# Canon RF lens size comparison when mounted to the Canon EOS R body



## Canon Rumors Guy (Sep 3, 2018)

> Canon Rumors reader *InsungFilms* did up a good comparison showing the size differences between the RF lenses when mounted to the Canon EOS R body.
> The RF 28-70mm f/2L USM is obviously the biggest of the bunch, but we’re also surprised at the size of the RF 50mm f/1.2L USM, it looks like an impressive chunk of glass.
> Also included for reference is an EOS DSLR and the EF 24-105mm f/4L IS.
> 
> ...



Continue reading...


----------



## Chaitanya (Sep 3, 2018)

Grip on both Canon and Nikon cameras is quite substantial and should be much better in use.


----------



## padam (Sep 3, 2018)

When you add in the EF R adapter to the mix, it basically weighs the same as a 6D Mark II, so the advantage is not really there in terms of weight - but that wasn't a design consideration as opposed to making it rigid and ergonomic.
Maybe there will be a lighter, cheaper model later on.


----------



## MrAndre (Sep 3, 2018)

I still dont get, why the 28-70 does not have IS. As a wedding photographer this is a no go. 2.8 is only a little slower when it comes to apperture, but with IS compensating for 4-5 stops the 2.8 IS is better suitable.
For portraits I have primes going down to 1.4 and which will probably be a lot sharper at the respective focal length.

Lets see if the pro body has IS.


----------



## padam (Sep 3, 2018)

It's big enough and weighs enough as-is...
The 24-70 2.8 II doesn't have IS either (if there is going to be something new, it will be heavier again for sure), and yet it is a lens I see the most mounted on cameras at weddings besides L primes (which are also not stabilised for the most part and barely faster than this zoom)


----------



## jebrady03 (Sep 3, 2018)

I'd like to see a 5D with the 24-70 f/2.8L II attached compared to the RF with the 28-70/2 attached. I know it's about 400 grams heavier, but I'm curious to see the size/bulk difference.


----------



## Josh Leavitt (Sep 3, 2018)

I'm hoping that extended silver tube on the lens mount is a solid block of magnesium or aluminum that's part of the core camera skeleton. That would really strengthen the mount for large lenses like 28-70/f2 (not to mention super telephotos).


----------



## H. Jones (Sep 3, 2018)

The more I see about this 28-70mm F/2L the more I wish it was on EF mount. Golly. Really not a bad size in the grand scheme of things. Too many questions about how the next few years will look for me to commit to anything though. Hope Canon releases a roadmap like Nikon did.


----------



## Sharlin (Sep 3, 2018)

MrAndre said:


> I still dont get, why the 28-70 does not have IS.



_You_ go designing a unique groundbreaking lens _and_ _also _somehow fitting an IS group somewhere there, as if this one wasn't difficult enough to design as is, most likely! It's not like IS is just some sort of a checkbox you toggle in the CAD software...


----------



## Sharlin (Sep 3, 2018)

The RF 50mm/1.2 weighs 950 grams, compared to 580 g of the EF 50/1.2. It has double the lens elements too. It is clear that it's a modern "pickle jar" design instead of a venerable double Gauss, and will likely optically far surpass the EF lens at 1.2.


----------



## H. Jones (Sep 3, 2018)

Sharlin said:


> The RF 50mm/1.2 weighs 950 grams, compared to 580 g of the EF 50/1.2. It has double the lens elements too. It is clear that it's a modern "pickle jar" design instead of a venerable double Gauss, and will likely optically far surpass the EF lens at 1.2.



If the f/1.2 can retain some of that beautiful 'creaminess' while also being super great optically, this is going to be a really incredible lens. This announcement has had me all focused on the 28-70 and EOS R, but I think this is going to be a highly acclaimed lens. I wonder what next EF 50mm Canon is going to release? Seems like it would be strange if they release an EF 1.4L IS while the mirrorless gets faster glass.


----------



## Respinder (Sep 3, 2018)

MrAndre said:


> I still dont get, why the 28-70 does not have IS. As a wedding photographer this is a no go. 2.8 is only a little slower when it comes to apperture, but with IS compensating for 4-5 stops the 2.8 IS is better suitable.
> For portraits I have primes going down to 1.4 and which will probably be a lot sharper at the respective focal length.
> 
> Lets see if the pro body has IS.



Completely agree. Lack of IS was why I have held out against purchasing the 24-70 f2.8, and I had hoped that Canon would finally include IS due to Nikon including VR into their equivalent lens. Sadly it does not look like this is happening, and it just means I'll have to wait longer until Canon releases something with IBIS or an equivelent lens with IS.


----------



## bokehmon22 (Sep 3, 2018)

MrAndre said:


> I still dont get, why the 28-70 does not have IS. As a wedding photographer this is a no go. 2.8 is only a little slower when it comes to apperture, but with IS compensating for 4-5 stops the 2.8 IS is better suitable.
> For portraits I have primes going down to 1.4 and which will probably be a lot sharper at the respective focal length.
> 
> Lets see if the pro body has IS.



Canon 24-70 2.8 II doesn't have IS and it's a stable in most wedding photographer lens arsenal including me. How did all these wedding photographers including me survive before IS?

No other camera manufacture have created something ground breaking in this zoom range as 28-70 F2. Not Nikon, Sigma, Zeiss, Sony, Tamron, Batis etc.

28-70 is already 3lb and some already complain about the weight which is similiar to Sigma 105 1.4 Art/70-200 2.8 II IS. They would have added an extra 4mm and make 24-70 F2 IS if it's an easy engineering feat.

Engineers have to make compromises on cost, size, weight, and optic performance and under marketing team decision.


----------



## Respinder (Sep 3, 2018)

One thing I don't understand about these lenses - you can clearly see a metal material protruding from the end of the lens, and so it doesn't quite fit flush into the camera (unlike the EF mount comparison in the image to the far left) - why is this the case? Is it simply design related, or is this perhaps the sign that another camera will arrive with full EF/RF native compatibility?

Generally, there are still a lot of unanswered questions concerning the EOS R, including the adapter, which doesn't appear to be the "sexy solution" as described in previous CR posts. I guess we will be finding out in 2 days.


----------



## Respinder (Sep 3, 2018)

bokehmon22 said:


> Canon 24-70 2.8 II doesn't have IS and it's a stable in most wedding photographer lens arsenal including me. How did all these wedding photographers including me survive before IS?
> 
> No other camera manufacture have created something ground breaking in this zoom range as 28-70 F2. Not Nikon, Sigma, Zeiss, Sony, Tamron, Batis etc.
> 
> ...



That's fine - but some form of stabilization is warranted here - if not in the lens, then perhaps in the body?


----------



## bokehmon22 (Sep 3, 2018)

Respinder said:


> That's fine - but some form of stabilization is warranted here - if not in the lens, then perhaps in the body?



It would be nice to have IBIS in camera so we have to wait a couple more months to see what their professional EOS 5D mirrorless offer. 50 1.2 & 28-70 F2 aren't hobbyist lens so I expect Canon to come out with a professional EOS R in the future. If the 28-70 F2 is under $2000, I would order one right away.

I have Sigma 135 1.8 & 105 1.4 Art, 24-70 2.8 II and neither of those have IS with my 5D IV. I get by with these lens for wedding just fine.


----------



## Igor Trifonov (Sep 3, 2018)

Maybe I missed it, but can I attach a new 28-70 RF lens to my canon 5dmkIV body with an adapter? On the paper it's looking like a dream lens to me. Not sure about if I do need a new Eos.


----------



## Sharlin (Sep 3, 2018)

Igor Trifonov said:


> Maybe I missed it, but can I attach a new 28-70 RF lens to my canon 5dmkIV body with an adapter? On the paper it's looking like a dream lens to me. Not sure about if I do need a new Eos.



No, not without extra optics in the adapter. RF is a mirrorless mount with a short flange distance (20mm compared to EF's 44mm). Time will tell whether someone will offer such a thing, Canon itself almost certainly won't.


----------



## fentiger (Sep 3, 2018)

Sharlin said:


> No, not without extra optics in the adapter. RF is a mirrorless mount with a short flange distance (20mm compared to EF's 44mm). Time will tell whether someone will offer such a thing, Canon itself almost certainly won't.




So on that basis i would say Canon will produce a pro spec EOSR, because them lenses are definitely pro spec, i really can not see a 3lb lens on a 1/2lb camera. not for the normal folk (we are not normal)


----------



## João Taveira (Sep 3, 2018)

It would be also great to have a comparison with an EOS DSLR with the EF 50mm f/1.2 to comparison.


----------



## Sharlin (Sep 3, 2018)

Respinder said:


> That's fine - but some form of stabilization is warranted here - if not in the lens, then perhaps in the body?



Somehow for decades people have managed fine without stabilization on their _frigging f/2 lenses._ Believe or not, people even make big money with lenses like the EF 24-70mm f/2.8 without a stabilizer!


----------



## memoriaphoto (Sep 3, 2018)

bokehmon22 said:


> If the 28-70 F2 is under $2000, I would order one right away.





Try 3500-ish


----------



## 3kramd5 (Sep 3, 2018)

Respinder said:


> One thing I don't understand about these lenses - you can clearly see a metal material protruding from the end of the lens, and so it doesn't quite fit flush into the camera (unlike the EF mount comparison in the image to the far left) - why is this the case? Is it simply design related, or is this perhaps the sign that another camera will arrive with full EF/RF native compatibility?


It certainly sits flush; it wouldn’t work otherwise. I think it’s just an aesthetic choice, good or bad. Perhaps it serves as a “you’re holding this type of lens” reminder.


----------



## MrAndre (Sep 3, 2018)

bokehmon22 said:


> Canon 24-70 2.8 II doesn't have IS and it's a stable in most wedding photographer lens arsenal including me. How did all these wedding photographers including me survive before IS?
> 
> No other camera manufacture have created something ground breaking in this zoom range as 28-70 F2. Not Nikon, Sigma, Zeiss, Sony, Tamron, Batis etc.
> 
> ...



I am not saying that this is not an extraordinary lens. It would just be even greater with IS. And since we all were hoping for IBIS, this superb lens is where the lack of it hurts me the most.


----------



## bokehmon22 (Sep 3, 2018)

MrAndre said:


> I am not saying that this is not an extraordinary lens. It would just be even greater with IS. And since we all were hoping for IBIS, this superb lens is where the lack of it hurts me the most.



I think they could have add IS if it's the engineer decision and size and marketing is not a factor. Due to the size and weight, they aren't sure if it's going to profitable. If it is successful, I can see them adding IS to it in the future. Since memoriaphoto suggests $3500 for non-IS 28-70, IS would add more to that. How many wedding photographers nowadays charge that much for a wedding and even have the money to spend? Some are switching to Sony A7III because it only costs $2000.



memoriaphoto said:


> Try 3500-ish



I wouldn't be surprised. It's a first in its class just like 11-24 F4. Hopefully it's closer to $3000 and used price is even cheaper.


----------



## PerKr (Sep 3, 2018)

3kramd5 said:


> It certainly sits flush; it wouldn’t work otherwise. I think it’s just an aesthetic choice, good or bad. Perhaps it serves as a “you’re holding this type of lens” reminder.


This. The lenses are close enough in design to the EF lenses that it would be a bit too easy to mistake one for the other. Having the grey section makes it a bit more obvious. Also, it's a way of standing out somewhat, just like that stripe tamron decided to add on their lenses


----------



## LDS (Sep 3, 2018)

Respinder said:


> One thing I don't understand about these lenses - you can clearly see a metal material protruding from the end of the lens, and so it doesn't quite fit flush into the camera (unlike the EF mount comparison in the image to the far left)



I wonder if the 50/1.2 and 28-70/2 optical schemas can be adapted for EF mount lenses.


----------



## eyeheartny (Sep 3, 2018)

Gotta say, I'm leaning toward springing for the 28-70, the 50, and the 35 and being all set for a long while.


----------



## peterzuehlke (Sep 4, 2018)

Sharlin said:


> _You_ go designing a unique groundbreaking lens _and_ _also _somehow fitting an IS group somewhere there, as if this one wasn't difficult enough to design as is, most likely! It's not like IS is just some sort of a checkbox you toggle in the CAD software...


it's a box that is already checked off in the 28 2.8 IS, 35 f/2 IS and 85 1.4 IS, so one has to consider carrying one 3lb zoom vs two or two-and-a-half , probably better primes. And zooms are great for video vs primes but at 70mm, shooting video with no IS is problematic. Guessing Canon will come out with IBIS on a higher end model soon, to compete with Nikon and Sony.


----------



## jjesp (Sep 4, 2018)

The 35mm f/1.8 looks promising. Wonder how much different it will be in IQ to the Nikon 35mm. The Nikon is way to big for a 35mm I think....


----------



## eyeheartny (Sep 4, 2018)

jjesp said:


> The 35mm f/1.8 looks promising. Wonder how much different it will be in IQ to the Nikon 35mm. The Nikon is way to big for a 35mm I think....



The IQ on the Nikon 35 looks outstanding-- I saw some test shots on a Z7 that were jaw-dropping.


----------

