Canon Patent Application: Canon RF 28-70mm F2.8

[Canon Rumors Guy]

In this patent application (2024-078721), Canon is showing off some embodiments of some smaller standard F2.8 zooms. While at first glance, this seems unlikely we should also keep in mind that Tamron’s smaller 28-70 F2.8 was very well received. So it’s possible that Canon may be looking at doing something similar. At a collapsed lens

See full article...

 

[LCDVS00]

If it\'s not an L but for lenses aimed at the casual hobbyist, then that\'s a good thing.

 

[gambl0r]

I\'d love this lens for hiking if it\'s considerably smaller than the 24-70L. I love that lens, but it would be great to have a smaller and lighter fixed f2.8 option from Canon.

 

[Jamie8848]

Yep, I would love this for hiking too if under 500 grams, with .30 or better close focus and an L lens with no IS. Should be designable ... The EF24-70 f4L IS was/is a great hiking lens so a sort of similar RF28-70mm f2.8 L using IBIS would tick my boxes.

 

[SwissFrank]

Is the current 24-70/2.8IS from a patent that has the various aberrations graphed? And if so is this the same better or worse? (I ask about a patent for the formula used on the other lens as that\'s in the same graph format and would be easy to compare.)

Generally I feel that on an IBIS camera, shutter speeds are so long that we don't need in-lens IS any more and would love to dispose of it if doing so makes the lenses notably smaller, cheaper, and better image quality. OTOH, I started Canon in 1995 with the 28-70 and felt the extra 4mm is really pretty key. For me 28mm is medium-wide while 24mm is suddenly actual wide.

 

[Del Paso]

Is the current 24-70/2.8IS from a patent that has the various aberrations graphed? And if so is this the same better or worse? (I ask about a patent for the formula used on the other lens as that\'s in the same graph format and would be easy to compare.)

Generally I feel that on an IBIS camera, shutter speeds are so long that we don't need in-lens IS any more and would love to dispose of it if doing so makes the lenses notably smaller, cheaper, and better image quality. OTOH, I started Canon in 1995 with the 28-70 and felt the extra 4mm is really pretty key. For me 28mm is medium-wide while 24mm is suddenly actual wide.

Same here!
I no longer need OIS on WA zooms or lenses, IBIS is so convincing. Lenses could indeed become lighter and smaller, maybe even a bit less expensive. And, if the saying is true, thanks to a rigid internal lens alignment, optical quality could even benefit.
On the other hand, I'm also convinced that zooms with a more limited range can be optically better. A 28-70 demands less design compromising than a 24-70.
Another reason why I'd never ever buy a Tamron 35-150...

 

[SwissFrank]

Same here!
I no longer need OIS on WA zooms or lenses, IBIS is so convincing. Lenses could indeed become lighter and smaller, maybe even a bit less expensive. And, if the saying is true, thanks to a rigid internal lens alignment, optical quality could even benefit.
On the other hand, I'm also convinced that zooms with a more limited range can be optically better. A 28-70 demands less design compromising than a 24-70.
Another reason why I'd never ever buy a Tamron 35-150...

I never knew anyone who shot with the old EF 35-350/3.5-whatever. That was a huge white L lens, I think several thousand new. Just checking they're being sold in Tokyo for USD350!! Probably not that sharp but still.

I don't know optics well enough to be sure that wider zooms have to be worse, but like you I suspect it. Still... 24mm is to me a lot more useful than 28mm at the wide end... Yes, you can usually just step back a few steps with 28mm and get a wider subject into the frame but 24mm is better if what you're trying to get in the frame would ideally be like 16mm.

On the other hand I carry my 16/2.8 in my backpack with the 50/1.8 on the camera, and I've even used it with the 24-105/4. (For instance family holiday photos at the in-laws where 24mm is still too narrow for their living/dining room.) The 16/2.8 would also be a useful emergency backup lens to have while shooting a 28-70/2.8, so maybe 24-70 isn't quite as important now.

But then I come back to the logic: you can crop 50/1.8 to 70mm or narrower and it has a bit bigger aperture so yet more bokeh. And 50/1.8 works at 50mm :-D . You can step back enough to not need 35mm... and if you need wider then you can crop the 16mm. And the 50/1.8 is seriously good, hand-holding on an R5 1/2 to 1/15 sec in my tests better than 1/30 or faster. (Which doesn't make sense but is weirdly true.)

 

[Del Paso]

I never knew anyone who shot with the old EF 35-350/3.5-whatever. That was a huge white L lens, I think several thousand new. Just checking they're being sold in Tokyo for USD350!! Probably not that sharp but still.

I don't know optics well enough to be sure that wider zooms have to be worse, but like you I suspect it. Still... 24mm is to me a lot more useful than 28mm at the wide end... Yes, you can usually just step back a few steps with 28mm and get a wider subject into the frame but 24mm is better if what you're trying to get in the frame would ideally be like 16mm.

On the other hand I carry my 16/2.8 in my backpack with the 50/1.8 on the camera, and I've even used it with the 24-105/4. (For instance family holiday photos at the in-laws where 24mm is still too narrow for their living/dining room.) The 16/2.8 would also be a useful emergency backup lens to have while shooting a 28-70/2.8, so maybe 24-70 isn't quite as important now.

But then I come back to the logic: you can crop 50/1.8 to 70mm or narrower and it has a bit bigger aperture so yet more bokeh. And 50/1.8 works at 50mm :-D . You can step back enough to not need 35mm... and if you need wider then you can crop the 16mm. And the 50/1.8 is seriously good, hand-holding on an R5 1/2 to 1/15 sec in my tests better than 1/30 or faster. (Which doesn't make sense but is weirdly true.)

Stepping back may be an option in a city, but not on a steep and narrow mountain path.
Well, to put it short, I prefer primes anyway. I often tried 24-70, 24-105 or similar zooms, only to find out that results would be better with primes. Battling one's own laziness is the price to pay if you want sharper corners...
Cropping a 50 into a 70mm? Yes, with a high MP sensor , it works!

 

[SwissFrank]

Cropping a 50 into a 70mm? Yes, with a high MP sensor , it works!

Yeah, the R5 and RF lenses literally have resolution to burn for 99% of shots. (Of course I shoot in hopes of getting the 1% that I want as high as quality as possible but of course that's not the norm. And the 50/1.8 is really good enough to use all 45MP from.)

 

[Ian K]

Having had the EF 28-135mm lens I would agree that 28 is far too narrow for standard street use.

 

[Del Paso]

Having had the EF 28-135mm lens I would agree that 28 is far too narrow for standard street use.

Funny how different tastes can be.
I find 28mm too wide, and prefer 35mm.

 

[Ian K]

You can't always get far enough away for include the entire subject at 28mm, where 24mm is more often able. As for 35mm that is surely just a matter for turning the zoom ring, if that is your desire.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Funny how different tastes can be.
I find 28mm too wide, and prefer 35mm.

Me, too. Years ago when trying to decide between the EF 24/1.4L II and EF 35/1.4, I set my 24-105/4 to each focal length for a couple of days each and preferred 35mm. From the 24mm shots, I found myself cropping in post anyway. So I bought the EF 35/1.4L. So for me, the 28-70/2 is wide enough (and fast enough).

 

[Del Paso]

Me, too. Years ago when trying to decide between the EF 24/1.4L II and EF 35/1.4, I set my 24-105/4 to each focal length for a couple of days each and preferred 35mm. From the 24mm shots, I found myself cropping in post anyway. So I bought the EF 35/1.4L. So for me, the 28-70/2 is wide enough (and fast enough).

And also good enough!

 

[Del Paso]

You can't always get far enough away for include the entire subject at 28mm, where 24mm is more often able. As for 35mm that is surely just a matter for turning the zoom ring, if that is your desire.

For street, I always use a Leica M. Though zooms are also available for it, I far prefer primes. No zoom is as discreet as a Summilux or Summicron. And why should I crop a 24mm picture if I get what I want with a 35mm?
You are happy with your system, I'm happy with mine!
As I wrote, tastes are different...

 

[Ian K]

I still don't understand how you are going to take a picture of something wide enough to require 24mm with a 35mm lens, no matter what your preference is. Unless you have a preference for shooting parts of a building, rather than the whole? It is not always possible to move further away. If you don't take those type of photos then no problem.