 2019)

Pape said:


> I dont understand this talk about telescope zooms are bad. They try to go to natural size of objective . Still they are tiny when not used.
> I would think there is no way how zoom lenses what dont change size could be optically as good. Its always compromice if shrinking something.



Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like?


----------



## maxfactor9933 (Jul 1, 2019)

Time to see canon 12-24 2.8 RF


----------



## fentiger (Jul 1, 2019)

Architect1776 said:


> Think Physics.
> Sony lenses are bigger and heavier than the Canon L equivalents.
> For a 70-200 f2 perhaps Canon has some optical formulas that might not make the front smaller, But the mirrorless mount does allow for a smaller front diameter as the elements are pushed to the rear for better balance.


don't think physics will be defeated on this, to be f2 front element has to be at least 100mm. 
look at the 24-70 2.8 front element is 82mm (200/2.8=71.4).
i would say the f2 will be around 105-110mm.
no optical formula can defeat that.


----------



## Rixy (Jul 1, 2019)

jonebize said:


> EDIT: So what no one has talked about is: what is the actual concept or purpose of this lens? I think you could argue that the extra stop is not that helpful on the wide end of this range. I feel like maybe I am missing something. Obviously it's a great technological feat, but what is the intended utility?


Astrophotography, landscape, wedding?
2 years using 70D + sigma 18-35mm 1.8, surely this 16-28mm f2 will be my first lens in my jump to R system


----------



## SecureGSM (Jul 1, 2019)

Architect1776 said:


> Think Physics.
> Sony lenses are bigger and heavier than the Canon L equivalents.
> For a 70-200 f2 perhaps Canon has some optical formulas that might not make the front smaller, But the mirrorless mount does allow for a smaller front diameter as the elements are pushed to the rear for better balance.


it is not on.. go have a play with Sigma 105 / 1.4 Art. 1.6kg. imagine a lens that is twice longer ( at least) and perhaps twice heavier. it's a nuisance ...


----------



## Architect1776 (Jul 1, 2019)

SecureGSM said:


> it is not on.. go have a play with Sigma 105 / 1.4 Art. 1.6kg. imagine a lens that is twice longer ( at least) and perhaps twice heavier. it's a nuisance ...



We shall see. Canon has been at the cutting edge in lens development for decades now.


----------



## SecureGSM (Jul 1, 2019)

unfocused said:


> I hope Canon releases something new fairly soon because the fights on this forum just keep getting weirder.





Tom W said:


> I might be the odd man out, but what if, instead of 70-xxx, they made something like a 50-140 f/2 lens? It would most assuredly be a great portrait lens, especially if it were sharp and had great bokeh. It would definiately be the king of portraiture or at least royalty in that realm.



for studio shots wide F2.0 aperture isn't a requirement. for environmental portraiture F2.0 is a bit slow.

70-200 F4 is a great option for studio


----------



## Architect1776 (Jul 1, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> I don’t get it. The EF 24-70/2.8 and RF 28-70/2 have extending barrels. Are they not ‘pro-level’ lenses?



L lenses are pro lenses by definition.
The 100-400mm MII is as good a lens as is made (Even primes) in durability, and optical quality. It extends and is NOT a collector of dust, well sealed. I have had mine for several years now and no dust with heavy use in desert environments etc.
There are the you tube arm chair commentators and real users.
I really get tired of those who have never used a lens, especially in tough environments, making any comment except for click bait you tube videos. 
PS I also have it out in wet weather and no problems either.


----------



## SecureGSM (Jul 1, 2019)

Architect1776 said:


> We shall see. Canon has been at the cutting edge in lens development for decades now.


have you ever had a chance to hold a lens with 105mm front element? I have got one right in front of me...
nobody in their right mind would consider hanging this contraption off a camera mount.
Canon engineers aren't stupid.
better even: go have a play with Sigma 120 300 F2.8. 70-200 F2.0 zoom would be of the same girth and about 30% shorter.
I was shooting sports and theatrical with that lens for many years..


----------



## Don Haines (Jul 1, 2019)

“Pro level” is a marketing phrase.

A professional photographer uses the right tool for the job/budget and any other constraints.


----------



## Photo Hack (Jul 1, 2019)

Sorry to stink up a whole page or two of worthless debate. Could’ve summed it up easily with this.

Can a RF lens which is longer at full extension than an EF be shorter when actually mounted to camera? Yes.

Back Flange Distance on EF is 44mm.
Back Flange Distance on RF is 20mm.

The difference being 24mm which is 1mm short of an inch.

24-70 max length is 152mm and 28-70 max length is 168mm.

Take away 24mm of flange distance from 168mm is 144mm. Effectively the 28-70 when mounted is about 8mm shorter than the 24-70.

Right where the real spec I believed it would be, but from memory and real world comparison it looked about a half inch to me when considering grip design and balance. Not the MONSTER some make it out to be, in my opinion, and an amazing design to get twice the light in a similar size and weight camera and lens combo.

When retraced the 28-70 is 3mm longer than the 24-70. Right where the picture comparing the RP w/28-70 vs 5D w 24-70 appears to show. Pretty much the same length. With the shorter travel extension of the 28-70 at 22mm vs 31mm is a difference of 9mm and compensate for the 3mm difference retraced, leaves us with the 28-70 shorter by 6-7mm. Nearly the same spec above. 

I don’t know why there’s this resistance to the idea that the RF mount is making new possibilities in lens design and overall shooting experience, that we’re being fooled by creative marketing or something.

Everything I’ve argued can be referenced here.









About Canon RF Lenses and the RF Mount


Learn about Canon's RF lenses and the RF mount introduced with their first line of full frame mirrorless camera, the EOS R.




www.the-digital-picture.com


----------



## gdanmitchell (Jul 1, 2019)

Looking forward along the f/2 line...

... a f/2 70-200mm lens (or 70-180mm, given the smaller ranges of the other two?) would probably make f/4 70-200mm lenses extremely popular. I know that a 16-28mm f2 will enhance the attractions of a 16-35mm f/4.


----------



## degos (Jul 1, 2019)

Architect1776 said:


> The 100-400mm MII is as good a lens as is made (Even primes) in durability, and optical quality. It extends and is NOT a collector of dust, well sealed. I have had mine for several years now and no dust with heavy use in desert environments etc.



Conversely my 100-400 II is absolutely chock-full of dust and dirt. It's annoying but that's the penalty for a telescopic design.

I wish they would make the RF 100-400 a fixed-length lens but they won't


----------



## deleteme (Jul 1, 2019)

I get the impulse of Canon to blow our minds with lenses like this but I want to blow up my wallet with a $500 28mm f2.


----------



## Architect1776 (Jul 1, 2019)

degos said:


> Conversely my 100-400 II is absolutely chock-full of dust and dirt. It's annoying but that's the penalty for a telescopic design.
> 
> I wish they would make the RF 100-400 a fixed-length lens but they won't



Interesting, mine isn't after years of use in the desert dust and in very wet rainy environments.


----------



## chrysoberyl (Jul 1, 2019)

Architect1776 said:


> Interesting, mine isn't after years of use in the desert dust and in very wet rainy environments.



I had a (sealed) Milvus 100 which collected dust in not very dusty conditions. That and reports like that from degos convinced me not to get another lens that extends.


----------



## melgross (Jul 1, 2019)

navastronia said:


> Wouldn’t a 70-200 f/2 be prohibitively large? Like, honestly, wouldn’t it end up weighing 50% more than the already-heavy f2.8?
> 
> If Canon wants a new trinity (lenses with focal lengths that line up to cover a large range), I think the tele zoom is a 70-135 or 70-150 to save on size, weight, and cost.


These kinds of lenses are like speciality tools. You don’t need them often, but when you need then, you REALLY need them.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 1, 2019)

Photo Hack said:


> Sorry to stink up a whole page or two of worthless debate. Could’ve summed it up easily with this.
> 
> Can a RF lens which is longer at full extension than an EF be shorter when actually mounted to camera? Yes.
> 
> ...


Agree generally and you're correct, similar extended length on R, shorter on RP. An extra stop of light, but one lens starts at 28mm and the other at 24mm. For me, at least, that makes a substantial difference – in most situations, I'd take the 15% wider FoV over the stop of light.

A comparison from Juza Photo:






But others may prefer a ~20% heavier body + lens combination and the extra stop of light. Choice is good.


----------



## ArtisanCraft (Jul 1, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> Agree generally and you're correct, similar extended length on R, shorter on RP. An extra stop of light, but one lens starts at 28mm and the other at 24mm. For me, at least, that makes a substantial difference – in most situations, I'd take the 15% wider FoV over the stop of light.
> 
> ...
> 
> But others may prefer a ~20% heavier body + lens combination and the extra stop of light. Choice is good.



It's not just a stop of light though - it's a "look". Shallower DoF at all those focal lengths... An F2 zoom is not just about the extra stop of light. It's a lens that can provide portraits with context at 28mm, or isolation at 70mm. It is very versatile.


----------



## Aregal (Jul 1, 2019)

I feel I'm one of the few who DO NOT want IBIS. Am I alone in this? My concern is durability. My 5D Mark IV has gone through the gamut of production hell from the Arctic Circle to the hot sands of the desert to the hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico. The idea of a moving sensor with the bangs and bumps of production work concerns me. I have no doubt that Canon will produce a solid product but the solid build of the 1Dxii, 5Div, and even EOSR have proven themselves to me sans IBIS.


----------



## PGSanta (Jul 1, 2019)

Aregal said:


> I feel I'm one of the few who DO NOT want IBIS. Am I alone in this? My concern is durability. My 5D Mark IV has gone through the gamut of production hell from the Arctic Circle to the hot sands of the desert to the hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico. The idea of a moving sensor with the bangs and bumps of production work concerns me. I have no doubt that Canon will produce a solid product but the solid build of the 1Dxii, 5Div, and even EOSR have proven themselves to me sans IBIS.



There’s literally no evidence available with any brand that suggests IBIS introduces durability issues. The movement within a system is tiny.


----------



## koenkooi (Jul 1, 2019)

Aregal said:


> I feel I'm one of the few who DO NOT want IBIS. Am I alone in this? My concern is durability. My 5D Mark IV has gone through the gamut of production hell from the Arctic Circle to the hot sands of the desert to the hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico. The idea of a moving sensor with the bangs and bumps of production work concerns me. I have no doubt that Canon will produce a solid product but the solid build of the 1Dxii, 5Div, and even EOSR have proven themselves to me sans IBIS.



Your sensor already moves due to the cleaning feature.


----------



## Del Paso (Jul 1, 2019)

Architect1776 said:


> L lenses are pro lenses by definition.
> The 100-400mm MII is as good a lens as is made (Even primes) in durability, and optical quality. It extends and is NOT a collector of dust, well sealed. I have had mine for several years now and no dust with heavy use in desert environments etc.
> There are the you tube arm chair commentators and real users.
> I really get tired of those who have never used a lens, especially in tough environments, making any comment except for click bait you tube videos.
> PS I also have it out in wet weather and no problems either.


Same experience with mine: absolutely no issues, no matter whether used in the rain, or in a dusty environment.


----------



## raptor3x (Jul 1, 2019)

koenkooi said:


> Your sensor already moves due to the cleaning feature.



Not really, all the ultrasonic cleaner does is create a low amplitude/high frequency standing wave in the cover glass. Not really comparable at all to the movement of the sensor with IBIS.


----------



## unfocused (Jul 1, 2019)

Aregal said:


> I feel I'm one of the few who DO NOT want IBIS. Am I alone in this? My concern is durability. My 5D Mark IV has gone through the gamut of production hell from the Arctic Circle to the hot sands of the desert to the hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico. The idea of a moving sensor with the bangs and bumps of production work concerns me. I have no doubt that Canon will produce a solid product but the solid build of the 1Dxii, 5Div, and even EOSR have proven themselves to me sans IBIS.


My belief is that Canon will only add IBIS to a flagship R body after they have done sufficient stress testing to assure that the body meets the bombproof standards of the 1D series. I will be surprised if the first R body that has IBIS is the "R 1x," but if it is, you should have a high degree of confidence that your fears are unfounded.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 1, 2019)

ArtisanCraft said:


> It's not just a stop of light though - it's a "look". Shallower DoF at all those focal lengths... An F2 zoom is not just about the extra stop of light. It's a lens that can provide portraits with context at 28mm, or isolation at 70mm. It is very versatile.


Agree about the versatility, just saying I find a 24-70 _more_ versatile than a 28-70. YMMV. I do think the difference between 70mm f/2.8 and 70mm f/2 is subtle at best in terms of DoF, which is why I have an 85/1.4.


----------



## Ozarker (Jul 1, 2019)

Pape said:


> I dont understand this talk about telescope zooms are bad. They try to go to natural size of objective . Still they are tiny when not used.
> I would think there is no way how zoom lenses what dont change size could be optically as good. Its always compromice if shrinking something.


When I think of tiny lenses I think of my old Takumars. Tiny isn't the realm of any "L" lenses as far as I know.


----------



## Kit. (Jul 1, 2019)

Aregal said:


> I feel I'm one of the few who DO NOT want IBIS. Am I alone in this? My concern is durability. My 5D Mark IV has gone through the gamut of production hell from the Arctic Circle to the hot sands of the desert to the hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico. The idea of a moving sensor with the bangs and bumps of production work concerns me. I have no doubt that Canon will produce a solid product but the solid build of the 1Dxii, 5Div, and even EOSR have proven themselves to me sans IBIS.


That's weird. Your camera body has a moving mirror assembly and a moving shutter, your lenses have moving focus groups and (likely) moving IS groups, but you are only afraid of the moving sensor?


----------



## Ozarker (Jul 1, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> Agree about the versatility, just saying I find a 24-70 _more_ versatile than a 28-70. YMMV. I do think the difference between 70mm f/2.8 and 70mm f/2 is subtle at best in terms of DoF, which is why I have an 85/1.4.


I have to agree. 24-70 is more versatile, in my opinion. However, I'd still love to have an RF 28-70mm f/2L just because. Weight and size are irrelevant to me.


----------



## Aregal (Jul 1, 2019)

Kit. said:


> That's weird. Your camera body has a moving mirror assembly and a moving shutter, your lenses have moving focus groups and (likely) moving IS groups, but you are only afraid of the moving sensor?


It is weird, right...but Canon has been perfecting the flappy mirror for multiple decades-not saying that mirrors boxes don't fail. That being said, no one can contest that less moving parts usually results in less points of failure. I guess my doubt stems from the Sonys and Nikons that whos IBIS systems have experience growing pains. My friends who have A7-line cameras have not experienced any problems so I guess that's a good sign. My only question/request is if one could turn OFF IBIS or if when Canon implements it, one has the option to turn it off, much like IS enabled lenses...yes, Kit way more moving parts. 

I also was reluctant to try DPAF until I used it on a C300ii with an 85/1.2L at f/1.2. I haven't totally written off IBIS, I'm just reluctant to adopt.


----------



## scyrene (Jul 1, 2019)

DBounce said:


> I thought the promise of mirrorless was smaller, faster, higher quality glass?



That is _one_ potential benefit of _one particular style_ of mirrorless camera. It isn't intrinsic to the principle of MILCs.


----------



## Aregal (Jul 1, 2019)

Architect1776 said:


> L lenses are pro lenses by definition.
> The 100-400mm MII is as good a lens as is made (Even primes) in durability, and optical quality. It extends and is NOT a collector of dust, well sealed. I have had mine for several years now and no dust with heavy use in desert environments etc.
> There are the you tube arm chair commentators and real users.
> I really get tired of those who have never used a lens, especially in tough environments, making any comment except for click bait you tube videos.
> PS I also have it out in wet weather and no problems either.


I just got my 100-400Lii last week and it's been a joy to use on the 5Div and EOS R. I've only owned constant aperture lenses until the 100-400Lii, which was my biggest turn-off with it until I used it. It might even replace my 70-200/2.8L IS.


Answer: Extending Barrel L-series lenses; not a concern.


----------



## Architect1776 (Jul 1, 2019)

chrysoberyl said:


> I had a (sealed) Milvus 100 which collected dust in not very dusty conditions. That and reports like that from degos convinced me not to get another lens that extends.



OK, what ever you want to do.


----------



## Architect1776 (Jul 1, 2019)

Aregal said:


> I just got my 100-400Lii last week and it's been a joy to use on the 5Div and EOS R. I've only owned constant aperture lenses until the 100-400Lii, which was my biggest turn-off with it until I used it. It might even replace my 70-200/2.8L IS.
> 
> 
> Answer: Extending Barrel L-series lenses; not a concern.



I found it's ability to focus to about 3' at 400mm makes it an excellent near macro lens in the field for small flowers and insects.
A very versatile lens with twice the reach as the 70-200.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jul 1, 2019)

Architect1776 said:


> L lenses are pro lenses by definition.



Which definition is that?


----------



## unfocused (Jul 1, 2019)

3kramd5 said:


> Which definition is that?



I'm sure you already know this, but...given that there is nothing better to talk about and the great lens length debate seems to have abated for the time being – "L" lenses are "Luxury" according to Canon's EF Lens promotional book. If there are any standards for what is required of an "L" lens, only Canon knows those standards. And, they aren't particularly consistent in their designation. Perhaps "L" for Luxury sounds better than "E" for expensive?


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jul 1, 2019)

unfocused said:


> I'm sure you already know this, but...given that there is nothing better to talk about and the great lens length debate seems to have abated for the time being – "L" lenses are "Luxury" according to Canon's EF Lens promotional book. If there are any standards for what is required of an "L" lens, only Canon knows those standards. And, they aren't particularly consistent in their designation. Perhaps "L" for Luxury sounds better than "E" for expensive?


Yes I had luxury in mind when writing my post and even something about professionals typically choosing utility over luxury, but I thought better of it


----------



## Architect1776 (Jul 2, 2019)

unfocused said:


> I'm sure you already know this, but...given that there is nothing better to talk about and the great lens length debate seems to have abated for the time being – "L" lenses are "Luxury" according to Canon's EF Lens promotional book. If there are any standards for what is required of an "L" lens, only Canon knows those standards. And, they aren't particularly consistent in their designation. Perhaps "L" for Luxury sounds better than "E" for expensive?



Ken Rockwell says the L stands for "Expensive as L"


----------



## deleteme (Jul 2, 2019)

chrysoberyl said:


> I had a (sealed) Milvus 100 which collected dust in not very dusty conditions. That and reports like that from degos convinced me not to get another lens that extends.


I have had several lenses that extend and many that don't and I have had no issues WRT dust. I live in a very dusty desert and even shoot at a beach and have no problems.


----------



## degos (Jul 2, 2019)

Normalnorm said:


> I have had several lenses that extend and many that don't and I have had no issues WRT dust. I live in a very dusty desert and even shoot at a beach and have no problems.



You are very fortunate.

Every extending lens has to permit air to enter and exit, it couldn't operate otherwise ( unless it had some enormous ratchet gearing to push against internal pressure ). Unlike a fixed-length internal-zooming lens which can be fully sealed with gaskets.

And once air is flowing, so is the dust.

When using my 100-400 II I try to remember to wipe-down the extended barrel before retracting it, but usually in the heat of the moment I don't have time.


----------



## Jasonmc89 (Jul 2, 2019)

Architect1776 said:


> L lenses are pro lenses by definition.
> The 100-400mm MII is as good a lens as is made (Even primes) in durability, and optical quality. It extends and is NOT a collector of dust, well sealed. I have had mine for several years now and no dust with heavy use in desert environments etc.
> There are the you tube arm chair commentators and real users.
> I really get tired of those who have never used a lens, especially in tough environments, making any comment except for click bait you tube videos.
> PS I also have it out in wet weather and no problems either.



My 100-400 ii has some dust! No loss of IQ though.


----------



## uri.raz (Jul 2, 2019)

Jasonmc89 said:


> My 100-400 ii has some dust! No loss of IQ though.



My 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM, may it rest in peace, had dust between the front element and the one behind it, though it doesn't extend.


----------



## YuengLinger (Jul 2, 2019)

Aregal said:


> I feel I'm one of the few who DO NOT want IBIS. Am I alone in this? My concern is durability. My 5D Mark IV has gone through the gamut of production hell from the Arctic Circle to the hot sands of the desert to the hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico. The idea of a moving sensor with the bangs and bumps of production work concerns me. I have no doubt that Canon will produce a solid product but the solid build of the 1Dxii, 5Div, and even EOSR have proven themselves to me sans IBIS.


Do you have any data to support your fear of a feature that could improve image quality for many photographers?

I think there were photographers who had the same fear auto focus. And digital cameras! 

Just wait a generation to see how well IBIS does.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Jul 2, 2019)

Aregal said:


> It is weird, right...but Canon has been perfecting the flappy mirror for multiple decades-not saying that mirrors boxes don't fail. That being said, no one can contest that less moving parts usually results in less points of failure. I guess my doubt stems from the Sonys and Nikons that whos IBIS systems have experience growing pains. My friends who have A7-line cameras have not experienced any problems so I guess that's a good sign. My only question/request is if one could turn OFF IBIS or if when Canon implements it, one has the option to turn it off, much like IS enabled lenses...yes, Kit way more moving parts.
> 
> I also was reluctant to try DPAF until I used it on a C300ii with an 85/1.2L at f/1.2. I haven't totally written off IBIS, I'm just reluctant to adopt.




I also worry about the moving parts and possible failures / misalignment. But don't hear many IBIS failures in other systems so maybe not such a big issue. Also a body is replaced faster than a lens which can have the same IS failure.

Would be nice to have finally global shutters everywhere and get rid of that mechanical shutter.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 2, 2019)

degos said:


> You are very fortunate.
> 
> Every extending lens has to permit air to enter and exit, it couldn't operate otherwise ( unless it had some enormous ratchet gearing to push against internal pressure ). Unlike a fixed-length internal-zooming lens which can be fully sealed with gaskets.
> 
> ...


Some people see rain, and run around like Chicken Little screaming that the sky is falling. 

Some people obsess over a tiny dust speck in their lens. Almost as if it’s the apocalypse. 








The Apocalypse of Lens Dust


Apocalypse (from the Greek apokálypsis; "lifting of the veil" or "revelation"): An event involving destruction or damage on an awesome or catastrophic scale. A disclosure of something hidden from the majority of mankind. How appropriate the word apocalypse is for this little article. At least...



www.lensrentals.com


----------



## SecureGSM (Jul 2, 2019)

maxfactor9933 said:


> Time to see canon 12-24 2.8 RF



it will likely come. POC: 

Sigma is rumored to announce 12-24mm f/2.8 full-frame mirrorless lens for E-mount and L-mount in Mid July:
Read more: https://photorumors.com/2019/07/01/...2-24mm-f-2-8-and-24-70mm-f-2-8/#ixzz5sWBGTmln 
Gestimated price for this Sigma: US$1,650.00


----------



## yeahright (Jul 2, 2019)

To all of you who are worried about a little dust inside their extending zoom lens this may be of interest:

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2019/04/removing-fly-from-weather-sealed-canon-70-200mm/


----------



## Jasonmc89 (Jul 2, 2019)

What happened to it? Hope it wasn’t the dust that killed it!!


uri.raz said:


> My 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM, may it rest in peace, had dust between the front element and the one behind it, though it doesn't extend.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 2, 2019)

uri.raz said:


> My 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM, may it rest in peace, had dust between the front element and the one behind it, though it doesn't extend.


Of course. The back of the lens is open, so air (and dust, OMG!) get in. Zooming and focusing move element groups within the lens, and that moves around the air (and dust, OMG!) inside the lens. 

Some people seem to think non-extending zooms are hermetically sealed. Lol.


----------



## uri.raz (Jul 2, 2019)

Jasonmc89 said:


> What happened to it? Hope it wasn’t the dust that killed it!!



I noticed IS went haywire. Gave it to a service center to fix, they claimed it got hit, and required the IS unit to be replaced + realign all the elements. The price was so high, I decided to buy a new mark III and be done with it.

If I could buy MAC insurance for 7 years, it would have been covered. Alas, around here (read: a backwater vilayet of the Ottoman empire) the longest MAC insurance around here is for 3 years. It is also insured as property with my apartment, but that one would cover the lens only if it was broken / stolen along with the camera, which works fine.


----------



## Jasonmc89 (Jul 2, 2019)

uri.raz said:


> I noticed IS went haywire. Gave it to a service center to fix, they claimed it got hit, and required the IS unit to be replaced + realign all the elements. The price was so high, I decided to buy a new mark III and be done with it.
> 
> If I could buy MAC insurance for 7 years, it would have been covered. Alas, around here (read: a backwater vilayet of the Ottoman empire) the longest MAC insurance around here is for 3 years. It is also insured as property with my apartment, but that one would cover the lens only if it was broken / stolen along with the camera, which works fine.


That’s too bad. Our house got broken into a few months ago and my old sigma 17-50 2.8 which was sitting on the TV unit was taken. Home insurance payed out for that no problem. Bit of a price difference though of course!


----------



## SecureGSM (Jul 2, 2019)

SwissFrank said:


> Wider than 50mm it's easy to calculate: focal length divided by f-stop gives the size of the "entrance pupil," the hole you see when you hold a lens up and look at a white wall through it going in. So 135 f/2 will have 72mm hole for light to go in, and since the angle of view is narrow the front element needn't be wider than that.



except Sigma 105 / f1.4 Art with 105mm front element size


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 2, 2019)

SecureGSM said:


> except Sigma 105 / f1.4 Art with 105mm front element size


The front element of a telephoto lens must be _at least_ as large as the entrance pupil (focal length / f-number), certainly it can be larger.

All lenses need to fill the entrance pupil with light, of course, but with telephoto designs the entrance pupil is essentially located at the position of the front element.


----------



## Kannon (Jul 2, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> Of course. The back of the lens is open, so air (and dust, OMG!) get in. Zooming and focusing move element groups within the lens, and that moves around the air (and dust, OMG!) inside the lens.
> 
> Some people seem to think non-extending zooms are hermetically sealed. Lol.


Mine is not open. There's a lens fixed inside, not moving or rotating. lol


----------



## YuengLinger (Jul 2, 2019)

Without noticing at first, I've gotten sand on the zoom barrel of my 24-70mm f/2.8L II. And then the inevitable grinding noise inside the lens.

Then there are misty, drizzly days when droplets get on the extended barrel and could lead to fungus in the lens.

It's not all about "microscopic" dust. The extending barrel does make the lens more vulnerable, offsetting some of the expected L build advantages.

That said, I've learned to be more careful. Would I prefer all lenses to be internal zoom? Sure! But I wouldn't want Canon to NOT make the 100-400mm just because they couldn't come up with a practical, affordable way to make it exactly the way I want...

And this reminds me of what my first photography teacher said way back in 5th grade (something we've all heard): "Photography is all about compromises."


----------



## degos (Jul 2, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> Of course. The back of the lens is open, so air (and dust, OMG!) get in. Zooming and focusing move element groups within the lens, and that moves around the air (and dust, OMG!) inside the lens.



The internal elements moving don't need to expel or inhale air, though; they can displace the internal air volume through spillage around their rims.

Sealing a fixed-length lens is a magnitude easier than an extending-barrel. lol!


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jul 3, 2019)

degos said:


> The internal elements moving don't need to expel or inhale air, though; they can displace the internal air volume through spillage around their rims.
> 
> Sealing a fixed-length lens is a magnitude easier than an extending-barrel. lol!


If you ever fly with your gear it will breathe anyway.


----------



## kaptainkatsu (Jul 3, 2019)

Tom W said:


> I might be the odd man out, but what if, instead of 70-xxx, they made something like a 50-140 f/2 lens? It would most assuredly be a great portrait lens, especially if it were sharp and had great bokeh. It would definiately be the king of portraiture or at least royalty in that realm.



I want to see something like this. I shoot a lot of floor gymnastics and 70 is too long when the gymnasts come up close to you. You can crop on the long end so you don't need 200mm


----------



## kaptainkatsu (Jul 3, 2019)

Aregal said:


> I just got my 100-400Lii last week and it's been a joy to use on the 5Div and EOS R. I've only owned constant aperture lenses until the 100-400Lii, which was my biggest turn-off with it until I used it. It might even replace my 70-200/2.8L IS.
> 
> 
> Answer: Extending Barrel L-series lenses; not a concern.



Theres a menu option to simulate constant aperture. On my 1dx2, C.Fn2:Exposure: Same expo. for new aperture. You can have the camera automatically increase the ISO or decrease the shutter speed (or a combination of both) to maintain the same exposure when the aperture changes.


----------



## AlanF (Jul 3, 2019)

uri.raz said:


> I noticed IS went haywire. Gave it to a service center to fix, they claimed it got hit, and required the IS unit to be replaced + realign all the elements. The price was so high, I decided to buy a new mark III and be done with it.
> 
> If I could buy MAC insurance for 7 years, it would have been covered. Alas, around here (read: a backwater vilayet of the Ottoman empire) the longest MAC insurance around here is for 3 years. It is also insured as property with my apartment, but that one would cover the lens only if it was broken / stolen along with the camera, which works fine.


I was once advised by a financial expert only to insure for events that are very rare and expensive and that you would not be able to cover yourself. Insurance is worthwhile if you are a klutz who breaks things more than average, forgets to lock up or your budget is so tight you don't have the savings on hand to replace. If you are careful, then your insurance premiums have a large factor for the nice profits and running costs of the insurance company and subsidizing the careless klutzes, and you would be far better off putting aside each month the insurance premiums into your own savings. But, having insurance keeps some people happy.


----------



## SecureGSM (Jul 3, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> The front element of a telephoto lens must be _at least_ as large as the entrance pupil (focal length / f-number), certainly it can be larger.
> 
> All lenses need to fill the entrance pupil with light, of course, but with telephoto designs the entrance pupil is essentially located at the position of the front element.



Yes, the OP statement was though : needn't be wider than that. Please see the post I have replied to. 
I suggested that in many cases front element of a telephoto lens is larger than the formula suggests. 
Then, OP went to explain that larger than needed front element is there to reduce vignetting. 
I further explained that it was not correct as vignetting levels reduction was only marginal...

However, corner and edge sharpness was dramatically improved for obvious reason


----------



## uri.raz (Jul 3, 2019)

AlanF said:


> I was once advised by a financial expert only to insure for events that are very rare and expensive and that you would not be able to cover yourself.



True, except reality isn't black & white. If my apartment burnt down, I couldn't buy a new camera + 3 lenses all at once, so I added them to the contents insurance. One lens I can buy new out of pocket. What if two or more broke at the same time, e.g. because they were in a car accident?



AlanF said:


> Insurance is worthwhile if you are a klutz who breaks things more than average, forgets to lock up or your budget is so tight you don't have the savings on hand to replace.



Which is why I don't insure anything else I have, except as part of contents insurance.


----------



## Photo Hack (Jul 3, 2019)

kraats said:


> They are still a bit top big in combinatiën with the mirroroess body imo ...


Seeing that two of them now have IS, where the EF versions did not, I would expect them to be slightly larger and heavier - especially if the trend continues of creating a lens that is sharper and performs better than the EF versions.

They also have a few more electronic tricks up their sleeves with the hardware changes to allow stored data, better focusing, and faster data communication. I’m not sure how much all that affects design, but with the addition of the control rings, that should have an impact.

And the 70-200? At least when retracted and for some of the working range, it’s certainly much smaller than the EF version.

So I’m confused on how they’re too big in combination with mirrorless? Have you used any of them yet?

Also not forgetting the 24mm shorter back flange will bring the lenses closer to the back of the camera and a body that’s a few hundred grams lighter, the girth of the lens may be the only real noticeable characteristic. The grip on my RP, as tiny as the camera is, still feels great vs my Mark IV. We’ll see.

If Canon achieves all of that on their 24-70 and is close to Sony’s physical specs on their G master, it’s a win for Canon. As it sits, Sony’s is 100g heavier and .9” longer than Canon’s EF and doesn’t have all those great additions the RF version will have.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jul 3, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> Some people seem to think non-extending zooms are hermetically sealed. Lol.



Boy that would be fun. Then you’d need worry about desiccant refills in something hard to service, and they’d have to design the front element with rigidity in mind due to burst pressure for air travelers.


----------



## Aregal (Jul 3, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> Some people see rain, and run around like Chicken Little screaming that the sky is falling.
> 
> Some people obsess over a tiny dust speck in their lens. Almost as if it’s the apocalypse.
> 
> ...



I have a friend who specifically looks for scratched/dusty lenses; character. haha


----------



## Del Paso (Jul 3, 2019)

Aregal said:


> I have a friend who specifically looks for scratched/dusty lenses; character. haha


An easy and intelligent way to get an excellent lens for much less money.
I still use my 180 mm Apo Telyt , with its cracked front lens, plus dust inside, without any quality issues. Dust is most of the time a non-existing problem that can result in a cost advantage for the buyer!


----------



## Aregal (Jul 3, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> Some people see rain, and run around like Chicken Little screaming that the sky is falling.
> 
> Some people obsess over a tiny dust speck in their lens. Almost as if it’s the apocalypse.
> 
> ...



I literally had my 5DIV and 70-200/2.8L IS naked in a full-on thunder storm; no rain cover at all. Canon's weather sealing is stellar.


----------



## moreorless (Jul 4, 2019)

I'm guessing the 16-28mm and 28-70mm are really being aimed at people who want more DOF control than standard F/2.8 zooms in that range but are prepared to forego F/1.4 for the convenience of a zoom. In that respect would these people really want an F/2 tele zoom? unlike wide/normal range your already into decent DOF control their with F/2.8.

Maybe a range like say 70-150mm F/2 might allow for something a bit smaller/cheaper I spose and you could argue could be long enough for people who value the extra stop for light gathering shooting indoors.

These lenses don't really seem to be aiming at traditional size saving mirrorless markets but rather at people who might value a mirrorless system over a DSLR in areas like event shooters who want real-time previews and being able to shoot video though the viewfinder.


----------



## Photo Hack (Jul 4, 2019)

moreorless said:


> These lenses don't really seem to be aiming at traditional size saving mirrorless markets but rather at people who might value a mirrorless system over a DSLR in areas like event shooters who want real-time previews and being able to shoot video though the viewfinder.





kraats said:


> Mirrorless fullframe lenses cost moreand are heavier. Aren't mirrorrless systems supposed to be less bulky, faster, less costly? The APC system is better suited for mirrorless IMO. Less bulky at least ..... I like the philosophy of Fuji in that regard.


This is really strange. Who determines what is traditional size saving mirrorless and what size mirrorless is supposed to be?

It’s simply a camera without a mirror. Sony FF mirrorless has been out for years with their big bulky lenses.

With that type of thinking, why couldn’t I say all MILC are too big, bulky, expensive and not following the traditional point and shoot designs that mirrorless was intended?

Pretty silly statement in my opinion. I suppose Mirrorless Medium Format is running rogue to the rules of mirrorless as well?

Not trying to be mean, but maybe everyone is complicating this way too much. Maybe it’s just a f/2 zoom lens in the size you would expect such a lens to be relative to ALL other lens designs ever made. This lens is for a Full Frame mirrorless camera that has a bigger sensor than what you’re comparing to in regards to APSc and M4/3.

Your opinion on what mirrorless is supposed to cost and look like, and how big lenses are supposed to be is completely irrelevant to reality. 

I think they should make a FF point and shoot with a 24-200 f2 lens and retain same price and size of traditional PNS because those are my arbitrary standards regardless of physics haha. Although, “everyone” would be a “pro photographer” at that point.


----------



## Photo Hack (Jul 4, 2019)

kraats said:


> Mirrorless fullframe lenses cost moreand are heavier. Aren't mirrorrless systems supposed to be less bulky, faster, less costly? The APC system is better suited for mirrorless IMO. Less bulky at least ..... I like the philosophy of Fuji in that regard.


I’m curious what you think of Fuji Mirrorless Medium Format system. Seems pretty bulky and expensive compared to Canons Full Frame mirrorless system. 

Do you like Fuji’s philosophy of producing larger and more expensive mirrorless camera systems than Canon?


----------



## Pape (Jul 4, 2019)

Phone camera sensor are 1 micron sized pixel sensors atm. 
There isnt telling how long it takes scale them full frame ,may happen with one big leap next year . Or slowly slithering 20 year to get there.
Canon just wants be prepared to that with big heavy lenses .
You want buy ones what are usefull on future too and they want design lense they can sell least 20 year. to get good profit.


----------



## Photo Hack (Jul 4, 2019)

Pape said:


> Phone camera sensor are 1 micron sized pixel sensors atm.
> There isnt telling how long it takes scale them full frame ,may happen with one big leap next year . Or slowly slithering 20 year to get there.
> Canon just wants be prepared to that with big heavy lenses .
> You want buy ones what are usefull on future too and they want design lense they can sell least 20 year. to get good profit.


For sure, as it sits now, my RP and RF 35 is tiny compared to the equivalent FF DSLR combination. So Canon IS taking advantage of the possibilities of smaller camera and lens footprints with Mirrorless FF, they still have to work within the confines of physicals and current technology. In my opinion they're doing it better than Sony by not sacrificing ergonomics and investing in a long-term lens mount.

It sounds more like people have preconceived ideas of what "Mirrorless" should look like based on their individual needs. Which is why we have a variety of sensors and system to choose from. Since I believe APSc & m4/3 are too small for my needs, I'm not going to want or expect those cameras to have the characteristics of a FF system or hope they'll be fulfill the needs they were never designed to fulfill.


----------



## Yasko (Jul 4, 2019)

Compared to a very well built Tamron 15-30...
+ 1 stop

no IS
potentially a lot more heavy
triple the costs
o new mount...


----------



## Pape (Jul 5, 2019)

Yasko said:


> Compared to a very well built Tamron 15-30...
> + 1 stop
> 
> no IS
> ...


Price is nearly same than EF canon . Tamron is getting ambitious


----------



## canonmike (Jul 6, 2019)

Tom W said:


> Wow! That is potentially spectacular!
> 
> Of course, I'll end up with f/2 envy on an f/4 budget.


For many, that is well said.


----------



## canonmike (Jul 6, 2019)

wockawocka said:


> Based on current RF pricing this won't be worth the asking (imho).
> 
> For those excited about it for landscape use, why are we shooting landscapes at F2?


A valid point, me thinks.


----------



## canonmike (Jul 6, 2019)

YuengLinger said:


> Or it could be the geniuses in marketing and engineering got together and said, "Once the camera is too big to keep in a pocket, who cares? Make the lenses as big as they need to be for ultimate IQ! The sky is the limit!"


Even Canon naysayers have positive commentary on the RF series of lenses, albeit with a reasonable caveat of where's the pro RF body to maximize their potential. Ok, Canon, we're waiting in the wings, peaking around every corner and waiting with eager anticipation at every Canon media release. We're holding our photographic breaths. Bring it on, Canon. We want it. We're ready for it. Just do it.


----------



## canonmike (Jul 6, 2019)

Photo Hack said:


> But I’ll second you on this is going nowhere. I’m not even sure what your points are or what you’re arguing anymore. You think a 23% increase of weight isn’t relatively close considering the overall picture of a f2 zoom on a mirrorless body vs a f2.8 zoom on equivalent DSLR. Cool. Thanks. I disagree.
> 
> This is a game changer for me and thousands of other pro photographers who make a full time living using this gear.
> 
> ...


Guys. While listening to your game of verbal volleyball, each trying to hammer home his relative point(s), I'm not sure who is winning here. As I read your commentaries, I have to ask myself, what is most important to me in acquiring a new lens? In my case, as a sports and nature photographer for over 50 yrs, now contemplating the purchase of any new AF lens, my primary concern is fast, consistent and reliable auto focus. If a potential new lens gets past that hurdle, I can then overlook the size, weight and price constraints of same. In all these years, I have never refused to buy a lens because it was too heavy or somewhat heavier/larger, than a less capable lens. Because of these large and heavy lenses, my job has been made much easier. Thank you Canon. That being said, I will defend your right to vigorously debate an issue that doesn't have a lot of significance to me.


----------



## Don Haines (Jul 7, 2019)

canonmike said:


> A valid point, me thinks.


To avoid camera shake during an earthquake? Sunsets when you do not have a tripod? Night skies? I can think of lots of reasons for a fast lens......


----------



## elendil2017 (Jul 10, 2019)

Hi all, I'm interested in this lens but will be upgrading from an APS-C camera using a 10-22mm with f4-5.6 max aperture. I can see the utility of having f2 in low light settings for different conditions. Wondering if anyone had experience shooting f2 on full-frame:


For those who shoot landscapes on F2, how often do you find yourself shooting wide open? (such that F2.8 felt insufficient)
And speculation or first-hand experience on if the image quality at F2?

Any thoughts would tremendously helpful to choosing between this lens and 15-35 RF F2.8. Thanks!


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jul 10, 2019)

elendil2017 said:


> Hi all, I'm interested in this lens but will be upgrading from an APS-C camera using a 10-22mm with f4-5.6 max aperture. I can see the utility of having f2 in low light settings for different conditions. Wondering if anyone had experience shooting f2 on full-frame:
> 
> 
> For those who shoot landscapes on F2, how often do you find yourself shooting wide open? (such that F2.8 felt insufficient)
> ...



I’ve shot full frame at f/2 (and wider) plenty, typically not landscapes though; I usually shoot around f/5.6 or f/6.3.

My speculation is that the image quality will be just fine.


----------



## FramerMCB (Jul 23, 2019)

kaptainkatsu said:


> I want to see something like this. I shoot a lot of floor gymnastics and 70 is too long when the gymnasts come up close to you. You can crop on the long end so you don't need 200mm


Try the new Tamron 35-150mm f/2.8-4.0 VC OSD for FF (35mm equivalent FOV ~ 56-240mm). Or, for (APS-C) crop sensors the Sigma Art 50-100mm f/1.8 (35mm equivalent FOV ~ 80-160mm). Both are very good performers. Caveats: the Sigma has no weather sealing the Tamron does have weather sealing and VC (vibration control: same as Canon's "IS" and Sigma's "OS").


----------



## LSXPhotog (Jul 27, 2019)

This could be a very interesting lens for astro, so that would be a really cool prospect. I already know this lens isn't for my taste and needs, but renting one for an astro trip if it's low on coma and vignette would be awesome. The potential for the most incredible portrait zoom ever created is where I'm anxious...having two bodies with a 28-70 f/2 and a 70-135f/2 zoom would be simply game-changing for wedding photographers....I know that if that ends up being the combo, I will be buying both of them.


----------



## SecureGSM (Jul 28, 2019)

LSXPhotog said:


> This could be a very interesting lens for astro, so that would be a really cool prospect. I already know this lens isn't for my taste and needs, but renting one for an astro trip if it's low on coma and vignette would be awesome. The potential for the most incredible portrait zoom ever created is where I'm anxious...having two bodies with a 28-70 f/2 and a 70-135f/2 zoom would be simply game-changing for wedding photographers....I know that if that ends up being the combo, I will be buying both of them.



Don’t you think that 135mm at the longer end will be a bit limiting? Especially for a relatively distant shots where you do not have option for being at a closer proximities to your subject? I am asking as from an event photography perspective, 135mm is definitely a limiting factor. Around 15% of my shots are in135-200mm range.


----------



## LSXPhotog (Jul 28, 2019)

SecureGSM said:


> Don’t you think that 135mm at the longer end will be a bit limiting at the longer end? Especially for a relatively distant shots where you do not have option for being at a closer proximities to your subject? I am asking as from an event photography perspective, 135mm is definitely a limiting factor. Around 15% of my shots are in135-200mm range.


I'm not sure I know what you're asking, but I shoot 100% of my portraits from 35, 50, 85, 135mm. I've never felt the need to shoot a portrait from a distance longer than this personally and it's not commonly considered "portrait" distances.


----------



## SecureGSM (Jul 28, 2019)

LSXPhotog said:


> I'm not sure I know what you're asking, but I shoot 100% of my portraits from 35, 50, 85, 135mm. I've never felt the need to shoot a portrait from a distance longer than this personally and it's not commonly considered "portrait" distances.


My apologies, i should have explained the use case better than i did. I was more so thinking along an events as in PJ, candid, run and gun stuff, concerts, theatrical, larger venues where you see a need to reach across and zoom in on your subject from a far without being a distraction... from a portraiture perspective, 28-135mm range is certainly a perfect fit.


----------



## Ozarker (Jul 28, 2019)

LSXPhotog said:


> This could be a very interesting lens for astro, so that would be a really cool prospect. I already know this lens isn't for my taste and needs, but renting one for an astro trip if it's low on coma and vignette would be awesome. The potential for the most incredible portrait zoom ever created is where I'm anxious...having two bodies with a 28-70 f/2 and a 70-135f/2 zoom would be simply game-changing for wedding photographers....I know that if that ends up being the combo, I will be buying both of them.


Hoping for a 70-135 f/2L zoom myself. BTW: Loved your write up about the EF 24-105 f/4L II (I?) several months ago. Very nice photos of cars were with it. Your write up encouraged me a great deal to get the RF 24-105 f/4L when I ordered my R. You proved the EF version doesn't deserve all the bad written about it. Just goes to show that MTF charts, while they might be of some value, are not always the determiner of what is good or bad. Actual use and results in the hands of a master mean more. Your work is beautiful and makes me aspire to get better.


----------



## LSXPhotog (Jul 28, 2019)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Hoping for a 70-135 f/2L zoom myself. BTW: Loved your write up about the EF 24-105 f/4L II (I?) several months ago. Very nice photos of cars were with it. Your write up encouraged me a great deal to get the RF 24-105 f/4L when I ordered my R. You proved the EF version doesn't deserve all the bad written about it. Just goes to show that MTF charts, while they might be of some value, are not always the determiner of what is good or bad. Actual use and results in the hands of a master mean more. Your work is beautiful and makes me aspire to get better.


Wow, well thank you very very much. I am really glad I helped you make your decision on that lens because it's truly underrated. I have been putting the new RF version hard to work and I'm beyond thrilled with its performance as well...it's sharper, better controlled for distortion, and has even better control of aberrations than any of it's previous siblings.

Took this photo Friday night.


----------



## Ozarker (Jul 28, 2019)

LSXPhotog said:


> Wow, well thank you very very much. I am really glad I helped you make your decision on that lens because it's truly underrated. I have been putting the new RF version hard to work and I'm beyond thrilled with its performance as well...it's sharper, better controlled for distortion, and has even better control of aberrations than any of it's previous siblings.
> 
> Took this photo Friday night.
> View attachment 185829


Very nice!


----------



## navastronia (Feb 29, 2020)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Very nice!



Sorry to necro-post, but what's the latest on this ultra-wide f2 zoom rumor?


----------

