# The upcoming RF mount wide angle f/2.8L zoom will be wider than 16mm [CR2]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Nov 20, 2018)

> Canon has already mentioned that a trio of f/2.8L zoom lenses is coming in 2019 for the RF mount. It’s pretty obvious that we should expect some kind of “holy trinity” of lenses such as an RF 16-35mm f/2.8L. RF 24-70mm f/2.8L IS and an RF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS.
> We’re being told that the wide angle lens for the RF “holy trinity” will be wider than 16mm. Both an RF 12-35mm f/2.8L and an RF 14-35mm f/2.8L have been developed for testing.
> 
> We have seen a patent for an RF 14-21mm f/1.4L, but don’t expect such a lens to surface in 2019. Included in the same patent is an RF 16-35mm f/2.8L and an RF 12-20mm f/2L. So we think it’s possible that a 12-35mm f/2.8L will what wins out.
> Nikon will be coming with a 14-30mm f/4 S and we think Canon will definitely want to keep its lenses the most impressing in the full frame mirrorless world. As such, we expect them to a bit faster and a bit more extreme on the wide end...



Continue reading...


----------



## Talys (Nov 20, 2018)

Well, _depending on price_, and whether it comes out in an f/4 flavor later on, that could be exciting. I just don't use wide angle enough to buy a $3,000 or more flagship wide zoom.


----------



## twoheadedboy (Nov 20, 2018)

Talys said:


> Well, _depending on price_, and whether it comes out in an f/4 flavor later on, that could be exciting. I just don't use wide angle enough to buy a $3,000 or more flagship wide zoom.



Yes, for sure. f/4 and can use normal 77mm filters. I would actually take a 16-35mm f/4 on the RF mount because I'm assuming it would be much smaller, but a 12 or 14mm on the ultra-wide end would be intriguing (also assuming the quality is as good or better than what we have now).


----------



## Del Paso (Nov 20, 2018)

It certainly will be easier for Canon to develop a higher quality wide angle zoom due to the shorter distance bayonet to lens , no need for retrofocus design. This has often been demonstrated by Leica with their superb M rangefinder lenses.
So, I expect some very exciting new wide angle lenses (zooms or primes). This being in my opinion the main advantage of mirrorless, no gains with tele lenses.


----------



## BeenThere (Nov 20, 2018)

I can’t really complain about the current 16-35mm f/4 EF lens; plus with the adapters, we get drop in filters. So, not excited by an R version.


----------



## YuengLinger (Nov 20, 2018)

I'm hoping for the best 14-24mm f/2.8 rectilinear every made. Go Canon!


----------



## The Fat Fish (Nov 20, 2018)

I really hope it's a sensible wide angle lens. The 28-70mm F2 is very fancy and all that but impractical (based on size, weight and cost) when compared to a standard 24-70mm F2.8. I'd have much preferred that at launch.


----------



## Matthew Saville (Nov 20, 2018)

As awesome as these lenses sound, I think it's pretty safe to assume that they'll wind up being roughly the same size and weight as the 28-70 f/2 RF, (or bigger!) so...

OK who am I kidding, if it's ultra-sharp even in the corners, I'd totally buy an f/2 or f/1.4 ultra-wide zoom, no matter how big and heavy it is. I might not take it on every wilderness backpacking trip, but it'd still be an epic lens whenever it's possible to bring it.


----------



## boiseblake (Nov 20, 2018)

If it can match or beat the legendary Nikon 14-24 for astro landscape photography I'll buy one instantly. The coma on the current 16-35 has been less than impressive.


----------



## [email protected] (Nov 20, 2018)

I suspect coma won't be the highest priority for this set in the eyes of Canon. F/2.8 isn't the fastest aperture for astro. The priority is likely to be general use and sharpness. The f/1.4 and f/2 development projects would likely have coma as a higher relative priority. Man, that 1.4 makes me giddy with anticipation. Except it's Canon, so it'll be 3 years of anticipation.


----------



## Steve Balcombe (Nov 20, 2018)

twoheadedboy said:


> Yes, for sure. f/4 and can use normal 77mm filters. I would actually take a 16-35mm f/4 on the RF mount because I'm assuming it would be much smaller, but a 12 or 14mm on the ultra-wide end would be intriguing (also assuming the quality is as good or better than what we have now).


The original 16-35/2.8L takes 77 mm filters, and one of the characteristics Canon has talked about for wide/normal RF lenses is smaller front elements and larger rear elements. This is because they are not so strongly retrofocal so they don't need such extreme negative elements in the front group which are large and inclined to be bulbous in a DSLR lens.

So maybe an RF 14-35/2.8L could have a 77 mm filter thread?


----------



## Aaron D (Nov 20, 2018)

Steve Balcombe said:


> So maybe an RF 14-35/2.8L could have a 77 mm filter thread?



I second this! Or even a compact f4 version with IS. And 14-30 like Nikon's is plenty at that end...


----------



## highdesertmesa (Nov 20, 2018)

Canon is going to be killing it from a lens selection/design standpoint. This is exactly how you give medium format like the GFX 50R a run for its money – astounding lenses + R-replacement for 5DsR.


----------



## peterzuehlke (Nov 20, 2018)

Del Paso said:


> It certainly will be easier for Canon to develop a higher quality wide angle zoom due to the shorter distance bayonet to lens , no need for retrofocus design. This has often been demonstrated by Leica with their superb M rangefinder lenses.
> 
> This brings up a question: in the days of film the Leica M lenses could be excellent and small due to non-retrofocus (non reverse telephoto) designs. But I think when they went to the M digital there was a problem with angle of incidence with the M lenses interacting with the microlenses, that had to be corrected out in firmware. Wonder if Canikon will need this kind of fix.


----------



## tron (Nov 20, 2018)

BeenThere said:


> I can’t really complain about the current 16-35mm f/4 EF lens; plus with the adapters, we get drop in filters. So, not excited by an R version.


+1 Especially since there are also the excellent EF16-35 f/2.8L III and EF11-24 f/4L.
Emphasis on the ... EF


----------



## Mr Majestyk (Nov 20, 2018)

Nice lens, shame about the camera


----------



## Tom W (Nov 21, 2018)

Canon's going to entice people me, content with our 5D Mk IV and lenses, using new, fast, sharp wide-angle R lenses. That's exactly what's going to happen here.


----------



## josephandrews222 (Nov 21, 2018)

I have held off on purchasing the EF 11-24 in anticipation of something like what is rumored: a 12-35mm f/2.8L that fits the R mount!?

Oh my.

Oh my.

Oh my.


----------



## 360iViews (Nov 21, 2018)

Although both would be interesting to shoot in my real estate photography business, my guess is that my most used focal lengths (16-20) would remain the same.


----------



## padam (Nov 21, 2018)

Steve Balcombe said:


> The original 16-35/2.8L takes 77 mm filters, and one of the characteristics Canon has talked about for wide/normal RF lenses is smaller front elements and larger rear elements. This is because they are not so strongly retrofocal so they don't need such extreme negative elements in the front group which are large and inclined to be bulbous in a DSLR lens.
> 
> So maybe an RF 14-35/2.8L could have a 77 mm filter thread?



Maybe I've missed something, but so far we haven't seen anything wider than 16mm and an aperture of at least f/2.8 with an actual filter thread. If I saw it right, all three RF wide-angle lens design patents showed a bulbous front element. Also, maybe the zoom range has be narrower, like 14-28mm f/2.8 or 15-30mm f/2.8, that sounds much more realistic.
Or it has to be reduced to f/4 like with the Nikon.


----------



## deleteme (Nov 21, 2018)

360iViews said:


> Although both would be interesting to shoot in my real estate photography business, my guess is that my most used focal lengths (16-20) would remain the same.



I find I have been shooting a LOT of views at 11mm since I got my 11-24. They don't look weird and they are sharper than my 17TS-E.
Agents be crazy for wide.


----------



## Steve Balcombe (Nov 21, 2018)

padam said:


> Maybe I've missed something, but so far we haven't seen anything wider than 16mm and an aperture of at least f/2.8 with an actual filter thread. If I saw it right, all three RF wide-angle lens design patents showed a bulbous front element. Also, maybe the zoom range has be narrower, like 14-28mm f/2.8 or 15-30mm f/2.8, that sounds much more realistic.
> Or it has to be reduced to f/4 like with the Nikon.


Yes, but RF allows designs which were not possible for the EF mount. The whole point of what I was saying was that a 14-35/2.8 with a less bulbous front element and a 77 mm filter thread might now become possible.


----------



## padam (Nov 21, 2018)

Steve Balcombe said:


> Yes, but RF allows designs which were not possible for the EF mount. The whole point of what I was saying was that a 14-35/2.8 with a less bulbous front element and a 77 mm filter thread might now become possible.


Yes, they do make it possible, but that does not mean that the lens is going to be that much smaller with that angle and maximum aperture at least compared to the EF 16-35/2.8 III it's just not going to be as big as the Tamron 15-30/2.8 or it will have a narrower range, the first patent that was leaked was this one:
https://www.dailycameranews.com/201...lens-patent-for-full-frame-mirrorless-camera/
And it might be pushed a bit wider but as you can see, it is unlikely to come with a front filter thread (it might still have one at the rear).


----------



## Steve Balcombe (Nov 21, 2018)

padam said:


> Yes, they do make it possible, but that does not mean that the lens is going to be that much smaller with that angle and maximum aperture at least compared to the EF 16-35/2.8 III it's just not going to be as big as the Tamron 15-30/2.8 or it will have a narrower range, the first patent that was leaked was this one:
> https://www.dailycameranews.com/201...lens-patent-for-full-frame-mirrorless-camera/
> And it might be pushed a bit wider but as you can see, it is unlikely to come with a front filter thread (it might still have one at the rear).


The strange thing is, that has a much more bulbous front element than any version of the EF16-35/2.8. <shrug> It's just a patent, maybe a different design will be the basis for the actual RF ultrawide zoom, when it comes.


----------



## padam (Nov 21, 2018)

Steve Balcombe said:


> The strange thing is, that has a much more bulbous front element than any version of the EF16-35/2.8. <shrug> It's just a patent, maybe a different design will be the basis for the actual RF ultrawide zoom, when it comes.


I think the reason for that is that the geometric distortion and vignetting will be greatly reduced compared to the EF 16-35/2.8 III


----------



## ewg963 (Nov 21, 2018)

Yep for a beautiful ball park figure of 3k plus. Canon surprise me otherwise.


----------



## BeenThere (Nov 21, 2018)

Just a thought....... A lot of the current ultra wide angle EF lenses have the large bulbous front element making it a pain to use graduated NDs. With the R system and availability of adapters it would be possible for some enterprising company to offer a line of drop in graduated filters with the line (blend region) at say 1/2 and 1/3 the way down on the filter. These blends would pretty well cover my needs. Because of the small diameters they could be made inexpensively. This approach would double the number of filters needed, but would take up less room in the bag because of size and would be applicable to all your lenses, so no need for multiple filter holders. Thoughts?


----------



## nchoh (Nov 21, 2018)

padam said:


> Maybe I've missed something, but so far we haven't seen anything wider than 16mm and an aperture of at least f/2.8 with an actual filter thread. If I saw it right, all three RF wide-angle lens design patents showed a bulbous front element. Also, maybe the zoom range has be narrower, like 14-28mm f/2.8 or 15-30mm f/2.8, that sounds much more realistic.
> Or it has to be reduced to f/4 like with the Nikon.



You "haven't seen anything wider than 16mm and an aperture of at least f/2.8..." because the R mount is only a couple of months old? Perhaps?


----------



## hmatthes (Nov 21, 2018)

Ultrawide RF lenses would be even greater if Canon built the filter adapters into their base, just like the EF filter adapter uses. That way you could use your 11-24 EF today, then buy a RF replacement using the same filters.
Just received my RF 35/1.8 and am comparing it to my EF 35/1.4 -- these new designs have much smaller front elements and half the bulk. Yes, front elements on 1.4 are bigger than 1.8 but wowza this is a great new small lens with IS and macro as well!


----------



## Talys (Nov 21, 2018)

hmatthes said:


> Ultrawide RF lenses would be even greater if Canon built the filter adapters into their base, just like the EF filter adapter uses. That way you could use your 11-24 EF today, then buy a RF replacement using the same filters.
> Just received my RF 35/1.8 and am comparing it to my EF 35/1.4 -- these new designs have much smaller front elements and half the bulk. Yes, front elements on 1.4 are bigger than 1.8 but wowza this is a great new small lens with IS and macro as well!
> View attachment 181678


I agree. I was with a friend who is a Nikon shooter the other day, and she is considering an EOS R specifically to use the RF filter adapter + wide angle EF lens, specifically to be able to use rear filters. As a Z7 owner, she was very jealous at how well EOS R worked with EF16-35L4.

It also got me thinking, why make native RF wide angle lens smaller? I mean, who complains that their 16-35 is too big a lens, right? So just take an EF lens, add a control ring, build the adapter into it with the ability to put in a rear filter, and call it a day.

For that matter... I wish they would do it with some of the other lenses too. It would just so great to invest once in a full set of rear filters instead of endlessly buying front ones. I wouldn't hesitate to spend $300 each on the best quality of a few of my favorite rear filters, if I knew I could use them on every lens I bought in the future.


----------



## bitm2007 (Nov 21, 2018)

Talys said:


> Well, _depending on price_, and whether it comes out in an f/4 flavor later on, that could be exciting. I just don't use wide angle enough to buy a $3,000 or more flagship wide zoom.



Yes f/4 is plenty fast enough for me, if a RF 12-35mm f/4 L or RF 14-35mm f/4 L is released for a similar price as the EF 16-35mm f/4 it would be the first lens i'd purchase after switching to mirrorless.


----------



## padam (Nov 22, 2018)

nchoh said:


> You "haven't seen anything wider than 16mm and an aperture of at least f/2.8..." because the R mount is only a couple of months old? Perhaps?


Please link the *whole sentence*, it was referred to having an actual filter thread on the front. Maybe you just like cropping too much?


----------



## padam (Nov 22, 2018)

bitm2007 said:


> Yes f/4 is plenty fast enough for me, if a RF 12-35mm f/4 L or RF 14-35mm f/4 L is released for a similar price as the EF 16-35mm f/4 it would be the first lens i'd purchase after switching to mirrorless.


Sorry to ruin your day, but this new mount means newer, better, but also *more expensive* lenses, even at the same aperture (let alone shorter starter focal lengths or ones with a faster aperture, which are at a higher priority it seems).
And it also looks like that we won't be seeing native RF lenses from other manufacturers either.



Talys said:


> I agree. I was with a friend who is a Nikon shooter the other day, and she is considering an EOS R specifically to use the RF filter adapter + wide angle EF lens, specifically to be able to use rear filters. As a Z7 owner, she was very jealous at how well EOS R worked with EF16-35L4.
> 
> It also got me thinking, why make native RF wide angle lens smaller? I mean, who complains that their 16-35 is too big a lens, right? So just take an EF lens, add a control ring, build the adapter into it with the ability to put in a rear filter, and call it a day.
> 
> For that matter... I wish they would do it with some of the other lenses too. It would just so great to invest once in a full set of rear filters instead of endlessly buying front ones. I wouldn't hesitate to spend $300 each on the best quality of a few of my favorite rear filters, if I knew I could use them on every lens I bought in the future.


Their design priority is to make *'better'* lenses. That means taking full advantage of the shorter flange with the wide mount diameter (especially for wide-angle lenses), so there is actual glass where the filter could go, it would be way too big of a compromise to the optical formula (while also adding even more to the costs and potential problems).
So again, it is just a non-feasible option unlike with the super telephotos. And the option to use the older EF lenses will always remain if one really cares about these adapters with the rear filters. Re-modeling old EF glass makes the least amount of sense(they are not designed to be focus by wire like these newest ones), and while not ideal, step-down rings also do exist for the front ones as well.


----------



## transpo1 (Nov 22, 2018)

They sound like impressive zoom lenses. Better get those impressive cameras out soon to make use of them.


----------



## Etienne (Nov 22, 2018)

Canon is going for BIG lenses on their little mirrorless body. Can't say I'm happy about that. I'd rather a smaller range on a smaller lens.


----------



## hamoser (Nov 22, 2018)

12-35mm f/2.8 and 14-21mm 1.4 would both be amazing. How many spare kidneys does a human body have?


----------



## bitm2007 (Nov 22, 2018)

padam said:


> Sorry to ruin your day, but this new mount means newer, better, but also *more expensive* lenses, even at the same aperture (let alone shorter starter focal lengths or ones with a faster aperture, which are at a higher priority it seems).
> And it also looks like that we won't be seeing native RF lenses from other manufacturers either.



Time and market forces will tell, the fact that a f/4 lens (Canon RF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM) has already been launched at a similar release price as it's EF equivalent here in the UK gives me hope. As does the fact that Canon are heavily discounting a large proportion of their L range on this side of the pond. I never thought I'd ever see an affordable L lens with £350 ($450) cash back, £439 ($565) from reputable retailers in the UK for the 24-70mm f/4 is an amazing deal.


----------



## padam (Nov 22, 2018)

bitm2007 said:


> Time and market forces will tell, the fact that a f/4 lens (Canon RF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM) has already been launched at a similar release price as it's EF equivalent here in the UK gives me hope. As does the fact that Canon are heavily discounting a large proportion of their L range on this side of the pond. I never thought I'd ever see an affordable L lens with £350 ($450) cash back, £439 ($565) from reputable retailers in the UK for the 24-70mm f/4 is an amazing deal.


Hopefully there will be more reasonably priced lenses as well, I just don't think we will see it at the wide-angle front, especially if they do manage to set new standards in optical quality, the "cheap" option will be to stick with using an EF version with an adapter (it's actually pretty hard to top this in terms of price/performance)
So they might not even bother making a cheaper RF 16-35mm f/4 version any time soon, something like a 15-30mm f/2.8 is more likely and another more similar to an 12-24mm f/4 or so and neither of these is going to be cheap.


----------



## Michael Clark (Dec 1, 2018)

Del Paso said:


> It certainly will be easier for Canon to develop a higher quality wide angle zoom due to the shorter distance bayonet to lens , no need for retrofocus design. This has often been demonstrated by Leica with their superb M rangefinder lenses.
> So, I expect some very exciting new wide angle lenses (zooms or primes). This being in my opinion the main advantage of mirrorless, no gains with tele lenses.



Since the R mount has a registration distance of 20mm, anything wider than 20mm (more practically, around 24mm or so) would still need to use a retrofocus design.


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 1, 2018)

Michael Clark said:


> Since the R mount has a registration distance of 20mm, anything wider than 20mm (more practically, around 24mm or so) would still need to use a retrofocus design.


Not necessarily, as there is no moving mirror there is nothing to stop the lens rear element protruding well behind the mount, as in the Leica designs. The shutter in the R is probably no more the a couple of mm forward of the sensor so potentially 15mm of recess is possible, this would mean even a 10mm focal length design could be made that wasn't a retrofocus. That is probably too much but I can see a focal length of 14mm non retro focal being very possible.


----------



## padam (Dec 1, 2018)

privatebydesign said:


> Not necessarily, as there is no moving mirror there is nothing to stop the lens rear element protruding well behind the mount, as in the Leica designs. The shutter in the R is probably no more the a couple of mm forward of the sensor so potentially 15mm of recess is possible, this would mean even a 10mm focal length design could be made that wasn't a retrofocus. That is probably too much but I can see a focal length of 14mm non retro focal being very possible.


The lens still has to autofocus, and not will all the elements moving together (which also means that it can only be optimised to one distance).
While Zeiss kept the Biogon design for the 35mm Loxia they've changed to the Distagon with the 21mm Loxia, which implies that even for manual focus lenses it may not ultimately be the best choice for performance, which is what Canon is aiming for.


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 2, 2018)

padam said:


> The lens still has to autofocus, and not will all the elements moving together (which also means that it can only be optimised to one distance).
> While Zeiss kept the Biogon design for the 35mm Loxia they've changed to the Distagon with the 21mm Loxia, which implies that even for manual focus lenses it may not ultimately be the best choice for performance, which is what Canon is aiming for.


None of which contradicts the fact that having a 20mm registration distance on a mirrorless camera means you can recess the rear element, meaning you are not limited to retro focus designs for focal lengths close to or even lower than 20mm.


----------



## koenkooi (Dec 2, 2018)

privatebydesign said:


> None of which contradicts the fact that having a 20mm registration distance on a mirrorless camera means you can recess the rear element, meaning you are not limited to retro focus designs for focal lengths close to or even lower than 20mm.



I vaguely remember an interview with canon during launch where they said something like "Yes, we can recess the rear element a lot more, no, we're not gonna do that". I think RF lenses will all share the same lens cap, which limits the rear element.

They could do RF-S, where 'S' means the same as the S in EF-S, with new lens caps. But with a full image circle, people here are using 'RF-S' as shorthand for reduced-image circle instead of short backfocus, which confuses the hell out of me every time I see it used.


----------



## Michael Clark (Dec 6, 2018)

privatebydesign said:


> Not necessarily, as there is no moving mirror there is nothing to stop the lens rear element protruding well behind the mount, as in the Leica designs. The shutter in the R is probably no more the a couple of mm forward of the sensor so potentially 15mm of recess is possible, this would mean even a 10mm focal length design could be made that wasn't a retrofocus. That is probably too much but I can see a focal length of 14mm non retro focal being very possible.




A 20mm lens must place the effective thins lens equivalent point in the lens 20mm from the imaging plane. This is usually well forward of the rear lens element in non-retrofocus lenses. In fact, it is often near the front element of compound lenses. So not only would the rear lens element need to be "countersunk" into the camera body for a non-retrofocus design wider than 20mm, pretty much _the entire optical portion of the lens_ would need to be behind the flange. Of course this would create vignetting issues due to the mount flange blocking light from wider angles striking the front element of the lens.


----------



## Antono Refa (Dec 10, 2018)

Canon has lenses which extend forward, usually to increase focal length. Couldn't Canon make lenses that extend into the camera to decrease focal length, then retract back into the barrel to fit in the standard cap?

I gather it would cause vignetting due to light hitting the sensor corners at an oblique angle.


----------



## Ian K (Dec 18, 2018)

Oh, to have an RF 11-24mm f/4L USM, even if it wasn't much smaller. I love that lens but it would be better without the extra bulk of the adapter. Make it a f2.8, even with the extra bulk would be interesting, especially if it had well controlled coma.


----------



## sid.safari (Dec 20, 2018)

I wonder if they will have a RF super telephoto primes like a RF 300mm f/2.8, RF 400 f/2.8, RF 500 f/4, RF 600 f/4. 

Or will those be adapted from the EF family.


----------



## Rajinder Shukla (Jan 5, 2019)

Ian K said:


> Oh, to have an RF 11-24mm f/4L USM, even if it wasn't much smaller. I love that lens but it would be better without the extra bulk of the adapter. Make it a f2.8, even with the extra bulk would be interesting, especially if it had well controlled coma.


----------



## Rajinder Shukla (Jan 5, 2019)

As I recently read in Canon Rumers Forum that a RF 12-35 mm f2.8L USM and a RF 14 -20 mm f2.8L USM lenses are under development as new up coming RF lenses for EOS R system and may be RF 12-35 mm will have more recognition. As per your views above and my opinion EF 11-24 mm f4L USM lens is an exceptionally great ultra wide lens but with EOS R system a RF 12-35 mm f2.8L USM or still a RF 10-30 mm f2.8 L USM lens would be a hit lens and a 1st. Choice for real demanding professionals in the photo industry as EOS R Mirrorless camera is concerned. A RF 14-24 mm f4L could be a good choice for serious armatures and free lance photographers. A new real professional EOS R Mirrorless camera body with EOS 5 MK IV specifications plus Mirrorless added specifications is also seriously needed very soon.
R.Shukla.


----------



## YuengLinger (Jan 5, 2019)

I'd be happy with a rectilinear rf 12-24mm f/2.8L which had the least distortion (compared to other brands) at these focal lengths.


----------



## Rajinder Shukla (Jan 17, 2019)

YuengLinger said:


> I'd be happy with a rectilinear rf 12-24mm f/2.8L which had the least distortion (compared to other brands) at these focal lengths.



As Nikon has already announced a great lens, f14-30 f4 with a slight curve on front element where you can use any threaded filter. Now is the right time for Canon. 
In my opinion FR 12-35 mm f2.8L IS USM with the filter thread is the only appropriate lens which I have read in the beginning is already in the pipeline. I think RF14-35 mm doesn’t make much sense compared to Nikon,s 14-30 f4 lens.I am seriously wanting for the announcement of this lens along with a real Pro. EOS R camera body with upto 65 magapix resolution.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Jan 17, 2019)

Sometimes the wait is a long one! I other words, there are going to be compromises, or you'll wait forever.

Jack


----------



## Rajinder Shukla (Apr 28, 2019)

josephandrews222 said:


> I have held off on purchasing the EF 11-24 in anticipation of something like what is rumored: a 12-35mm f/2.8L that fits the R mount!?
> 
> Oh my.
> 
> ...


I strongly appreciate and second your desire for a RF 12-35mm f2.8L IS USM Non Bulbous lens. Myself I am waiting for the day when Canon announces the release day of this exceptionally great product in Canon R System.


----------



## Rajinder Shukla (Apr 28, 2019)

josephandrews222 said:


> I have held off on purchasing the EF 11-24 in anticipation of something like what is rumored: a 12-35mm f/2.8L that fits the R mount!?
> 
> Oh my.
> 
> ...





josephandrews222 said:


> I have held off on purchasing the EF 11-24 in anticipation of something like what is rumored: a 12-35mm f/2.8L that fits the R mount!?
> 
> Oh my.
> 
> ...


i fully support your your patience.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Apr 28, 2019)

Waiting is a very subjective concept. Not so much if there is a "real" need. I'm certainly not sorry I didn't wait relative to the 11-24 and now with the purchase of the R I finally got my desired ND filter. Unfortunately, my daughter liked the R so much that she bought it after our Costa Rica trip so here I sit with two EF to R adapters and no R.

I suspected this would happen so now I await another R type camera. I was quite impressed with the R but it was actually not in my hands very much. The control ring adapter used with an EF lens gives a very handy way to shoot true manual with accuracy, having ISO on the ring, which gets controlled with a right hand finger, the result being evidenced in the viewfinder.

Once again, I'm inclined to think Canon has produced a Camera that will sell in spite of all the usual negative press. BTW I waited out the 6D2 after selling my 6D and certainly don't regret that.

Jack


----------

