# Another Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L IS mention [CR2]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Oct 15, 2018)

> We’re again being told that an image stabilized 24-70mm f/2.8L lens is coming. This source claims there has been a lot of internal discussions whether or not to release this lens for both RF and EF mounts.
> I guess the argument could be made, that if you want people embracing the EOS R system, then providing compelling lenses not available in EF would be an interesting way to make that happen.
> The flip side? Ticking off the millions of EOS DSLR shooters that have no immediate plans to move to a mirrorless system.
> Our bet is we’ll see both an RF 24-70mm f/2.8L IS and an EF 24-70mm f/2.8L IS some time in the next 12-18 months.



Continue reading...


----------



## jolyonralph (Oct 15, 2018)

RF 24-70 f/2.8L IS straight away, and the EF version delayed until stock of the non-IS version has sold through, possibly?


----------



## CaptureWhatYouSee (Oct 15, 2018)

EF version with EF-->RF adaptor.


----------



## marathonman (Oct 15, 2018)

Won't the high end R series eventually have IBIS?


----------



## Lurker (Oct 15, 2018)

marathonman said:


> Won't the high end R series eventually have IBIS?


That is the expectation but there was a patent that used the lens IS system in conjunction with the IBIS.
IBIS Patent


----------



## brad-man (Oct 15, 2018)

Next 12-18 months? We may all be shooting Nikonos cameras by then...


----------



## Etienne (Oct 15, 2018)

Make them both but make the RF version cheaper, lighter, and smaller than the EF version ... that'll get people looking at the EOS-R


----------



## Talys (Oct 15, 2018)

brad-man said:


> Next 12-18 months? We may all be shooting Nikonos cameras by then...


Wait, we're going to be shooting with Nikon underwater film SLRs in 12-18 months? 

I don't know what the big rush is for 24-70/2.8IS. It's going to be a heavy and expensive lens that a lot of the people wish for it are never going to buy, because it will be, well, heavy and expensive.

I think the right launch strategy is EF and RF at the same time. It's a high end pro lens, I'm going to guess $3,000, and there's going to be a lot of 1DX owners who would consider one. It would be cool to see an RF launched/announced concurrently with EOS R "Pro" next year, I guess.


----------



## Lurker (Oct 15, 2018)

Hard to believe there is a debate. Not sure how R sales are going but they didn't seem to be flying off the shelves. Very little chatter on the pre-order threads, stores have them in stock the same day pre-orders start shipping and CPW had street price discounts day 1.

Right now I'm buying my life kit, I won't be buying again unless something fails. If Canon were the only game in town maybe a lens could swing me to R but 3rd parties are already at the plate with top notch EF mount lenses so there is no need to wait on Canon or let them push you in any direction. It's a shame Canon didn't release the IS along side the current 2.8, rumors have it they had prototypes in the field. They would have had my money years ago.


----------



## peterzuehlke (Oct 16, 2018)

marathonman said:


> Won't the high end R series eventually have IBIS?


I looked at the Nikon mirrorless full frame about a week ago in Samy's and the EVF had latency when you moved the camera around. Really unpleasant. Seemed to go away when the IBIS was shut off. Might be a reason why Canon didn't implement that.


----------



## aceflibble (Oct 16, 2018)

It doesn't make the slightest bit of sense for there to be any internal "debate" over which mounts to make it for. Lenses aren't mulled over for years then quickly slapped together at the last moment; if the lens was going to come out in 18 months, let alone 12, that would mean prototypes are already made and the optical formula, in particular, would already be mostly in place.

Which means if there is any question over the mount then the optics can't be optimised for the R system; what you're suggesting is they do like Sigma and simply build in the basic adapter onto the EF version of the lens. Considering they are selling four adapters (three w/ two SKUs for the filter adapter), and the whole selling point of the R system being the new lens mount allowing for better designs, it makes no sense at all for Canon to develop an EF lens then build an RF adapter into it. Either they're going to design the lens for the R from the ground up, which means an optical formula which won't work properly on EF mount, or they'd make just the EF version and have people buy the existing EF-RF adapters.

If you posted this report verbatim, then whoever your sources are don't know how lenses—or any technology product, really—are developed. If you paraphrased them and wrote the copy yourself then either they don't know how these things work _and/or_ you misunderstood what they were saying. Either way, neither of you thought through the logic of these statements.

I'll reiterate, if the lens is supposed to be on store shelves in 18 months then that means they started designing it at least one year ago—if not two years, and potentially many more—and usable prototypes are currently out there. The last 3-4 months of a lens' development are spent entirely on marketing and getting units produced ready to be shipped out for release, and the year before that is spent testing the design and making incremental tweaks. If it's 18 months away from being in public hands then its mount and the majority of the optical formula and electronics would have been laid out sometime in 2017 or earlier.

You don't spend 2-4 years coming up with a lens then right at the start of UAT start questioning whether you've put the right mount on it or not.




Lurker said:


> Hard to believe there is a debate. Not sure how R sales are going but they didn't seem to be flying off the shelves. Very little chatter on the pre-order threads, stores have them in stock the same day pre-orders start shipping and CPW had street price discounts day 1.


FWIW, here in the UK it's selling at around the same pace as the 6DmkII, 7DmkII, D500, and the average Fuji body, according to the staff of the local branch of the main UK photographic chain store. (Who generally know what they're on about.) I.E. it's not breaking any new ground but it's doing "fine". Which is about what I'd expect given that, even though new lens mounts are what have always changed the photographic industry in the past, these days everybody is just focused on which sensor can eek out another .5 stop of DR.



> Right now I'm buying my life kit, I won't be buying again unless something fails. If Canon were the only game in town maybe a lens could swing me to R but 3rd parties are already at the plate with top notch EF mount lenses so there is no need to wait on Canon or let them push you in any direction. It's a shame Canon didn't release the IS along side the current 2.8, rumors have it they had prototypes in the field. They would have had my money years ago.


As it happens, I'm in a similar position but looking at the R specifically _because_ of the lenses it offers. I'm hoping to change up my work in the new year so I won't have such high demands on gear and can go more with what I'm comfortable with rather than what fits the technical requirements; I hope to get everything done with one system and I hope to not have to update that system. Getting the next ten years done with one bag's worth of kit is my goal. "Life kit" may be stretching it, but long-term, certainly.
And to that end, the 28-70 f/2 can get a helluva lot done in just one lens, and nobody else has anything like it nor even rumoured to be working on such a lens. If that lens didn't exist or if other companies had equivalents out or upcoming, I wouldn't look twice at the R; I'd just expand my Fuji gear and buy a couple of X-H2s when that body comes out. But the RF 28-70 f/2 is keeping the R on my radar. If Canon can hurry up with a more pro-grade body (two cards, IBIS, better battery life, further sealing) in the next year then I'll go all-in on the R and that f/2 zoom.


----------



## tmroper (Oct 16, 2018)

Lens IS has worked great for me--both with stills and video. And while I've never used a camera with IBIS, I have seen some absolutely horrible videos/vlog footage using IBIS over the last few years (including Sony--DRoc filming Gary Vee, to be more precise). Maybe it's gotten better by now with the current models--tech is always improving--but it seems to me there's a big risk in using it and having some of the footage look weird.


----------



## TW (Oct 16, 2018)

Um, is there some reason they couldn’t have developed two versions?


----------



## Act444 (Oct 16, 2018)

^ Could they have designs/prototypes of the lens for both mounts? We know they've got an RF 24-70 in the pipeline (from Canon representatives' own words at Photokina), although we don't know if it has IS or not...and there have been reports of an EF IS version on this site for at least 2-3 years it seems.


----------



## [email protected] (Oct 16, 2018)

aceflibble said:


> It doesn't make the slightest bit of sense for there to be any internal "debate" over which mounts to make it for. Lenses aren't mulled over for years then quickly slapped together at the last moment; if the lens was going to come out in 18 months, let alone 12, that would mean prototypes are already made and the optical formula, in particular, would already be mostly in place.
> 
> Which means if there is any question over the mount then the optics can't be optimised for the R system; what you're suggesting is they do like Sigma and simply build in the basic adapter onto the EF version of the lens. Considering they are selling four adapters (three w/ two SKUs for the filter adapter), and the whole selling point of the R system being the new lens mount allowing for better designs, it makes no sense at all for Canon to develop an EF lens then build an RF adapter into it. Either they're going to design the lens for the R from the ground up, which means an optical formula which won't work properly on EF mount, or they'd make just the EF version and have people buy the existing EF-RF adapters.
> 
> ...




I have no doubt that we will see a lot of lenses designed originally for the EF mount used on the RF mount without any change at all in the optical formula. To think otherwise would be to vastly, vastly overestimated Canon’s capacity to bring to production new lens designs. The question comes down to whether or not Canon wishes to wave its arms and make incantations, pretending that products like a 24-70 is f/2.8 are bonafide rf designs.

The debate referred to above may well be among those A) who wish to be most efficient and release ef glass as it comes out in ef mount only, as it is easily adapted with no significant downside versus B) those who realize the market will perceive the rf mount as being anemically supported if they can manage only 4-6 new lenses a year with real rf redesigns. Canon has not additional capacity.


----------



## AJ (Oct 16, 2018)

Hmmm. Optical-limits (photozone) just reviewed the Tamron and Sigma variants. Optically they are not very impressive. It seems that there is a penalty to pay to have stabilization in a 24-70/2.8 lens. Perhaps the lens would be better off without the IS.


----------



## marathonman (Oct 16, 2018)

aceflibble said:


> If it's 18 months away from being in public hands then its mount and the majority of the optical formula and electronics would have been laid out sometime in 2017 or earlier.
> 
> You don't spend 2-4 years coming up with a lens then right at the start of UAT start questioning whether you've put the right mount on it or not.
> .



Genuine question. Wouldn't they have been planning the EOS R for a while now too?


----------



## slclick (Oct 16, 2018)

brad-man said:


> Next 12-18 months? We may all be shooting Nikonos cameras by then...


But I'm landlocked!


----------



## bardamu (Oct 16, 2018)

Talys said:


> Wait, we're going to be shooting with Nikon underwater film SLRs in 12-18 months?



Perhaps he's an extreme climate change doomsayer. Polar ice caps are melting at a rapid rate. Best to futureproof your gear, etc.


----------



## brad-man (Oct 16, 2018)

slclick said:


> But I'm landlocked!


Beware the slow moving storm...


----------



## kaptainkatsu (Oct 16, 2018)

With all the talk of the 24-70 2.8 IS over the years I would assume that design was 80-90% done when Canon released the mark II. Wouldn’t be too hard to finish it up then release an EF version. But no doubt Canon has been working on an RF version probably close to the start of the EOS R development. I personally would most likely buy the RF version and the next version of the EOS R


----------



## highdesertmesa (Oct 16, 2018)

The fact that Canon would even consider an RF 24-70 2.8 this early and in light of already having an RF 24-105 and 28-70 f/2 is impressive.

I'm sure they've thought about how a simultaneous EF/RF release would be kicking more sand in the face of the lone Nikon 24-70 S offering.


----------



## dak723 (Oct 16, 2018)

tmroper said:


> Lens IS has worked great for me--both with stills and video. And while I've never used a camera with IBIS, I have seen some absolutely horrible videos/vlog footage using IBIS over the last few years (including Sony--DRoc filming Gary Vee, to be more precise). Maybe it's gotten better by now with the current models--tech is always improving--but it seems to me there's a big risk in using it and having some of the footage look weird.



Just read Steve Huff's first impressions of the "R" and in it he also discuss IBIS. He comments on the IBIS on the Sony:

"I have always found the 5 Axis inside the Sony A7 series to be lackluster. At least for video. I have loads of shaky Sony video with 5 Axis active. I used to think it was defective in my A7RII as I never saw any benefit when shooting video. When it was the same in the A7rIII I realized that in full frame cameras it just will not be like it is in Micro 4/3 cameras."

It was interesting as I read a similar comment elsewhere that IBIS on the Sony is not particularly useful.

Which in some ways doesn't surprise me as implementing IBIS on a FF sensor must be considerably more difficult than on the much smaller M4/3rds systems. Of course, all those spec lovers and Canon bashers don't really care as long as they can push their agendas and try to make Canon look so inferior. And, as usual, it looks like Canon knows what they are doing and won't put out a product that doesn't meet their high standards, as opposed to other companies that don't care very much about the quality as long as they have that impressive spec sheet.


----------



## mb66energy (Oct 16, 2018)

RF 2.8 24-70 IS for 1900 EUR 900 g
EF 2.8 24-70 IS for 2900 EUR 1200 g

Because strong retrofocus design necessary for EF design is much more advanced / needs more/thicker/more extreme lenses (shape, material) ...
This will support automatically the RF system but opens a route for the DX-mark ii etc users which prefer e.g. the direct optical viewfinder.
And for the RF system you have a 1000 EUR "consumer" 24-105, a mid class 2000 EUR 24-70 and a high end 3000 EUR 28-70 with f/2 as top spec ...


----------



## mb66energy (Oct 16, 2018)

dak723 said:


> Just read Steve Huff's first impressions of the "R" and in it he also discuss IBIS. He comments on the IBIS on the Sony:
> 
> [...]
> 
> ...



A good point - if you scale the sensor by three dimensions by a factor of 1.6 or 2 you have 5x or 8x the mass which has to be moved compared to APS-C or M4/3 sensors which means the same amount of increased forces to move the sensor and energy consumption - if memory serves well heat production by IBIS was a concern of Canon engineers.

Maybe Canon* will  wants to *do it really right in the first iteration. While being conservative Canon cameras run within their specs very well, no wrong promises. Not to this topic but to support this impression: The EF-M 1.4 32 has no IS and costs a lot of money but it has with very good IQ straight from f/1.4 (f/1.4 was the reason to buy it),very good closeup capability (1:4 max reprod. ratio!) and compact size / low mass. No fancy-factor but a great satisfaction factor in terms of possible creativity!

*EDITED (I need some english lessons *


----------



## Ozarker (Oct 16, 2018)

aceflibble said:


> It doesn't make the slightest bit of sense for there to be any internal "debate" over which mounts to make it for. Lenses aren't mulled over for years then quickly slapped together at the last moment; if the lens was going to come out in 18 months, let alone 12, that would mean prototypes are already made and the optical formula, in particular, would already be mostly in place.
> 
> Which means if there is any question over the mount then the optics can't be optimised for the R system; what you're suggesting is they do like Sigma and simply build in the basic adapter onto the EF version of the lens. Considering they are selling four adapters (three w/ two SKUs for the filter adapter), and the whole selling point of the R system being the new lens mount allowing for better designs, it makes no sense at all for Canon to develop an EF lens then build an RF adapter into it. Either they're going to design the lens for the R from the ground up, which means an optical formula which won't work properly on EF mount, or they'd make just the EF version and have people buy the existing EF-RF adapters.
> 
> ...



You guys talking about buying your life kit are getting me depressed. Stop it.


----------



## Ozarker (Oct 16, 2018)

Guys, there would be a whole lot more than a mount difference involved. *Remember flange distance.* The RF version would have to have a completely different body. So while the optical formula might be the same (Doubt it very, very, very much because the optics on an RF mount lens has to be designed for the closer sensor.), they would be two different lenses.

Canon will not release this lens in RF mount. This will be an EF lens. If you want a mid zoom "L" in RF mount, you've got to buy the 28-70mm f/2. Period. If you want 24-70mm IS, then you adapt it to the EOS R. Makes a whole lot more sense that way. There will not be two mid zoom "L" lenses with RF mounts.

Now, the hand wringing can stop.  While I find the hand wringing to be entertaining, methinks somebody else does too. You are being trolled and there are people LMAO about it. Could even be Canon doing the trolling. One of the best ways to protect information is with disinformation.


----------



## johnhalpern (Oct 16, 2018)

I’m starting to be angered by the continual teasing about the possible release of a new 2.8 24-70 IS. This has been going on for over 4 yrs now. As a professional commercial photographer that deals with a wide variety of assignments, the 24-70 is my most important lens. My client’s tastes have changed over the past 20 yrs. and they now want a more spontaneous candid look for their promotion images. I think a lot that is due to what we are now used to seeing on social media; spontaneous loose images. In order for me to deliver that I’m now shooting much more on the fly using available light. I need IS lenses in order to capture those images in what is often less than ideal situations. I don’t have time to be switching various prime lenses, the 24-70 stays the my camera around 70% of the time. Last year I finally gave up waiting for Canon and purchased the Tamron G2. It’s a very nice lens which has helped me capture images I would have missed with my Canon 24-70 non-IS. That said, I know a Canon IS version would make me feel a bit more comfortable when shooting at f 4 or wider. 
Come-on Canon, put the damn lens out! Trust me, all the pro photographers I know will grab one, even if it’s slightly higher priced. And by the way, we’re shooting with EF mount. From what I can tell you’re still a couple years away from putting out a mirrorless that I’ll be comfortable shooting my livelihood with...


----------



## Ozarker (Oct 16, 2018)

Act444 said:


> ^ Could they have designs/prototypes of the lens for both mounts? We know they've got an RF 24-70 in the pipeline (from Canon representatives' own words at Photokina), although we don't know if it has IS or not...and there have been reports of an EF IS version on this site for at least 2-3 years it seems.



Never trust a salesman. Besides, the OP implies same lens different mount. It ain't gonna happen.


----------



## mirage (Oct 16, 2018)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Guys, there would be a whole lot more than a mount difference involved. *Remember flange distance.* The RF version would have to have a completely different body. So while the optical formula might be the same (Doubt it very, very, very much because the optics on an RF mount lens has to be designed for the closer sensor.), they would be two different lenses.



yes.

But ... RF 28-70/2.0 is mainly a "show-off" lens (for Canon, R system and for a few customers). it is too big, heavy, expensive, conspicuos to serve as "workhorse" wide-standard zoom for most customers - pro's, semi-pro's, enthusiasts, anything involving people, events, indoors use.

As per Canon's sketchy RF lens "roadmap" indications, f/2.8 zooms are next on the list. A RF 24-70/2.8 L IS (since there is no IBIS) has got to be one of them, in addition to a wide zoom (RF 16-35/2.8 IS) and a tele zoom RF 70-200/2.8 L IS.

Along with the "higher end" EOS R body Canon needs to have the f/2.8 IS zoom lens trifecta as solid corner stones of the RF lens lineup. 

EF? Well Canon has patents and even tested 24-70/2.8 IS but for whatever reasons was not able or willing to launch it. I don't think they'll launch it now, when they are fully focussed on filling out the new RF system and need to get as many customers to buy into it, to reach "critical mass" fast. 

mirrorfree FF has gone full mainstream now. Canon is no longer only up vs. Sony but also vs. Nikon, which Canon historically takes much more serious as a competitor. Most of Canon's attention will go to EOS R / RF lens lineup. EF is on its (slow) way out. It will be "maintained" for the time being, but not much more.

so my expection is 24-70 IS in RF mount only. new optical formula to fully leverage advantages possible with shorter FFD. "fit for 100 MP sensors".


----------



## Woody (Oct 16, 2018)

Another big, heavy and expensive lens. Sigh...


----------



## masterpix (Oct 16, 2018)

It makes no sense to have the same design for both lenses, the EF due to the distance from the sensor has to have a different design all together. Having EF with a converter is the least worse option, but it is not the best option for the R system. Canon has the capability to design two different lenses having similarities and differences. But choosing the same lens design for both is, in my view, not the best policy.


----------



## mirage (Oct 16, 2018)

Woody said:


> Another big, heavy and expensive lens. Sigh...



yes. 800 grams, 2499 

hopefully, a RF 24-70/4 L IS at 600 grams, 1299 will come a bit later.
and maybe also a "consumer version" RF 24-105 f/3.5-5.6.
and maybe a few moderately fast, compact Non-L RF primes "at reasonable prices" as well.

but ... later! Only after early adopters' wallets have been duly milked.


----------



## Ozarker (Oct 16, 2018)

mirage said:


> yes.
> 
> But ... RF 28-70/2.0 is mainly a "show-off" lens (for Canon, R system and for a few customers). it is too big, heavy, expensive, conspicuos to serve as "workhorse" wide-standard zoom for most customers - pro's, semi-pro's, enthusiasts, anything involving people, events, indoors use.



Eh, I'm not sure about that. I don't think Canon will have done this lens for just a "few" customers. Yes, it is heavy, but so is a 70-200 and people buy it in large numbers. But we'll see.



mirage said:


> A RF 24-70/2.8 L IS (since there is no IBIS) has got to be one of them, in addition to a wide zoom (RF 16-35/2.8 IS) and a tele zoom RF 70-200/2.8 L IS.



Maybe, but people have been getting by very well without IS on the short and mid zooms. We don't see it on the RF 28-70. I highly doubt we'll see it on the short zoom which might very well wind up being another f/2. Absolutely will see IS on a long zoom which will probably be more like a 70-150, also f/2. From what I understand, IBIS on Sony FF is mediocre. The larger sensor being problematic for IBIS. Reference post #23 in this thread by DAK. Again, Sony providing a feature not ready for prime time.



mirage said:


> Along with the "higher end" EOS R body Canon needs to have the f/2.8 IS zoom lens trifecta as solid corner stones of the RF lens lineup.



f/2 Trifecta. I think this is going to be primarily a studio camera if fast RF lenses are to be used.


----------



## Stuart (Oct 16, 2018)

An EOS R pro, would want the bread and butter pro lenses to match - if we are expecting a R pro in 6 months these these new pro lenses at 12 -18 months off seem unlikely to me. Unless proven new lens tech need a new manufacturing facility set up to produce them.
Regarding the slow sales of the R - sure i see that for working pro's, but for tech fans isn't it still very desirable body especially with the 28-70mm F2. I know i'd want to shoot with this combo loads if possible.


----------



## BillB (Oct 16, 2018)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Guys, there would be a whole lot more than a mount difference involved. *Remember flange distance.* The RF version would have to have a completely different body. So while the optical formula might be the same (Doubt it very, very, very much because the optics on an RF mount lens has to be designed for the closer sensor.), they would be two different lenses.
> 
> Canon will not release this lens in RF mount. This will be an EF lens. If you want a mid zoom "L" in RF mount, you've got to buy the 28-70mm f/2. Period. If you want 24-70mm IS, then you adapt it to the EOS R. Makes a whole lot more sense that way. There will not be two mid zoom "L" lenses with RF mounts.
> 
> Now, the hand wringing can stop.  While I find the hand wringing to be entertaining, methinks somebody else does too. You are being trolled and there are people LMAO about it. Could even be Canon doing the trolling. One of the best ways to protect information is with disinformation.


----------



## mirage (Oct 16, 2018)

CanonFanBoy said:


> f/2 Trifecta. I think this is going to be primarily a studio camera if fast RF lenses are to be used.



well, I don't think we're going to see a RF 70-200/*2.0 *any day soon. 

But let's stick to what Canon themselves have said: 


> During yesterday’s launch, Canon mentioned that they’re already working on “a series of fast f/2.8 lenses and more”.


So: RF f/2.8 zooms [plural] are up next. 
And there is a Canon patent for RF 24-70/2.8 L IS - with 2 alternative optical designs.
http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/canon-ef-lenses-rumours-and-news/

To me the only questions re. RF 24-70/2.8 L IS are "when?", "how big?" and "how much?"
Next, I think a wide-angle zoom - either 14-24/2.8 or 16-35/2.8 - will come to RF, probably also with IS. 
70-200/2.8 type tele zoom will probably come later - EF 70-200/2.8 III update has been done to hold out until then.


----------



## BillB (Oct 16, 2018)

An RF 24-70 F2.8 IS makes sense to me if Canon wants to sell higher end R cameras. The RF 28-70 doesn't have IS and it is heavy and expensive. The RF 28-70 and the RF 24-105 should soon tell us whether the new R mount permits significantly better lens IQ. If better IQ is possible, then an RF 24-70 F 2.8 IS seems pretty much inevitable to me. An EF 24-70 F2.8 IS would be a different animal, with a much more retrofocal design.


----------



## nchoh (Oct 16, 2018)

johnhalpern said:


> I’m starting to be angered by the continual teasing about the possible release of a new 2.8 24-70 IS. This has been going on for over 4 yrs now. ...



You should stop reading Canon Rumors then.


----------



## vaotix (Oct 16, 2018)

Man. This lens would really tempt me to upgrade from my 24-70 f2.8L II. The question then becomes do I go for RF or EF mount? Would love a new native RF lens, but then it's not compatible with my backup 80D. And I'd likely want to sell my current Mk II EF version to fund this new one. Hard choice.


----------



## nchoh (Oct 16, 2018)

Stuart said:


> An EOS R pro, would want the bread and butter pro lenses to match - if we are expecting a R pro in 6 months these these new pro lenses at 12 -18 months off seem unlikely to me. Unless proven new lens tech need a new manufacturing facility set up to produce them.
> Regarding the slow sales of the R - sure i see that for working pro's, but for tech fans isn't it still very desirable body especially with the 28-70mm F2. I know i'd want to shoot with this combo loads if possible.



Why would you need a new manufacturing facility for RF lenses? Although the mount allows for new and better optical formulas, the components are all virtually the same. Same glass production, same motors, same barrel components, same assembly, even if the optical formula is different.


----------



## mirage (Oct 16, 2018)

BillB said:


> An RF 24-70 F2.8 IS makes sense to me if Canon wants to sell higher end R cameras. The RF 28-70 doesn't have IS and it is heavy and expensive. The RF 28-70 and the RF 24-105 should soon tell us whether the new R mount permits significantly better lens IQ. If better IQ is possible, then an RF 24-70 F 2.8 IS seems pretty much inevitable to me. An EF 24-70 F2.8 IS would be a different animal, with a much more retrofocal design.



Looking at MTF charts, RF 24-105 unfortunately is *not significantly* better optically than EF 24-105 Mk. II. And not much smaller/lighter easier. But more expensive. 

... "innovative" Canon.


----------



## xps (Oct 16, 2018)

mb66energy said:


> RF 2.8 24-70 IS for 1900 EUR 900 g
> EF 2.8 24-70 IS for 2900 EUR 1200 g
> 
> Because strong retrofocus design necessary for EF design is much more advanced / needs more/thicker/more extreme lenses (shape, material) ...
> ...



Do you really think, the EF version will be priced almost double the price of th current version II? And the 2.8 RF version so muc cheaper? I think the price will be around 2300€


----------



## xps (Oct 16, 2018)

mirage said:


> Looking at MTF charts, RF 24-105 unfortunately is *not significantly* better optically than EF 24-105 Mk. II. And not much smaller/lighter easier. But more expensive.
> 
> ... "innovative" Canon.



Yes, its about the same price or just about 100€ higher htan the 24-105 II was 2 years before, when it appeared on the market.
But - compared with the 24-105 II on the 5DIV and the 24-105 RF on my new R, the sharpness is (in my personal view) a little (but visibly) bit better. Especially, if you look on the sharpness outside of the center. There I see some improvements that are made.


----------



## Ozarker (Oct 16, 2018)

mirage said:


> well, I don't think we're going to see a RF 70-200/*2.0 *any day soon.



Ahhh.... but I didn't say 70-200 f/2 did I? *70-150 f/2*.


----------



## stevelee (Oct 16, 2018)

bardamu said:


> Perhaps he's an extreme climate change doomsayer. Polar ice caps are melting at a rapid rate. Best to futureproof your gear, etc.


I didn't start worrying until Pittsburgh joined the Atlantic Coast Conference.


----------



## mb66energy (Oct 16, 2018)

xps said:


> Do you really think, the EF version will be priced almost double the price of th current version II? And the 2.8 RF version so muc cheaper? I think the price will be around 2300€



IS in a high quality lens needs a lot of effort. And I think that Canon will - in the long term - only create new lenses for RF mount but wants also to deliver some good butter and bread lenses for journalists (and similar profesisons) which work well with existing flagship cameras like 1Dx and maybe 5D mark iv.

I spoke about introductory / list prices. A quick check at dpreview gave me 2200 $ (/EUR) for the 24-70 mark ii in 2013 so I do not think that you will get the IS version for just 2300 $/EUR (with added IS, improved IQ and inflation).

But that's just my guess ...


----------



## mb66energy (Oct 16, 2018)

mirage said:


> Looking at MTF charts, RF 24-105 unfortunately is *not significantly* better optically than EF 24-105 Mk. II. And not much smaller/lighter easier. But more expensive.
> 
> ... "innovative" Canon.



MTF charts are one aspect to check for lens IQ but there are a lot of other factors which make a lens a good tool, just in the IQ department.

My EF-M 32 1.4 arrived just three days before. 500 bucks are a lot but this lens delivers: very crisp and natural photos straight from f/1.4 and the bokeh is very attractive. Add the 1:4 max. reproduction ratio and you have a premium walk around lens with 50mm equiv.
A 14 lens / 8 group standard prime was a big surprise for me and is - for me - like a micro Sigma Art / OTUS and hence innovative!


----------



## xps (Oct 16, 2018)

@mb66energy: You might be right. The price at introduction was definitively much higher. But I hope Canon wil not exeed the price of the lenses like Sony does.
But Canon is definitively willed to milk this new cow as much as possible. And Canon will change their marketing more into advertising the ergonomics, sensorprotection, adapter-plusses and so on. Away from just comparing specs.
Mia hom des a bei ana Mass und ana guatn Brezn auf da Wiesn diskutiert. Und do worn de Japaner glei a bissl gsprächiger. ;-) A bissl de interkonitnentalen Beziehungen vatiaft. Und so hom gsogt: Kim zua Olympiade 2020. Do wean da de Augn aussafoiln. Do weama zoagn wos mia kena


----------



## mirage (Oct 16, 2018)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Ahhh.... but I didn't say 70-200 f/2 did I? *70-150 f/2*.



haha! no way, not even on mirrorfree FF with short FFD.


but ... i'd like an EF-M 50-150/*2.8* IS STM ... with 58mm filter thread (works mathematically) ... for € 699 ... lol


----------



## mirage (Oct 16, 2018)

mb66energy said:


> MTF charts are one aspect to check for lens IQ but there are a lot of other factors which make a lens a good tool, just in the IQ department.



MTF shows resolution and contrast. Yes, there are additional factors for overall IQ, eg. color reproduction, vignetting, which are not directly visible from MFT charts. In practice however, lenses with better MTF values are typically also better in other IQ dimensions as well.

Comparing 2 different Canon lenses based on their Canon-supplied (theoretical, calculated) MTF charts gives a pretty good appreciation which lens is better in the IQ department, even in dimensions not directly included in MTF.

so, RF 24-105 / 4 L IS is NOT significantly better than EF 24-105 L IS Mk. II. Although I wish it were.


----------



## LesC (Oct 17, 2018)

If the MTF charts are supplied by Canon, I wonder how they compare to _their_ MTF chart for the EF24-70F2.8L MKII ?

I think we need to await some more reviews as I've seen a Pro landscaper commenting on how sharp it is & guy in a camera shop who knows his stuff saying it's up there with the EF24-70 F2.8L MKII.

One of the benefits of the new lens mount is supposedly the possibility to create even better lenses...


----------



## Quirkz (Oct 17, 2018)

Talys said:


> I don't know what the big rush is for 24-70/2.8IS. It's going to be a heavy and expensive lens that a lot of the people wish for it are never going to buy, because it will be, well, heavy and expensive.



I don’t know about that. I quite like my tamron - it’s not too heavy, quite reasonable size. But you’re right that the canon version will be a LOT more expensive. And if they continue the trend, better optics but more weight.


----------



## jedy (Oct 17, 2018)

Etienne said:


> Make them both but make the RF version cheaper, lighter, and smaller than the EF version ... that'll get people looking at the EOS-R


The launch R lenses are huuuge and bigger than the equivalent EF lenses. I wouldn’t count on a stabilised 24-70 f2.8 R being smaller than an EF version or cheaper. The EF IS version will probably be bigger anyway as that seems to be the norm now.


----------



## jedy (Oct 17, 2018)

tmroper said:


> Lens IS has worked great for me--both with stills and video. And while I've never used a camera with IBIS, I have seen some absolutely horrible videos/vlog footage using IBIS over the last few years (including Sony--DRoc filming Gary Vee, to be more precise). Maybe it's gotten better by now with the current models--tech is always improving--but it seems to me there's a big risk in using it and having some of the footage look weird.


I don’t like IBIS for video as it never works as well as claimed. A decent handheld camera rig always wins over IBIS. Camera rigs can get complicated and very expensive but there are quite a few budget options that work well enough.


----------



## RGF (Oct 18, 2018)

Wonder if the R lens will be superior (weight, optical quality, ...) since the mount is wider?


----------



## johnhalpern (Oct 20, 2018)

nchoh said:


> You should stop reading Canon Rumors then.



Ha!
You might be right, I guess I’m a glutton for punishment. But honestly, if Sigma and Tamron can put out pretty decent 24-70is lenses, why can’t Canon do the same? As I mentioned, I have the Tamron G2 but I’m always hesitant to shoot more open than f4 at the most because I worry about missing critical focus. My guess is that a Canon version would be a tad more reliable...


----------



## miggyt (Oct 22, 2018)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...



The 24-70/2.8 II should already have had IS a long time ago... sounds like Canon's way of milking more money.


----------



## dickgrafixstop (Oct 28, 2018)

brad-man said:


> Next 12-18 months? We may all be shooting Nikonos cameras by then...





brad-man said:


> Next 12-18 months? We may all be shooting Nikonos cameras by then...


Probably Panasonic rather than Nikon


----------

