Canon officially launches the RF 28-70mm f/2.8 IS STM

[neuroanatomist]

I think what happens is that it will extend all the way to maximum length at 28mm from the storage position, and then it gradually retracts somewhat as you zoom in to 70mm.

If you're correct that this lens is based on the patent you linked, then @Walrus is correct and your statement above is wrong. Looking at the actual patent on J-PlatPat, all five of the examples are a reverse zoom, e.g. Example 2 is

Focal distance 28.84 43.40 67.90
Whole-length-of-the-lens 142.61 124.50 116.52

FWIW, the image height in that example is 16.84 at the wide end, meaning the suggestion that there will be serious distortion correction needed (and forced) is likely (there is one example in the patent where the full focal range has a 21.64 image height, but it would be very unlike Canon to produce a version like that, since it would cost significantly more to manufacture).

 

[frankchn]

If you're correct that this lens is based on the patent you linked, then @Walrus is correct and your statement above is wrong. Looking at the actual patent on J-PlatPat, all five of the examples are a reverse zoom, e.g. Example 2 is

I think I said it was a reverse zoom (i.e. like the original EF 24-70 f/2.8L) and @Walrus thinks it is a standard zoom (i.e shortest at the wide end)?

 

[neuroanatomist]

I think I said it was a reverse zoom (i.e. like the original EF 24-70 f/2.8L) and @Walrus thinks it is a standard zoom (i.e shortest at the wide end)?

My bad, you did. Apologies!

But then it's not the same as the RF 24-50, where the shortest physical length within the focal range is somewhere in the middle of the range (and I note that you did not say the new lens is like that). That is common for some lens designs, e.g. most ultrawide zooms do it (though in many cases it's all happening with an internal barrel behind the filter threads; the RF 14-35/4L does it with an extending design) and the EF-M lenses that 'park' (M11-22 and M15-45).

 

[NKD]

Not bad. I might pick this up for my daily R7 if the price is good. Currently use the EF24, 35 IS, RF 50 & EF 70-200.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I can see this igniting the hope some people have for a constant aperture RF-S zoom. Maybe that will come to pass, but personally I think this is one more piece of evidence that Canon is trying to push people wanting 'high-end APS-C cameras and lenses' to just buy FF. Instead of an R7 with an RF-S 17-55/2.8, Canon wants them to buy an R8 with this 28-70/2.8 lens, because they're more likely to add other FF lenses to their kit, meaning more profit for Canon.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Not bad. I might pick this up for my daily R7 if the price is good. Currently use the EF24, 35 IS, RF 50 & EF 70-200.

I was never happy with the EF 24-105/4L on my 7D, for me a standard zoom starting at 38mm (FFeq) is not very useful, and this one will start at a FF FoV of 45mm on a crop camera.

 

[m4ndr4ke]

But then it's not the same as the RF 24-50, where the shortest physical length within the focal range is somewhere in the middle of the range (and I note that you did not say the new lens is like that).

Wild guess…I’m gonna say maybe this lens has a “retracted position feature”, like the 600 and 800 f/11, in the way that the user has to extend the lens to be able to use it.

 

[bbasiaga]

I was hoping less than $1kUSD....some youtuber suggested $1199 (or was it 1099?). That may put the dampers on a bit.

 

[LSXPhotog]

HmmmmMMMMmmmMMMMMmmmm....is that a weather sealing ring I see on the image with the rear lens cap? Sure looks like it.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Wild guess…I’m gonna say maybe this lens has a “retracted position feature”, like the 600 and 800 f/11, in the way that the user has to extend the lens to be able to use it.

Nothing wild about that guess. The marking to the left of the shortest focal length is the same as the markings on other lenses that retract into a parked/locked position.

With those lenses, the camera prompts you to extend the lens if you have not done so.

 

[mxwphoto]

Guess Canon wants in on the Tamron/Sigma action. Glad they are doing it with a lens that on paper spec is fully featured.

 

[neuroanatomist]

HmmmmMMMMmmmMMMMMmmmm....is that a weather sealing ring I see on the image with the rear lens cap? Sure looks like it.

I don’t think so. The 24/1.4 below has no gasket, the 10-20/4L does.



Plus, that would be very, very unlike Canon!

 

[David - Sydney]

I can see this igniting the hope some people have for a constant aperture RF-S zoom. Maybe that will come to pass, but personally I think this is one more piece of evidence that Canon is trying to push people wanting 'high-end APS-C cameras and lenses' to just buy FF. Instead of an R7 with an RF-S 17-55/2.8, Canon wants them to buy an R8 with this 28-70/2.8 lens, because they're more likely to add other FF lenses to their kit, meaning more profit for Canon.

Until we get a reasonably priced FF body with the same pixel density as the R7 then I think that there will always be a niche of shooters wanting the R7 and associated higher quality lenses.
For lower level APS-C bodies then size/price seems to be the driver.

I get the need for decent quality wide angle (prime/zoom) in RF-S but lenses like this and RF100-400 etc fulfill the needs for longer lenses for crop sensors. The FF lenses may be slightly bigger than a dedicated crop sensor longer lens but the prices are reasonable for the quality.

You would think that the "simplicity" of repackaging the EF-M lenses to RF-S would have meant more options for wide RF-S.

 

[Berowne]

I don’t think so. The 24/1.4 below has no gasket, the 10-20/4L does.

View attachment 219760

Plus, that would be very, very unlike Canon!

RF 24/1.4 ? You are ahead of our time ...

 

[neuroanatomist]

RF 24/1.4 ? You are ahead of our time ...

I have so few non-L lenses…

 

[esglord]

They are going to sell a lot of this thing

 

[EXkurogane]

Finally canon gave in huh. For the longest time they didn\'t want to cannibalise their L lenses but seriously we need good lenses at the $800 - $1000 range. I\'m hoping this one doesn\'t go beyond $999 at launch. Ideally it needs to be $800 and people would be queuing up for it.

Nikon had a cheap 28-75 2.8 that was using Tamron optics that can be had for $800+ nowadays for the past one and half year.

 

[HMC11]

Until we get a reasonably priced FF body with the same pixel density as the R7 then I think that there will always be a niche of shooters wanting the R7 and associated higher quality lenses.

That would mean an approximately 82mpx FF body at a 'reasonable' price, which seems most unlikely to happen. Agree that the R7 with a high opitcal quality lens is attractive. For me, a future R6 series body with 30mpx will be the sweet spot.

 

[LSXPhotog]

I don’t think so. The 24/1.4 below has no gasket, the 10-20/4L does.

View attachment 219760

Plus, that would be very, very unlike Canon!

It surely would be unlike Canon…but so was the weather sealed white telephoto lens that wasn’t an L-Series - the 200-800. Watch Canon troll us with a weather sealed 28-70 f/2.8 fixed aperture. Hahaha I’m not holding my breath at all that it’s going to have weather sealing or even a damn lens hood in the box…but perhaps those days are behind us in 2024? Canon surely won’t release a $1000 lens without a lens hood, would they?

 

[Slasheal]

That would mean an approximately 82mpx FF body at a 'reasonable' price, which seems most unlikely to happen. Agree that the R7 with a high opitcal quality lens is attractive. For me, a future R6 series body with 30mpx will be the sweet spot.

Always people complaining the R5II isn't priced at the same level than the R8.
Would be so convenient.