# Patent: Canon RF 24-70mm f/2.8L IS & RF 24-300mm f/4-5.6L IS USM



## Canon Rumors Guy (Sep 6, 2018)

> Northlight Images has done their usual weekly sorting of Canon patents to find some that may be of interest to the community and it looks like they have found one that may give some clues about future RF mount lenses. This relates well to the article from earlier today about what we expect to see released in the next year or so for the RF mount.
> In this patent, Canon shows an optical formula for an RF 24-300mm f/4-5.6L IS along with two variations of an RF 24-70mm f/2.8L IS.
> *Included in US Patent application *2018/0252895A1*:*
> 
> ...



Continue reading...


----------



## padam (Sep 6, 2018)

Kai W: Superzooooooom


----------



## Respinder (Sep 6, 2018)

Ouch - this makes my decision more complicated - do I go with the 28-70 f2, or the image-stabilized 24-70.. 
I'm still leaning towards the 28-70, just due to the enhanced optics and bokeh that I'll get from this lens. At the same time, I know the lens will be much heavier, and I wonder if the IS becomes a necessary ingredient here?
For anyone who has the current 24-70 (without IS), how do you find it? Do you find that IS would make things better?


----------



## bokehmon22 (Sep 6, 2018)

Respinder said:


> Ouch - this makes my decision more complicated - do I go with the 28-70 f2, or the image-stabilized 24-70..
> I'm still leaning towards the 28-70, just due to the enhanced optics and bokeh that I'll get from this lens. At the same time, I know the lens will be much heavier, and I wonder if the IS becomes a necessary ingredient here?
> For anyone who has the current 24-70 (without IS), how do you find it? Do you find that IS would make things better?



If price isn't a factor, 28-70F2. I'll probably buy used. IS doesn't really matter to me since I shoot moving subject at wedding. For pose portrait, I have faster lens.


----------



## padam (Sep 6, 2018)

You will be able to try them, hopefully. On paper it looks to be a total badass lens, they claim that it is as sharp wide open at f/2 as the EF 24-70 II at f/2.8, that's impressive.
But not only is it the most expensive for a native mirrorless setup (ok, apart from the Sony 400mm), it is also probably the most front-heavy-feeling ever made amongst them.

What I mean is, when the lens is not that big but thick and weighs as much as this, it will feel even heavier (like Leica Noctilux lenses, which feel very dense) so it may become a bit shaky after a while using handheld, and there is no IS. That might actually matter a bit more in practice, than how sharp the lens can be.

The 11-24mm with an EF to R adapter is a pretty good "test-bed" for weight distributon before having this even heavier lens (but the range is more forgiving regarding usable shutter speeds)

The RF 24-70/2.8 IS may also be close to or just over 1kg, but that is quite a bit more manageable, it should be better than the EF 24-70 II as well, and the IS may also come in handy (for both photo and video), until they put it in the later bodies as well.


----------



## Talys (Sep 6, 2018)

Respinder said:


> Ouch - this makes my decision more complicated - do I go with the 28-70 f2, or the image-stabilized 24-70..
> I'm still leaning towards the 28-70, just due to the enhanced optics and bokeh that I'll get from this lens. At the same time, I know the lens will be much heavier, and I wonder if the IS becomes a necessary ingredient here?
> For anyone who has the current 24-70 (without IS), how do you find it? Do you find that IS would make things better?


 yI have the 24-70/4 IS, and the older 24-70/2.8. Personally, I like the 4 better, but mostly because it's smaller and lighter. I often have the 24-70 as a second camera clipped onto my bag or chest, and the difference in weight and size is quite significant, especially for a walkaround second camera. I've never had a problem with blurry pics on f/2.8, though. The question of how helpful image stabilization is simply comes down to exposure settings (shutter speeds) you prefer to shoot at, and also whether/when you use prefer a flash.


----------



## padam (Sep 6, 2018)

Talys said:


> yI have the 24-70/4 IS, and the older 24-70/2.8. Personally, I like the 4 better, but mostly because it's smaller and lighter. I often have the 24-70 as a second camera clipped onto my bag or chest, and the difference in weight and size is quite significant, especially for a walkaround second camera. I've never had a problem with blurry pics on f/2.8, though. The question of how helpful image stabilization is simply comes down to exposure settings (shutter speeds) you prefer to shoot at, and also whether/when you use prefer a flash.



True, but weight distribution is also important. The 24-70/2.8 Mk1 with a DSLR is still fairly well-balanced.
When you cut down on the body weight and size but at the same time double the lens weight (and the total weight still goes up), it becomes unbalanced and takes some getting used to. But that lens is just badass, no denying that


----------



## cayenne (Sep 6, 2018)

Respinder said:


> Ouch - this makes my decision more complicated - do I go with the 28-70 f2, or the image-stabilized 24-70..
> I'm still leaning towards the 28-70, just due to the enhanced optics and bokeh that I'll get from this lens. At the same time, I know the lens will be much heavier, and I wonder if the IS becomes a necessary ingredient here?
> For anyone who has the current 24-70 (without IS), how do you find it? Do you find that IS would make things better?



Ok, please pardon what is likely a stupid question....

But why did they do two lenses so close together?

Why not do a 24-70mm f/2.0 L lens? I love my current 24-70L....(version 2)....and would be excited to get it in f/2.0...not sure I'd want to lose that extra wide end for a 28-70.

Anyway, is there a good reason not to just do the 24-70 in f/2.0?


TIA,

cayenne


----------



## syyeung1 (Sep 6, 2018)

More lenses with IS basically means that Canon has not intention of going the IBIS route


----------



## tron (Sep 6, 2018)

I wonder if they intend to make an EF 24-70 2.8L IS too even as a commitment to EF line or not.


----------



## Sharlin (Sep 6, 2018)

cayenne said:


> Ok, please pardon what is likely a stupid question....
> Anyway, is there a good reason not to just do the 24-70 in f/2.0?



You mean, other than the 28-70/2 already being supermassive and superexpensive? It's a very different tool than a 24-70/2.8 IS, the similar focal length range notwithstanding.


----------



## Random Orbits (Sep 6, 2018)

Respinder said:


> Ouch - this makes my decision more complicated - do I go with the 28-70 f2, or the image-stabilized 24-70..
> I'm still leaning towards the 28-70, just due to the enhanced optics and bokeh that I'll get from this lens. At the same time, I know the lens will be much heavier, and I wonder if the IS becomes a necessary ingredient here?
> For anyone who has the current 24-70 (without IS), how do you find it? Do you find that IS would make things better?



I like the 24-70 f/2.8 II as it is. IS is more "necessary" at longer focal lengths, and you need to give IS time to stabilize before taking a shot. This occassionally ruins photos for me when I'm acquiring a different subject with the 70-200 or 100-400 (sports). For shorter focal lengths, IS is not as necessary for people shots because subject movement sets the shutter speed anyway. For still life or landscapes, IS can be beneficial at the shorter focal lengths. However, having both the 16-35 III and the f/4 IS, I usually favor the larger aperture over IS, and for the 24-70mm focal length range, I don't think IS would be a big factor -- overall IQ would.

I'd have to try it out, but the 28-70 f/2 is intriguing. It's heavy, but then you might not have to bring any primes.


----------



## amorse (Sep 6, 2018)

Respinder said:


> Ouch - this makes my decision more complicated - do I go with the 28-70 f2, or the image-stabilized 24-70..
> I'm still leaning towards the 28-70, just due to the enhanced optics and bokeh that I'll get from this lens. At the same time, I know the lens will be much heavier, and I wonder if the IS becomes a necessary ingredient here?
> For anyone who has the current 24-70 (without IS), how do you find it? Do you find that IS would make things better?


I have the 24-70 f/2.8L II - IS would have been nice, but I think if you know you're not going to have it you work around it. I've often just really pumped my ISO and kept my shutter speed to 1/(2x focal length). Typically, if I'm hand holding a photo in low light then it is probably of people, and even with IS I don't trust most people to stay still so IS won't fix all my problems. Also, IS would have made the lens heavier, so that can be a serious negative depending on the user.

I am betting the RF version has IS because the thought is that will be a key video lens on the EOS R and whatever comes after it. Also, considering that the 24-105 f/4L got a bit smaller, Canon may be able to add IS to the 24-70 f/2.8 on RF without it being much heavier than the EF version.


----------



## Josh Leavitt (Sep 6, 2018)

Canon is trying very hard to take all my money. I've been waiting for an update to the 28-300mm F/3.5-5.6L IS USM for a long time. It looks like it may be here soon.


----------



## tron (Sep 6, 2018)

I still prefer the EF series (and to tell the truth I am heavily invested in EF lenses) but if they do not produce an EF version of this lens I will start worrying. True, I will still keep preferring my EF lenses/system and I will not switch but I will put an end to getting new EF lenses (keep in mind that I do not say stop updating my EOS bodies because I would be a liar!). Also being a hobbyist and not rich I do not know if I will ever be able to switch completely. I truly hope they will keep all product lines active.


----------



## canonmike (Sep 6, 2018)

cayenne said:


> Ok, please pardon what is likely a stupid question....
> 
> But why did they do two lenses so close together?
> 
> ...


From everything I have read, an F2 24-70mm would be just too big. Hard to believe that just one stop makes that much difference in glass elements requirements but it does.


----------



## cayenne (Sep 6, 2018)

canonmike said:


> From everything I have read, an F2 24-70mm would be just too big. Hard to believe that just one stop makes that much difference in glass elements requirements but it does.



Hmm.
I wonder how *much* more?
I mean, could it possibly be any larger and unwieldy than the Canon 11-24L lens? Whew...that's a beast, but I love it!!
It's worth the size...

K


----------



## mrzero (Sep 6, 2018)

Josh Leavitt said:


> Canon is trying very hard to take all my money. I've been waiting for an update to the 28-300mm F/3.5-5.6L IS USM for a long time. It looks like it may be here soon.



I agree, I've been waiting for that update as well. If they only roll it out on RF, though, I'll be quite annoyed. As much as it makes sense in the RF line, it also makes sense in the EF line.


----------



## Act444 (Sep 6, 2018)

Respinder said:


> Ouch - this makes my decision more complicated - do I go with the 28-70 f2, or the image-stabilized 24-70..
> I'm still leaning towards the 28-70, just due to the enhanced optics and bokeh that I'll get from this lens. At the same time, I know the lens will be much heavier, and I wonder if the IS becomes a necessary ingredient here?
> For anyone who has the current 24-70 (without IS), how do you find it? Do you find that IS would make things better?



I like it. I’d like for it to have IS, of course, but for the time being I work around it (e.g., not using it on the high-res 5DSR). IQ is decent, if not extraordinary (particularly at 70mm 2.8, its weak spot).


----------



## AlP (Sep 6, 2018)

All three have a very small focusing group, just a single small element for the two 24-70 implementations. Looks like they could be Nano USM like in the RF 24-105 and that could mean very fast (and smooth) autofocus.


----------



## kaptainkatsu (Sep 6, 2018)

The 24-70 2.8 IS pretty much seals the deal for me on the EOS R. Been a hold out on the 24-70 zoom lens because of lack of IS (my current trio is 16-35, 50 and 70-200).

I might buy the EOS R after first price drop and the 35 1.8 then wait for the 24-70 2.8 to drop.

The EOS R will primarily be a Gimbal cam and as my second stills camera. If i need 4k/60 or 1080/120, I have my 1dx2 to fill that slot.


----------



## Act444 (Sep 6, 2018)

I like the thought of an RF 24-70 2.8 IS.....








But I like the thought of an *EF *24-70 2.8 IS even better.


----------



## Del Paso (Sep 6, 2018)

cayenne said:


> Ok, please pardon what is likely a stupid question....
> 
> But why did they do two lenses so close together?
> 
> ...


Yes , there is certainly a good reason, namely the enormous optical complexity of such a lens, unless you'd accept a loss of quality.
The 28-70 seems to have attained a new summit in terms of sharpness and contrast (assumption based on the Canon MTF data), so it would be a pity to sacrify this for a wider zoom range.


----------



## keithcooper (Sep 6, 2018)

tron said:


> I still prefer the EF series (and to tell the truth I am heavily invested in EF lenses) but if they do not produce an EF version of this lens I will start worrying. True, I will still keep preferring my EF lenses/system and I will not switch but I will put an end to getting new EF lenses (keep in mind that I do not say stop updating my EOS bodies because I would be a liar!). Also being a hobbyist and not rich I do not know if I will ever be able to switch completely. I truly hope they will keep all product lines active.


They won't be producing EF versions - look at the designs. They are short back focus with large rear elements. See the Canon EOS-R white paper for a lot more about why this aspect of the RF mount is an important feature.

Now that doesn't mean you couldn't get an EF equivalent - just I see these patents as fleshing out where RF is going. There are four lenses in the patent. One is likely the 24-105, there are two designs for 24-70 and one 24-300

Remember that this is a patent application to show aspects of optical design - not a lens roadmap!


----------



## keithcooper (Sep 6, 2018)

Act444 said:


> I like the thought of an RF 24-70 2.8 IS.....
> 
> But I like the thought of an *EF *24-70 2.8 IS even better.



For the time being...
The more I read about lens design in the RF models, the more I see capabilities that just are not there with EF


----------



## fullstop (Sep 6, 2018)

keithcooper said:


> more I see capabilities that just are not there with EF



yes, well chosen lens parameters allow for a larger optical design space.

see also Thom Hogan's article. 
https://www.sansmirror.com/newsviews/canon-adds-a-full-frame.html









> _Inner angle is Sony FE, outer is Nikon Z, middle is Canon R (close to scale). In theory, Nikon has the most design flexibility, Sony the least. _
> 
> 
> The new RF mount has a flange distance of 20mm with a throat of 54mm. Nikon's Z mount is the "big boy" now, flipping the advantage of the EF over the F mount that reigned through the film SLR and DSLR era. Whether that shows up in any real advantages to users remains to be seen, but Nikon does have more optical design space available to them than Canon and Sony.


----------



## tron (Sep 6, 2018)

keithcooper said:


> For the time being...
> The more I read about lens design in the RF models, the more I see capabilities that just are not there with EF


Still there are tens of epic EF lenses. So that doesn't really count...


----------



## tron (Sep 6, 2018)

keithcooper said:


> They won't be producing EF versions - look at the designs. They are short back focus with large rear elements. See the Canon EOS-R white paper for a lot more about why this aspect of the RF mount is an important feature.
> 
> Now that doesn't mean you couldn't get an EF equivalent - just I see these patents as fleshing out where RF is going. There are four lenses in the patent. One is likely the 24-105, there are two designs for 24-70 and one 24-300
> 
> Remember that this is a patent application to show aspects of optical design - not a lens roadmap!


I understand about the patents and I remember EF 24-70 2.8L IS patents from the past. I am talking about Canon's determination to support and expand the EF series...


----------



## DaveGrice (Sep 6, 2018)

tron said:


> I wonder if they intend to make an EF 24-70 2.8L IS too even as a commitment to EF line or not.



Doubt it. Since the EF 24-70 2.8 IS seems like an obvious thing to do, and it hasn't materialized, yet it's apparently now in the works for RF - I would draw the conclusion that we'll be seeing all the forward-thinking development going into RF and not EF from here on out.


----------



## Mikehit (Sep 6, 2018)

syyeung1 said:


> More lenses with IS basically means that Canon has not intention of going the IBIS route


My guess is that they will go the Panasonic route compared to Olympus - Canon will concentrate on getting a camera will all the real goodies such as effective AF tracking and frame rates and will rely on in-lens IS. When they have finally got a workable IBIS they will incorporate it with a dual IS between body and lens giving an even better IS. 
I am not aware so far that the top range Sony lenses without IS are noticably smaller than the Canon L lenses with IS.


----------



## tron (Sep 6, 2018)

DaveGrice said:


> Doubt it. Since the EF 24-70 2.8 IS seems like an obvious thing to do, and it hasn't materialized, yet it's apparently now in the works for RF - I would draw the conclusion that we'll be seeing all the forward-thinking development going into RF and not EF from here on out.


There are patents of this lens for both mounts. Now if Canon make only an RF version that will say a lot for the future of EF mount


----------



## DaveGrice (Sep 6, 2018)

tron said:


> There are patents of this lens for both mounts. Now if Canon make only an RF version that will say a lot for the future of EF mount



Exactly what I was thinking.


----------



## Random Orbits (Sep 7, 2018)

keithcooper said:


> They won't be producing EF versions - look at the designs. They are short back focus with large rear elements. See the Canon EOS-R white paper for a lot more about why this aspect of the RF mount is an important feature.
> 
> Now that doesn't mean you couldn't get an EF equivalent - just I see these patents as fleshing out where RF is going. There are four lenses in the patent. One is likely the 24-105, there are two designs for 24-70 and one 24-300
> 
> Remember that this is a patent application to show aspects of optical design - not a lens roadmap!



Any thoughts as to why Canon kept the 54mm ID and choose the flange distance it did? Seems like Canon could have chosen a shorter flange distance and a wider opening to match or surpass what Nikon chose and still have compatibility with the EF-M line...


----------



## DaveGrice (Sep 7, 2018)

mrzero said:


> I agree, I've been waiting for that update as well. If they only roll it out on RF, though, I'll be quite annoyed. As much as it makes sense in the RF line, it also makes sense in the EF line.



Well, it would make sense if Canon were going to invest any more energy in the EF series. My fear is that may not be Canon's strategy going forward. Sitting nervously on a bag full of EF L glass...


----------



## goldenhusky (Sep 7, 2018)

I was expecting the EF 28-300L to get replaced with a EF 24-300L with the turn to zoom instead of the old pull-push design but at this point I do not believe Canon will release the EF 24-300L instead might release the RF 24-300L. If at all Canon releases the EF 24-300L that might be a sign Canon might not introduce more FF MILC any time soon and we may see more FF DSLRs. In any case I guess we will see next version of 7D2, 1Dx2 and 5D4 in the DSLR form. I hope Canon releases the next version of 5DsR in the MILC form without AA filter. Other than that I guess we can expect Canon to release the f/2.8 RF trinity sooner than later.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Sep 7, 2018)

Pity the prospective RF 24-70 and other future RFs have IS. That indicates Canon isn't planning to add IBIS even to higher-end bodies in the future.


----------



## traveller (Sep 7, 2018)

fullstop said:


> yes, well chosen lens parameters allow for a larger optical design space.
> 
> see also Thom Hogan's article.
> https://www.sansmirror.com/newsviews/canon-adds-a-full-frame.html


Interesting why Canon chose a 20mm flange focal distance for the RF mount. I originally thought it was so they could make an RF to EF-M adapter, but Canon News’ article suggests that’s not possible. Is there a good optical reason why they didn’t go for 18mm BFD (like EF-M), or shorter (like Nikon Z), or is it a cynical ploy to make adapting other mirrorless mount lenses impossible and complicate the efforts of third party manufacturers to make RF mount versions of their FE mount lens designs?


----------



## nitram (Sep 7, 2018)

Besides two or three other big white telephoto lenses, EF mount is finished in terms of new lens releases. However, don’t let that fool you. Your bag full of EF glass is great and will continue to work great on the EOS R body family!


----------



## traveller (Sep 7, 2018)

nitram said:


> Besides two or three other big white telephoto lenses, EF mount is finished in terms of new lens releases. However, don’t let that fool you. Your bag full of EF glass is great and will continue to work great on the EOS R body family!



I have two concerns with the “just use the EF-RF adapter” issue:

*Doubling the number of lens-mount interfaces *- I’ll leave the explanation to Roger Cicala: https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/09/there-is-no-free-lunch-episode-763-lens-adapters/ No, the sky won’t fall in because of this. In the real world and with a 30MP sensor, I doubt you’d notice unless you get an unlucky combination of lens, adapter & body that are all enough out of tolerance in the same direction. On the other hand, for those advocating a future EOS R series body with a high resolution sensor, perhaps it is a worry.
*“MELVILLE, N.Y., April 1st, 2019: Canon U.S.A. Inc., a leader in digital imaging solutions, today announced the new EOS RS featuring Superduper autofocus*, 80MP orgasmic sensor and... [*feature only available with Canon RF series lenses]” *- I think we can all see this coming! It’s pretty reasonable to assume there’s a reason for the new 12 pin connection on RF lenses.
Whilst I’d be happy to adapt my existing lenses, I wouldn’t want to buy a new EF mount lens with the intention of adapting it to RF mount.


----------



## Mikehit (Sep 7, 2018)

traveller said:


> *80MP orgasmic sensor and... [*feature only available with Canon RF series lenses]” *- I think we can all see this coming!



Does that make the camera more fun to use?


----------



## renlok (Sep 7, 2018)

24-300 to me could be a winner as a travel lens. I guess it'll depend on the size. Hopefully not like the EF 28-300L.


----------



## traveller (Sep 7, 2018)

Mikehit said:


> Does that make the camera more fun to use?


Sure does, baby! But only for the measurebators


----------



## RGF (Sep 7, 2018)

24-300 L series lens, especially if light weight (at least relatively light weight) would be very nice. A walk around lens.


----------



## RGF (Sep 7, 2018)

renlok said:


> 24-300 to me could be a winner as a travel lens. I guess it'll depend on the size. Hopefully not like the EF 28-300L.




100 -- total agree


----------



## padam (Sep 7, 2018)

renlok said:


> 24-300 to me could be a winner as a travel lens. I guess it'll depend on the size. Hopefully not like the EF 28-300L.


Can't beat physics, you need glass for that range with that aperture. And it is also an L lens.
So it will be somewhere in between the Sony FE 24-240mm f/3.5-6.3 OSS (slower, less reach, less sharp)
And the Canon EF 28-300mm f/3.5–5.6L (sharper, more reach and also slightly faster but less wide and not mirrorless)

I will be comfortably over a kilo, that's for sure, maybe 1.2-1.3kg.


----------



## The_Alpha (Sep 8, 2018)

In my opinion the 28-300 has only one real downside, and that's the sharpness,
it is just not quite up to the sensors of the newer cameras (in my case a 5DsR).
Well also the contrast could be better.

For me, the 24-300 could be even heavier if it was also f/3.5 or even f/2.8 (we won't get that, i know)
I would not care about 200-400 grams more weight for having more light on the sensor.

Edit: The plus side of the 28-300 is obviously it's flexibility, you don't have to carry around
more than one Lens + Camera to have a huge focal range. No lens changes = no dirt on the sensor
and no time loss when you are in a hurry.


----------



## Bob Howland (Sep 9, 2018)

The 24-300 lens should have been introduced with the R camera, instead of the 28-70. It's much more in sync with a camera that is at the 6D level of functionality. The 28-70 could have been introduced with a "EOS-R1" professional model that can do 20 (or 24) full frame images per second.


----------



## tron (Sep 9, 2018)

These 2 lenses (24-300 when introduced) and 28-70 are so big that they would be better to have with DSLRs. Smaller lenses would be more practical to have with mirrorless cameras...


----------



## nitram (Sep 9, 2018)

traveller said:


> I have two concerns with the “just use the EF-RF adapter” issue:
> 
> *Doubling the number of lens-mount interfaces *- I’ll leave the explanation to Roger Cicala: https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/09/there-is-no-free-lunch-episode-763-lens-adapters/ No, the sky won’t fall in because of this. In the real world and with a 30MP sensor, I doubt you’d notice unless you get an unlucky combination of lens, adapter & body that are all enough out of tolerance in the same direction. On the other hand, for those advocating a future EOS R series body with a high resolution sensor, perhaps it is a worry.
> *“MELVILLE, N.Y., April 1st, 2019: Canon U.S.A. Inc., a leader in digital imaging solutions, today announced the new EOS RS featuring Superduper autofocus*, 80MP orgasmic sensor and... [*feature only available with Canon RF series lenses]” *- I think we can all see this coming! It’s pretty reasonable to assume there’s a reason for the new 12 pin connection on RF lenses.
> Whilst I’d be happy to adapt my existing lenses, I wouldn’t want to buy a new EF mount lens with the intention of adapting it to RF mount.



Fully agree with your point. However, the newest EF lenses (400 and 600) seem to have all the benefits of the RF mount but inside the EF package. I’d imagine that it was built for RF from the ground up but adapted for EF. Two hints that seem to show this to me are that the focus rings are not full time manual but rather motor driven. In addition, the lenses have the same ‘focus motor speed setting’ switches as are available on native RF lenses within the software of the RF body... I’d expect Canon to make this clearer during the announcement of the 300 and the 500 - if this is indeed their plan. We shall have to wait! Are the newest lenses even available at this time?


----------



## scyrene (Sep 9, 2018)

DaveGrice said:


> Well, it would make sense if Canon were going to invest any more energy in the EF series. My fear is that may not be Canon's strategy going forward. Sitting nervously on a bag full of EF L glass...



That bag full of glass will still work for years to come, whatever corporate decisions are made.


----------



## Durf (Sep 9, 2018)

scyrene said:


> That bag full of glass will still work for years to come, whatever corporate decisions are made.



Canon spent millions upgrading several EF lenses over the last few years (and still are) knowing perfectly well that they were coming out with a RF Mount system. EF lenses will be around for many many years to come.
Besides, these RF lenses look quite untouchable to the majority market of gear buyers as they are outrageously expensive....


----------



## scyrene (Sep 9, 2018)

Durf said:


> Canon spent millions upgrading several EF lenses over the last few years (and still are) knowing perfectly well that they were coming out with a RF Mount system. EF lenses will be around for many many years to come.
> Besides, these RF lenses look quite untouchable to the majority market of gear buyers as they are outrageously expensive....



Yeah, I like the look of them but they are mostly very premium products at this point.


----------



## HaroldC3 (Sep 10, 2018)

Nothing for aps-c eh? I guess one lens a year is it. Maybe I’ll get that 16-70 f4 some day...


----------



## DaveGrice (Sep 10, 2018)

scyrene said:


> That bag full of glass will still work for years to come, whatever corporate decisions are made.



Yeah, it's not that I don't love L glass or recognize that they'll continue to function tomorrow. My point was that if/when I bail out of the Canon ecosystem, it's going to suck having to sell off native Canon glass at fire sale prices if I want to switch over to native XXX glass instead. Rational or not, I'm having some buyer's remorse, I suppose.


----------



## Ozarker (Dec 30, 2018)

Respinder said:


> Ouch - this makes my decision more complicated - do I go with the 28-70 f2, or the image-stabilized 24-70..
> I'm still leaning towards the 28-70, just due to the enhanced optics and bokeh that I'll get from this lens. At the same time, I know the lens will be much heavier, and I wonder if the IS becomes a necessary ingredient here?
> For anyone who has the current 24-70 (without IS), how do you find it? Do you find that IS would make things better?



I would tend think a lighter lens would be more in need of IS... based on my firearms experience. I have the current 24-70mm f/2.8L II and have not had a problem probably due to the shorter focal length. I won't be buying a 24-70 IS if it gets released. I'm happy with what I have. If I had an R body the non stabilized 28-70 would probably be my first lens purchase. However, I am more likely to get a 5D Mark V if one is released.


----------

