# Patent: Canon RF 28-70mm f/2.8, with focus on a compact design



## Canon Rumors Guy (Oct 7, 2021)

> Canon News has uncovered a new optical formula patent for a Canon RF 28-70mm f/2.8. Canon seems to have worked quite hard at reducing the size of such a design significantly. The design in this patent is actually smaller than the highly-regarded Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 Di III RXD for the Sony E mount.
> Canon has a couple of lenses already covering this focal length, such as the RF 28-70mm f/2L and the RF 24-70mm f/2.8L IS, but as we saw with the EF mount, the EF 24-70mm f/4L IS was quite a popular option for people that didn’t want the size, expense or speed of the EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II.
> With the EF 24-70mm f/4L IS being discontinued, there is likely a need for a smaller 24-70 type...



Continue reading...


----------



## EricN (Oct 7, 2021)

The headline made me think it was a macro zoom lens.


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Oct 7, 2021)

EricN said:


> The headline made me think it was a macro zoom lens.


Thanks, I switched it up.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Oct 7, 2021)

I guess this has to be more expensive than the RF 24-70 2.8 or more people would get this one over that one.
I guess some people without the RF 15-35 2.8 might still prefer to start at 24mm.


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Oct 7, 2021)

EOS 4 Life said:


> I guess this has to be more expensive than the RF 24-70 2.8 or more people would get this one over that one.
> I guess some people without the RF 15-35 2.8 might still prefer to start at 24mm.


If it's a non-L design, it would be an affordable alternative to an f/4L lens. It would also be a nice design for an APS-C RF mount camera.


----------



## koenkooi (Oct 7, 2021)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> If it's a non-L design, it would be an affordable alternative to an f/4L lens. It would also be a nice design for an APS-C RF mount camera.


I think Canon has only made 1 non-L f/2.8 zoom in the past, the EF-S 17-55mm, so I wouldn't get my hopes up on that front. It would be nice to have, though.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Oct 7, 2021)

koenkooi said:


> I think Canon has only made 1 non-L f/2.8 zoom in the past, the EF-S 17-55mm, so I wouldn't get my hopes up on that front. It would be nice to have, though.


An APS-C f/2.8 being a non-L lens does not surprise me.
I would be shocked by a full-frame one


----------



## amorse (Oct 7, 2021)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> If it's a non-L design, it would be an affordable alternative to an f/4L lens. It would also be a nice design for an APS-C RF mount camera.


I was wondering about that - we have already seen f/2.8 versions of the big three (15-35, 24-70, 70-200), but only f/4 versions for the 14-35 and 70-200. I almost wonder if a 24-70 f/4 is actually coming, or has the 24-105 improved enough to not really need a 24-70 f/4? Or maybe releasing a 28-70 f/2.8 fills the niche sufficiently if the price and size are small enough?


----------



## AJ (Oct 7, 2021)

I would buy this lens in a flash. Actually, I would buy the Tamron 28-75/2.8 if it came in an R mount. But, sadly, it doesn't. It seems that other manufacturers have been shut out of the R mount. If Canon eventually comes out with its own version, it'll probably be twice the price of the Tamron.


----------



## docsmith (Oct 7, 2021)

I was hoping for a small, lightweight general purpose zoom for travel. f/4 would have been fine, but f/2.8, nice.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 7, 2021)

docsmith said:


> I was hoping for a small, lightweight general purpose zoom for travel. f/4 would have been fine, but f/2.8, nice.


For me, that's a 24-105mm lens. For travel, I'd really miss the 4mm on the wide end (unless I was also bringing a UWA zoom).


----------



## Dmcavoy (Oct 7, 2021)

koenkooi said:


> I think Canon has only made 1 non-L f/2.8 zoom in the past, the EF-S 17-55mm, so I wouldn't get my hopes up on that front. It would be nice to have, though.


I'm pretty sure one of the big marketing claims for the RF mount when it first appeared was that it would allow for larger aperture lenses/make them easier to produce. 

So maybe an f2.8 non L lens is the start of that.


----------



## InchMetric (Oct 7, 2021)

EOS 4 Life said:


> I guess this has to be more expensive than the RF 24-70 2.8 or more people would get this one over that one.
> I guess some people without the RF 15-35 2.8 might still prefer to start at 24mm.


Speaking only for myself, my preferences for the zoom range of the lens on my camera have very little to do with the zoom ranges of lenses not on my camera. I'll tend to pick one lens for the mission. Loss of 24-28 is a downer that justifies a bulkier lens. Maybe. (One thing I love about the 15-35 is that the 35 is so versatilely "normal"). If one heavy lens serves without the weight and issues with a second to interchange, it's a big win. That's just me. I do like the effort to create compact performers.


----------



## Nemorino (Oct 7, 2021)

There is also a Sigma 28-70 2.8:








Sigma 28-70mm F2.8 DG DN Contemporary Lens Review


Is the Sigma 28-70mm F2.8 DG DN Contemporary Lens right for you? Learn all you need to know in The-Digital-Picture.com's review!




www.the-digital-picture.com





Which is even smaller then the Tamron.
With 470g a good option for travel.
The RF 24-70 is 900g.
Looks like there is a market for such small, lightwight lenses.


----------



## entoman (Oct 7, 2021)

InchMetric said:


> Speaking only for myself, my preferences for the zoom range of the lens on my camera have very little to do with the zoom ranges of lanes not on my camera. I'll tend to pick one lens for the mission. Loss of 24-28 is a downer that justifies a bulkier lens. Maybe. (One think I love about the 15-35 is that the 35 is so versatilely "normal"). If one heavy lens serves without the weight and issues with a second to interchange, it's a big win. That's just me. I do like the effort to create compact performers.


Absolutely. I’m a one lens one mission guy as well.

It *can* sometimes be problematic if I stumble across a good photo opportunity and don’t have the right lens with me.

But the discipline of working with just one lens pays dividends because it forces me to think much harder. It also teaches me to try new approaches to the subject and composition.

For example, I have the stunningly sharp RF 24-105mm F4L. It’s a do-everything lens that is fine when travelling. But it makes me lazy, so often I go out with just my 24mm T/S-E or with my 100mm macro - and the discipline results in much better photographs.


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Oct 7, 2021)

I hate that Canon always rounds to the disbenefit of the photographer. It is a 29-68 f/2.9. If they really wanted, they could easily achieve the exact numbers. Just curve a few lenses a little differently or make them slightly bigger. That is done by computers anyway.


----------



## BBarn (Oct 7, 2021)

I think there is a good market for smaller RF lenses, and this one appears to be interesting. But in an RF 28-70, I'd rather have a small F/4 IS than a small F/2.8 without IS.


----------



## docsmith (Oct 7, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> For me, that's a 24-105mm lens. For travel, I'd really miss the 4mm on the wide end (unless I was also bringing a UWA zoom).


I might end up there...but the RF 24-105 is only 100 g lighter than my EF 24-70 II. The adapter doesn't yet count as all my lenses are EF, so it lives on my R5. Looking at the Sigma and Tamron 28-70 f/2.8, they are 470 g and 550 g, or 335g and 255 g lighter than the EF 24-70 II. 

If this were to be ~500 g, nice and compact, I could see it as a nice travel lens. But, you are right about that extra 4 mm, 24 mm is one of my favorite focal lengths. 

But, I like options.


----------



## Nelu (Oct 7, 2021)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...


Am I missing something here?
Why would you need an RF 28-70mm f/2.8L when the RF 24-70mm f/2.8L IS is already available?


----------



## Juangrande (Oct 7, 2021)

BBarn said:


> I think there is a good market for smaller RF lenses, and this one appears to be interesting. But in an RF 28-70, I'd rather have a small F/4 IS than a small F/2.8 without IS.


Since the cameras have built in IB no need for it in the lens, I’ll take the wider aperture every time. Unless your on a first generation R body of course.


----------



## f119a (Oct 7, 2021)

I just read the patent and the distortion on wide side seems really, really bad - I mean, like 20%+ bad.
And all 3 variations are, not surprising, almost equally bad.


----------



## entoman (Oct 7, 2021)

Nelu said:


> Am I missing something here?
> Why would you need an RF 28-70mm f/2.8L when the RF 24-70mm f/2.8L IS is already available?


Because the 28-70mm F2.8 is a heavy lump, and this new lens seems to be designed to be lighter and more compact, making it a better option for travelling. Also it’s quite possible that the new lens will be a lot cheaper, if it lacks OIS.

Personally I think the 24-70mm or 24-105mm options are both better choices for a “walkabout” lens.


----------



## vangelismm (Oct 8, 2021)

Thanks but give me the F4 version.


----------



## InchMetric (Oct 8, 2021)

Skyscraperfan said:


> I hate that Canon always rounds to the disbenefit of the photographer. It is a 29-68 f/2.9. If they really wanted, they could easily achieve the exact numbers. Just curve a few lenses a little differently or make them slightly bigger. That is done by computers anyway.


I’m fine with the off numbers. If you have a constraint like a 77mm filter size it will drive odd numbers because you can’t force everyone. Forcing the design to give exact numbers can sub optimize things you care about.
But there is no excuse on earth for allowing the dishonest anti consumer rounding.


----------



## AJ (Oct 8, 2021)

This may be a bit OT, but I own both a Tamron 17-50/2.8 and a Canon 17-55/2.8. The Tamron goes noticeably wider, even though both are sold as being 17 mm at the wide end. So the rounding thing is nothing new.

I liked my Tamron 17-50/2.8. Small, light, sharp, fast, with an under-the-radar look. It's the ideal travel and hiking and go-anywhere lens. A FF equivalent (~500g, 67 mm filter) would be a nice thing to have.


----------



## Nelu (Oct 8, 2021)

entoman said:


> Because the 28-70mm F2.8 is a heavy lump, and this new lens seems to be designed to be lighter and more compact, making it a better option for travelling. Also it’s quite possible that the new lens will be a lot cheaper, if it lacks OIS.
> 
> Personally I think the 24-70mm or 24-105mm options are both better choices for a “walkabout” lens.



I think you didn’t pay attention to what I wrote.
This lens is the 28-70mm F2.8 and I question it’s point when the 24-70mm F2.8 is already available.


----------



## EricN (Oct 8, 2021)

Nelu said:


> I think you didn’t pay attention to what I wrote.
> This lens is the 28-70mm F2.8 and I question it’s point when the 24-70mm F2.8 is already available.


This one's lighter/more compact and appears to be more distortion


----------



## davidcl0nel (Oct 8, 2021)

Nelu said:


> Am I missing something here?
> Why would you need an RF 28-70mm f/2.8L when the RF 24-70mm f/2.8L IS is already available?


The same reason there is an EF 24-70 f/4, if there exists an EF 24-105 f/4 already ?
Both were L anyway.

For 28-70 there is a 2.0 zoom as an L, so the "smaller" version could be a 28-70 2.8 without L, why not ?


----------



## chasingrealness (Oct 8, 2021)

This lens could fit nicely into the gap in my travel lens set (currently adapted Tamron 17-35mm f/2.8-4 and Sigma 100-400mm) replacing my 50mm f/1.8 without adding too much size or weight. Definitely interested in this if it’s in the range of $1,500 or less, and if the image quality is up to modern standards.


----------



## Marximusprime (Oct 8, 2021)

YES PLEASE


----------



## fox40phil (Oct 8, 2021)

Could Canon start to just release those lenses^^?!
Idk what are they waiting for? ;P


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 8, 2021)

Nelu said:


> I think you didn’t pay attention to what I wrote.
> This lens is the 28-70mm F2.8 and I question it’s point when the 24-70mm F2.8 is already available.


A non-L version definitely has a point.


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Oct 8, 2021)

If the lens cost only $800 while the f/2 version costs $3000, that would be a good reason to buy the cheaper one. Many people says that 24-70 or so is the "normal" always-on focal range, but for me it is quite a boring focal range in the center of focal ranges. Not wide enough for buildings close to you, but not long enough for buildings far away from you. My always-on lens usually is a 15-30 and I would only buy another lens on the 24-70 (or 28-70) range to fill the gap in case I need an average focal range. So A cheap version would be quite appealing for me. 28-70 is good for people, but I do not like people in my photos. Sometimes unfortunately they are unavoidable.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Oct 8, 2021)

Juangrande said:


> Since the cameras have built in IB no need for it in the lens, I’ll take the wider aperture every time. Unless your on a first generation R body of course.


Then you would get the 28-70 f/2


----------



## entoman (Oct 8, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> A non-L version definitely has a point.


Even if it’s an L lens, it will be significantly cheaper, as it doesn’t have IBIS and the focal length range is shorter. Lighter, more compact, cheaper.


----------



## SNJ Ops (Oct 8, 2021)

On emount there’s the Tamron
28-75 f2.8 (which I think was best selling lens of 2019 on the platform) and Sigma responded with their 28-70mm f2.8 Contemporary.. 

They are very very popular with a wide range of users and come in a lower price than the GM and Sigma Art 24-70mm f2.8 options. I suspect Canon rightly want to provide this option to their users too.


----------



## deleteme (Oct 9, 2021)

If you have used 24mm you won't settle for 28.


----------



## LogicExtremist (Oct 9, 2021)

Skyscraperfan said:


> I hate that Canon always rounds to the disbenefit of the photographer. It is a 29-68 f/2.9. If they really wanted, they could easily achieve the exact numbers. Just curve a few lenses a little differently or make them slightly bigger. That is done by computers anyway.


So do I, but that's the way of the world. 
Unlike some premium lens brands where price is no obstacle, most lenses are made with specific compromises in mid:

1. Price
2. Performance/Image Quality
3. Size/Weight

Pick any 2 of the 3! 

It looks like Canon is achieving the compact size by sacrificing focal range.

We've seen that Canon also makes similar compromises to save weight and reduce cost, such as the inclusion of molded plastic aspherical lens elements in the new Rf 100-400 f/8 lens.


----------



## LogicExtremist (Oct 9, 2021)

f119a said:


> I just read the patent and the distortion on wide side seems really, really bad - I mean, like 20%+ bad.
> And all 3 variations are, not surprising, almost equally bad.


Sound like another "fix-it-in-post" mirrorless camera lens that needs in-camera corrections to correct distortion, which is cheaper for Canon than doing it with optics, as is the case with the RF 24-200mm and Rf 14-35 f/4.


----------



## SNJ Ops (Oct 9, 2021)

Normalnorm said:


> If you have used 24mm you won't settle for 28.


On emount A LOT of people where fine with 28mm at the wide end which is why the Tamron sold so many copies. In fact a G2 version is coming very soon to make it even better. Different people have different needs and remember that Canon themselves have the RF 28-70mm f2 out already. An f2.8 version will be cheaper, lighter, more compact and will be an excellent addition for lots of Canon shooters.


----------



## LogicExtremist (Oct 9, 2021)

Normalnorm said:


> If you have used 24mm you won't settle for 28.


If you've used 24mm, and really need 24mm, then you won't settle for 28mm. There, fixed it!


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Oct 9, 2021)

LogicExtremist said:


> So do I, but that's the way of the world.
> Unlike some premium lens brands where price is no obstacle, most lenses are made with specific compromises in mid:
> 
> 1. Price
> ...


It is not just about making comprimises. 28-70 already is a compromise, because the "normal" standard zoom is 24-70 or even 24-105. I just don't like that Canon always rounds in the wrong direction. A 600mm lens will be 585mm and not 611mm or so. In the supermarket for example if a package of cornflakes says "750g" it will have at least 750g. If they only put 742g into every box, they will get into big trouble. So you can expect something around 760g or even more dependig on how accurate those boxes could be filled. 

Here it is even worse. It is not about tolerances that appear by chance, but they intentionally give you less than advertised. It may only be 3% less, but imagine you order a camera and you will only pay 97% of the bill. I think they will not send you the camera, until you have paid 100%.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 9, 2021)

LogicExtremist said:


> If you've used 24mm, and really need 24mm, then you won't settle for 28mm. There, fixed it!


Between my 24-105/4L (EF and RF) and my EF 24-70/2.8 II, ~23% of my shots are at <28mm.

When I bought my first DSLR (a T1i/500D in 2009), I passed on the kit lens and started with the EF-S 17-55/2.8 and the EF 85/1.8. The 17-55 is an excellent general purpose zoom for APS-C, and starts at 27mm FFeq. 

I’d prefer a walk around lens starting at 24mm, but I could live with 28mm. Fortunately, I don’t have to.


----------



## LogicExtremist (Oct 9, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Between my 24-105/4L (EF and RF) and my EF 24-70/2.8 II, ~23% of my shots are at <28mm.
> 
> When I bought my first DSLR (a T1i/500D in 2009), I passed on the kit lens and started with the EF-S 17-55/2.8 and the EF 85/1.8. The 17-55 is an excellent general purpose zoom for APS-C, and starts at 27mm FFeq.
> 
> I’d prefer a walk around lens starting at 24mm, but I could live with 28mm. Fortunately, I don’t have to.


Likewise, on my RF 24-105 f/4L I find I'm using 24mm for the bulk of the wider shots, and it's not because I'm going wide as possible. When I'm using my Ef 16-35mm lens, and zooming to frame shots, I find I'm often around 24mm. Looks like it's a standard focal length for good reason.  .


----------



## LogicExtremist (Oct 9, 2021)

Skyscraperfan said:


> It is not just about making comprimises. 28-70 already is a compromise, because the "normal" standard zoom is 24-70 or even 24-105. I just don't like that Canon always rounds in the wrong direction. A 600mm lens will be 585mm and not 611mm or so. In the supermarket for example if a package of cornflakes says "750g" it will have at least 750g. If they only put 742g into every box, they will get into big trouble. So you can expect something around 760g or even more dependig on how accurate those boxes could be filled.
> 
> Here it is even worse. It is not about tolerances that appear by chance, but they intentionally give you less than advertised. It may only be 3% less, but imagine you order a camera and you will only pay 97% of the bill. I think they will not send you the camera, until you have paid 100%.


I get what you're saying now, the lens name descriptions are nominal (ie, just an name that approximates the real focal length) rather than reflecting the actual focal length specification. I remember a while back many reviewers were comparing the RF 85mm f/2 Macro against the faster 85mm Canon lenses, they discovered the framing was different. They estimated that this lens is probably more closer to a 90mm lens.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 9, 2021)

Skyscraperfan said:


> It is not just about making comprimises. 28-70 already is a compromise, because the "normal" standard zoom is 24-70 or even 24-105. I just don't like that Canon always rounds in the wrong direction. A 600mm lens will be 585mm and not 611mm or so.


For APS-C, the ‘normal’ standard zoom is 18-55mm, which is 29-85mm FFeq. 28-135mm kit lenses were the norm for many years of film cameras and early DSLRs. 



Skyscraperfan said:


> In the supermarket for example if a package of cornflakes says "750g" it will have at least 750g. If they only put 742g into every box, they will get into big trouble. So you can expect something around 760g or even more dependig on how accurate those boxes could be filled.


Grocery honesty is more subtle. Like the ‘half-gallon’ juice cartons that didn’t change in price, but dropped the volume from 64 to 59 oz. 



Skyscraperfan said:


> Here it is even worse. It is not about tolerances that appear by chance, but they intentionally give you less than advertised. It may only be 3% less, but imagine you order a camera and you will only pay 97% of the bill. I think they will not send you the camera, until you have paid 100%.


Consider it from the other side. If Canon designs products to a price point, perhaps to get the full, unrounded spec you’d need to pay 105%.


----------



## Rocky (Oct 9, 2021)

I have 18-55 when I got my M. I end up doing a lot of stitches for wider scenery. When I got my M50, I paid $70 extra to get the 15- 45. Now the 18-55 is practically in cold storage.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 9, 2021)

Rocky said:


> I have 18-55 when I got my M. I end up doing a lot of stitches for wider scenery. When I got my M50, I paid $70 extra to get the 15- 45. Now the 18-55 is practically in cold storage.


The EF-M 11-22mm is an excellent lent if you want a wider FoV on your M-series body.









Canon EF-M 11-22mm f/4-5.6 IS STM Lens Review


Is the Canon EF-M 11-22mm f/4-5.6 IS STM Lens right for you? Learn all you need to know in The-Digital-Picture.com's review!




www.the-digital-picture.com


----------



## deleteme (Oct 9, 2021)

SNJ Ops said:


> On emount A LOT of people where fine with 28mm at the wide end which is why the Tamron sold so many copies. In fact a G2 version is coming very soon to make it even better. Different people have different needs and remember that Canon themselves have the RF 28-70mm f2 out already. An f2.8 version will be cheaper, lighter, more compact and will be an excellent addition for lots of Canon shooters.


Before 24-70s came out people were fine with 28-70. 
“Once they have seen the lights of Paris, they will never come back to the farm”.


----------



## Finn (Oct 9, 2021)

I think Canon already has plenty of very nice RF zoom lenses already. I would much prefer more L-series prime lenses with IS that are as small and light as canon can make them.

RF 20mm L IS f/1.8 or f/1.4
RF 24mm L IS f/1.4 or f/1.2
Sony's 20mm f/1.8 is very popular and finding a place in many peoples bags because it is so versatile. Easy to film yourself, wide enough for most landscapes, and fast enough (if good IQ) for astrophotography.

We now have the tiny 16mm f/2.8 but it is not a L-series weather sealed lens. Bummer.


----------



## dcm (Oct 9, 2021)

Normalnorm said:


> Before 24-70s came out people were fine with 28-70.
> “Once they have seen the lights of Paris, they will never come back to the farm”.


And before the 28-70 came out, we were fine with 35-70. Later I went for the 35-105 instead of the 28-85. (I may be dating myself somewhat... )


----------



## BBarn (Oct 10, 2021)

Two things most lacking in the RF line are L wide angle primes and a truly small kit zoom.


----------



## Rocky (Oct 10, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> The EF-M 11-22mm is an excellent lent if you want a wider FoV on your M-series body.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I have the 11-22mm lens also. My is very sharp at the center but is get a little bit not that sharp at the edge. Also I still prefer the 15-45 as my walk around lens. It is more versatile.


----------



## SNJ Ops (Oct 10, 2021)

Finn said:


> I think Canon already has plenty of very nice RF zoom lenses already. I would much prefer more L-series prime lenses with IS that are as small and light as canon can make them.
> 
> RF 20mm L IS f/1.8 or f/1.4
> RF 24mm L IS f/1.4 or f/1.2
> ...


I own the 20mm f1.8 G and it has amazing IQ. I’ve only used mine for woodland and landscapes but I have seen reviews testing it for astro and it’s an excellent performer. In some areas of the frame its sharper than the 24mm f1.4 GM.

Yes it’s surprising there hasn’t been an L series wide angle prime yet. An f1.2 would be interesting if the coma and astigmatism can kept to minimal levels at the wider apertures.


----------



## InchMetric (Oct 10, 2021)

Finn said:


> We now have the tiny 16mm f/2.8 but it is not a L-series weather sealed lens. Bummer.


Buy five for $1500 and discard them as they get wet. You a diver?


----------



## Finn (Oct 10, 2021)

InchMetric said:


> Buy five for $1500 and discard them as they get wet. You a diver?


No.
You are risking more than a lens. I don’t want to kill my $3,900 R5 because water got into the lens mount from a cheap $300 lens. You a billionaire?


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 10, 2021)

Finn said:


> No.
> You are risking more than a lens. I don’t want to kill my $3,900 R5 because water got into the lens mount from a cheap $300 lens. You a billionaire?


I have used my EF50mm f1.4 for twenty odd years in rain and sleet and snow on 1 series bodies and never had an issue. I use my EF35mm f2 IS the same way, again without issue. I think people read too much into these things...

If I was doing an overnight time lapse with either it is simplicity itself to protect the complete kit from the worst of the elements. If I’m using non weather sealed lenses in my hand (and there are a few L lenses amongst them) then it is easy to monitor how wet everything is getting.


----------



## Finn (Oct 10, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> I have used my EF50mm f1.4 for twenty odd years in rain and sleet and snow on 1 series bodies and never had an issue. I use my EF35mm f2 IS the same way, again without issue. I think people read too much into these things...
> 
> If I was doing an overnight time lapse with either it is simplicity itself to protect the complete kit from the worst of the elements. If I’m using non weather sealed lenses in my hand (and there are a few L lenses amongst them) then it is easy to monitor how wet everything is getting.


Well that’s nice to hear. I also have had friends with Canon R with weather sealed L lens brick their cameras in moderate weather. So unless camera manufactures start IPX rating their gear I’m going to treat it like it isn’t weather-sealed, especially with a lens that has no gasket around the mount.

Olympus started to go in this direction with 1X with a IP1X rating and marketing material showing it being blasted by jets (this is a IP5X test).


----------



## CanonGrunt (Oct 10, 2021)

Weren’t we supposed to get compact servo RF lenses in the cinema line?


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 10, 2021)

Finn said:


> Well that’s nice to hear. I also have had friends with Canon R with weather sealed L lens brick their cameras in moderate weather. So unless camera manufactures start IPX rating their gear I’m going to treat it like it isn’t weather-sealed, especially with a lens that has no gasket around the mount.
> 
> Olympus started to go in this direction with 1X with a IP1X rating and marketing material showing it being blasted by jets (this is a IP5X test).


That is the core difference, your friends bodies were not weather sealed, I was talking about non weather sealed lenses on weather sealed bodies. Initially you were talking about a non weather sealed lens.


----------



## entoman (Oct 10, 2021)

No one else seems to have spotted this:

The new patent refers to a lens that *does not extend while zooming*.​
This feature alone will have strong appeal to many users.

“_It sounds like a patent for a small and lightweight standard zoom. The characteristic of this optical system is that the total length is the longest at the wide-angle end and the total length becomes shorter toward the telephoto end. This is a common optical system for wide-angle lenses, but I don’t see this type of lens with standard zoom lenses, especially with large-aperture zoom lenses. If it is really put into practical use, it will be a very portable lens._”
Translated from Japanese, ref: asobinet.com


----------



## Rocky (Oct 10, 2021)

Finn said:


> No.
> You are risking more than a lens. I don’t want to kill my $3,900 R5 because water got into the lens mount from a cheap $300 lens. You a billionaire?


I was using a M50 with 15-45 ( plastic mount, no weather shielding for three day mostly with rain and snow two years ago. They are still working now. The trick is to wipe the lens and camera whenever you have a chance and put them in the poncho when you are not using it


----------



## InchMetric (Oct 10, 2021)

Finn said:


> No.
> You are risking more than a lens. I don’t want to kill my $3,900 R5 because water got into the lens mount from a cheap $300 lens. You a billionaire?


If I were a billionaire, I’d be buying Canon and not a $4000 camera.
You might consider the extended warranty next time you buy a body. Cheaper than spending much more just to get a rubber gasket.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 10, 2021)

entoman said:


> No one else seems to have spotted this:
> 
> The new patent refers to a lens that *does not extend while zooming*.​
> This feature alone will have strong appeal to many users.
> ...


The text you quoted does not support your conclusion that the lens does not extend while zooming. Rather, it describes a lens that is simply a reverse of the typical zoom extension. We’re used to zoom lenses that physically extend as focal length increases, the description is of a lens that physically extends as the focal length decreases.

The original source states they don’t see this type of lens with standard zooms, especially large aperture ones. That source appears unaware of the Canon EF 24-70/2.8L (MkI), which functioned in exactly that manner.

Looking at the patent, the lens is shortest somewhere in the middle of the zoom range, and that’s similar to an ultrawide zoom. However, the min and max lengths are ~2 cm different, and I suspect that’s too much of a range for an inner barrel-type zoom like a UWA zoom. So, I expect this will be an extending zoom.

Possibly Canon will use a design like the M11-22, where the lens retracts to an even more compact storage length and locks there.


----------



## Finn (Oct 11, 2021)

InchMetric said:


> If I were a billionaire, I’d be buying Canon and not a $4000 camera.
> You might consider the extended warranty next time you buy a body. Cheaper than spending much more just to get a rubber gasket.


Just like if I was a diver I would use a dive kit.

In my experience extended warranties very often do not cover accidental water damage. Equipment insurance through PPA would cover but is expensive for worldwide coverage.


----------



## LogicExtremist (Oct 11, 2021)

Topic derailing into a discussion on waterproofing!

Basically, no cameras or lenses have IP ratings (https://www.iec.ch/ip-ratings) which is the standardized measure of resistance to the ingress of dust or water into an enclosure.

To put it bluntly, that means that the advertising claims of water resistance don't meant squat in any objectively measurable way. 

Sure, the inclusions of seals and gaskets to varying degrees reduces the likelihood of water entering, but not enough to earn them a real IP rating. For amusement, if we look at the ratings on the IEC website, most 'sealed' camera bodies or lenses, I would hazard to guess that they would embarrassingly be lucky to even rate at IP52, IP54 at best.

Realistically, if someone's out shooting wildlife or landscapes, and get caught in a sudden downpour, having seals helps as they get under cover and wipe down their gear. Unless the rain is the actual subject of the photography, it's unlikely much photography needs to be done in a downpour. If venturing out into the great outdoors with unsealed lenses or camea bodies, take a rain cover, or get a camera bag with a fold-out rain cover, and wear a raincoat too! 

Now, back to the topic, what was that again?


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 11, 2021)

LogicExtremist said:


> Topic derailing into a discussion on waterproofing!
> 
> Basically, no cameras or lenses have IP ratings (https://www.iec.ch/ip-ratings) which is the standardized measure of resistance to the ingress of dust or water into an enclosure.
> 
> ...


GoPro’s are rated to 33 feet underwater and I have personally used my Hero 7 at that depth on many occasions without a waterproof/dive housing.

The Olympus Tough TG-6 is rated to IPX8, so 50’ underwater.

The Canon IVY REC is rated to 2meters underwater.


----------



## LogicExtremist (Oct 11, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> GoPro’s are rated to 33 feet underwater and I have personally used my Hero 7 at that depth on many occasions without a waterproof/dive housing.
> 
> The Olympus Tough TG-6 is rated to IPX8, so 50’ underwater.
> 
> The Canon IVY REC is rated to 2meters underwater.


Yes, precisely! Some cameras have real IP ratings, and they can swim! 

So can quite a few smartphones, with real IP67 and IP 68 ratings:

From Tom's Guide - The best waterproof phones in 2021 








The best waterproof phones 2022


With the best waterproof phones, you don't have to worry about unlucky spills and splashes




www.tomsguide.com





iPhone 13 Pro Max, Water resistance: IP68; max 20 feet (6 meters) for 30 minutes
iPhone 13, Water resistance: IP68; max 20 feet (6 meters) for 30 minutes
iPhone 12, Water resistance: IP68; max 20 feet (6 meters) for 30 minutes
Samsung Galaxy S21 Ultra, Water resistance: IP68; max 5 feet (1.5 meters) for 30 minutes
Samsung Galaxy S20 FE, Water resistance: IP68; max 5 feet (1.5 meters) for 30 minutes
OnePlus 9 Pro, Water resistance: IP68; max 5 feet (1.5 meters) for 30 minutes
Samsung Galaxy Note 20 Ultra, Water resistance: IP68; max 5 feet (1.5 meters) for 30 minutes
Samsung Galaxy S21, Water resistance: IP68; max 5 feet (1.5 meters) for 30 minutes
iPhone SE (2020), Water resistance: IP67; max 3.3 feet (1 meter) for 30 minutes
Google Pixel 5, Water resistance: IP68; max 5 feet (1.5 meters) for 30 minutes

Thanks


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 11, 2021)

LogicExtremist said:


> Basically,* no cameras or lenses have IP ratings* (https://www.iec.ch/ip-ratings) which is the standardized measure of resistance to the ingress of dust or water into an enclosure.
> 
> To put it bluntly, that means that the advertising claims of water resistance don't meant squat in any objectively measurable way.





LogicExtremist said:


> Yes, precisely! *Some cameras have real IP ratings*,


Seemed like a pretty extreme contradiction in logic...


----------



## LogicExtremist (Oct 11, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> Seemed like a pretty extreme contradiction in logic...


Whoops, I've seen what I've done there, I failed to qualify my initial statement where I was talking about Canon cameras on a Canon forum, my mistake! 
The unqualified statement is contradictory, true, now you know what I meant, thanks.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 11, 2021)

LogicExtremist said:


> Whoops, I've seen what I've done there, I failed to qualify my initial statement where I was talking about Canon cameras on a Canon forum, my mistake!
> The unqualified statement is contradictory, true, now you know what I meant, thanks.


IVY REC





It’s a Canon camera. It has an IP68 rating.

By all means, feel free to qualify your initial statement further in another attempt to avoid simply admitting you were wrong. If you believe that’s logical.


----------



## LogicExtremist (Oct 11, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> IVY REC
> 
> View attachment 200719
> View attachment 200720
> ...


Okay you've found an exception, so I stand corrected, and need to change "all" Canon cameras to "most"... Point still stands though regarding the cameras people argue about here. Still, no one is going to dunk their R5 with their 28-70 in the river to test its seals, so the arguments about lack of sealing on some lenses compared to others that was starting was a fairly moot point, as I explained earlier. 

Out of curiosity, what model is this? Is this a recent camera, as I don't ever recall this one?


----------



## EricN (Oct 11, 2021)

LogicExtremist said:


> Okay you've found an exception, so I stand corrected, and need to change "all" Canon cameras to "most"... Point still stands though regarding the cameras people argue about here. Still, no one is going to dunk their R5 with their 28-70 in the river to test its seals, so the arguments about lack of sealing on some lenses compared to others that was starting was a fairly moot point, as I explained earlier.
> 
> Out of curiosity, what model is this? Is this a recent camera, as I don't ever recall this one?


I have the Canon Care Pak and a river close by... isn't it covered?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 11, 2021)

LogicExtremist said:


> Okay you've found an exception, so I stand corrected, and need to change "all" Canon cameras to "most"... Point still stands though regarding the cameras people argue about here. Still, no one is going to dunk their R5 with their 28-70 in the river to test its seals, so the arguments about lack of sealing on some lenses compared to others that was starting was a fairly moot point, as I explained earlier.
> 
> Out of curiosity, what model is this? Is this a recent camera, as I don't ever recall this one?


The Canon IVY REC (product page link above images in my last post) launched 2 years ago.

I doubt anyone believes that water resistance equates to waterproof. Logically, even though there is no established standard, something that is designed to be dust- and water-resistant will be more likely to resist dust and water than something not so designed.


----------



## entoman (Oct 11, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> The text you quoted does not support your conclusion that the lens does not extend while zooming.


The quote and conclusion aren’t mine - I’ve just copied what is posted on CanonWatch website. They got the info from asibonet.com which is machine-translated.

Here is the full item:

"_Here is a very interesting Canon patent application, once more for an RF mount lens. An RF 28-70mm f/2.8L with inner focusing and that does not extend might be in the works._

_The Canon patent application spotted by asobinet.com (they did not disclose the patent number), discusses optical formulas for a RF 28-70mm f/2.8L lens. The interesting part, if I got it right from the machine translated Japanese text, is that the lens not only does all the focusing but also employs a design that is usually found on wide-angle lenses.

It sounds like a patent for a small and lightweight standard zoom. *The characteristic of this optical system is that the total length is the longest at the wide-angle end and the total length becomes shorter toward the telephoto end*. This is a common optical system for wide-angle lenses, but I don’t see this type of lens with standard zoom lenses, especially with large-aperture zoom lenses. If it is really put into practical use, it will be a very portable lens._


_Did I get it right? The lens is indeed described to be shorter at the telephoto end (emphasis mine) in both embodiment:_"


----------



## LogicExtremist (Oct 12, 2021)

EricN said:


> I have the Canon Care Pak and a river close by... isn't it covered?


Might be better to grab an ND filter as well, set the tripod up beside the river, and set it to a longer exposure, I think that's the better way to do it. For underwater shots, you can get a GoPro


----------



## LogicExtremist (Oct 12, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> The Canon IVY REC (product page link above images in my last post) launched 2 years ago.
> 
> I doubt anyone believes that water resistance equates to waterproof. Logically, even though there is no established standard, something that is designed to be dust- and water-resistant will be more likely to resist dust and water than something not so designed.


Thanks, looks like an interesting product, I must have missed the link. That's just a $99 toy key-ring camera, but technically you're correct.

I didn't start the discussion about waterproofing/water resistance, I was actually trying to avert a pointless discussion. As you've pointed out, and common sense would suggest, some sealing helps, and it's better than no sealing, but the typical camera gear discussed here and owned by most is not underwater gear, so it's advisable to avoid unnecessary exposure to water, dust, sand, etc. That's just sensible camera care, something people should be able to work out. 

To re-address the original comment that raised this matter, if the upcoming RF 16mm f/2.8 doesn't have weather seals, then just don't get it too wet, it's that simple. Like I said earlier, if a few drops of rain fall on it when caught unprepared, move out of the rain, and wipe off the water. Use an all weather camera bag, carry a rain cover, and a compact foldable raincoat. Sure lenses and camera bodies can get a bit wet, and still survive, but why risk it, All canon cameras, with an exception or two are not IP rated like smartphones, and shouldn't be allowed to get soaked needlessly. If you have to shoot a rainy scene, either get under cover, or use a large rain deflection device, otherwise known as an big umbrella! It's not too hard really...


----------



## Kit. (Oct 12, 2021)

InchMetric said:


> Buy five for $1500 and discard them as they get wet. You a diver?


While 16/2.8 would definitely be a great underwater lens (at least when paired with a flat port), shooting landscapes with a camera in underwater housing would not be a good idea, especially if flare is a concern.


----------



## deleteme (Oct 29, 2021)

dcm said:


> And before the 28-70 came out, we were fine with 35-70. Later I went for the 35-105 instead of the 28-85. (I may be dating myself somewhat... )


And then we all stared/ lusted after the Nikkor 43-86 back in the day.


----------

