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

[GMCPhotographics]

I'm wondering if we'll see a matching super light weight 800g RF 70-180mm f2.8 soon?

 

[AlP]

Here are some (Google-translated) excerpts from the interview found here (https://personal.canon.jp/articles/interview/developer-f28-70-f28), which is an in-depth discussion about the development of this lens:

• As you mentioned, there is an L lens with a fixed F2.8 for the 24-70mm. While this lens has been highly evaluated in the market as an L lens, there have been voices saying that the price, size, and weight are too high. This product was conceived because we thought, "There must be users who want a fixed F2.8 lens, but cannot afford an L lens."
  Manufacturers other than Canon are also releasing compact zoom lenses with a fixed F2.8. Also, as we enter the mirrorless era and camera bodies become more compact, we started this project with the hope that by releasing a compatible compact fixed F2.8 zoom lens, people who have been hesitant to use a fixed F2.8 lens because they thought, "Fixed F2.8 is good, but it's big and heavy," will be able to use it.
• The original concept didn't include a retractable type, and we told them, "It will be almost the same size as the RF24-105mm F4 L IS USM and RF24-70mm F2.8 L IS USM." "But then we already have fixed F2.8 and fixed F4," they said. What would it be like to add something similar to that...
• Does the image quality change whether you use a retractable lens or not? It's just the mechanism that's different, and there's no difference in image quality itself. If the overall length is shortened, the volume decreases, which is obvious, so it can be made lighter. Initially, we had simulated it at around 540g, but the actual product weighed less than 500g, so it was lighter than expected.
• We used an expensive lens called a "UD lens" at the very front. Usually, the lens diameter is smaller on the inside, so we place it there. The larger it is, the higher the selling price. But in order to achieve a compact size and high performance, we decided to use a large UD lens for the front element.
• It's common knowledge that equipping an interchangeable lens with IS makes it larger and heavier, but the RF28-70mm F2.8 IS STM is not actually larger. The big three lens from the EF era, the EF24-70mm F2.8L II USM, does not have IS, but the RF28-70mm F2.8 IS STM, which does have IS, is actually significantly smaller and lighter. This is due to the evolution of the IS unit.
  This is a technical matter, but when an IS lens is moved, the posture of the mechanism that supports it is inevitably disturbed. This time, the center of gravity of each part that makes up the IS has been precisely calculated and its position optimized. The center of gravity has been repositioned so that it matches perfectly, making it an ideal design. The RF28-70mm F2.8 IS STM is equipped with a miniaturized IS unit.
  IS is a technology that has been handed down for many years at Canon, but something revolutionary is happening now. The ideal design has made it possible to miniaturize it, and we have been able to keep the weight at less than 500g for this size.
• The focus mechanism, called the "lead screw type STM (Stepping Motor)," has also evolved. The focus mechanism installed in this lens has been powered up to the point where it can move lenses that are about twice as heavy as the previous lenses that were moved.
  USM has been used for the lenses of higher-end models. It is powerful, but large and expensive. The small STM has evolved to be able to move lenses that are about twice as heavy, which has contributed to this compactness.
  Actually, when I first thought about "I want to make it with these specifications," I still couldn't move lenses of this weight. So if I had manufactured it five years ago, the housing would have been one size larger. This time, the design was approved at a time when various technological advances were in place, and the idea of a retractable barrel was also incorporated, so you could say that it is a crystallization of everything condensed into one.
• Normal STM is open control. Simply put, the motor rotates at a set speed and stops at a set position. It's a very simple control. But this STM has a sensor that reads the motor's rotation speed.
  As with electric vehicles, reading the motor's rotation speed allows for more advanced feedback control. Canon's interchangeable lenses have rarely had focus mechanisms with this kind of advanced control in telephoto zoom and macro lenses, but this is the first time they have been installed in a standard zoom.
• The Nano USM and VCM are quite excellent motors, but this lens's STM control is very good, so it is able to achieve speed and accuracy that are comparable to them.

 

[Canon Rumors]

I'm wondering if we'll see a matching super light weight 500g RF 70-180mm f2.8 soon?

Well, the Z version is next. There is talk of RF-S lenses like this that are FOV equivalent to the 70-200.

Could they? Absolutely. That's a cool idea. More lenses like this with the apparent optical performance kind of hit back at the "we need Sigma" narrative.. though that will always exist. (I won't participate in that debate! )

 

[Canon Rumors]

Here are some (Google-translated) excerpts from the interview found here (https://personal.canon.jp/articles/interview/developer-f28-70-f28), which is an in-depth discussion about the development of this lens:

• As you mentioned, there is an L lens with a fixed F2.8 for the 24-70mm. While this lens has been highly evaluated in the market as an L lens, there have been voices saying that the price, size, and weight are too high. This product was conceived because we thought, "There must be users who want a fixed F2.8 lens, but cannot afford an L lens."
  Manufacturers other than Canon are also releasing compact zoom lenses with a fixed F2.8. Also, as we enter the mirrorless era and camera bodies become more compact, we started this project with the hope that by releasing a compatible compact fixed F2.8 zoom lens, people who have been hesitant to use a fixed F2.8 lens because they thought, "Fixed F2.8 is good, but it's big and heavy," will be able to use it.
• The original concept didn't include a retractable type, and we told them, "It will be almost the same size as the RF24-105mm F4 L IS USM and RF24-70mm F2.8 L IS USM." "But then we already have fixed F2.8 and fixed F4," they said. What would it be like to add something similar to that...
• Does the image quality change whether you use a retractable lens or not? It's just the mechanism that's different, and there's no difference in image quality itself. If the overall length is shortened, the volume decreases, which is obvious, so it can be made lighter. Initially, we had simulated it at around 540g, but the actual product weighed less than 500g, so it was lighter than expected.
• We used an expensive lens called a "UD lens" at the very front. Usually, the lens diameter is smaller on the inside, so we place it there. The larger it is, the higher the selling price. But in order to achieve a compact size and high performance, we decided to use a large UD lens for the front element.
• It's common knowledge that equipping an interchangeable lens with IS makes it larger and heavier, but the RF28-70mm F2.8 IS STM is not actually larger. The big three lens from the EF era, the EF24-70mm F2.8L II USM, does not have IS, but the RF28-70mm F2.8 IS STM, which does have IS, is actually significantly smaller and lighter. This is due to the evolution of the IS unit.
  This is a technical matter, but when an IS lens is moved, the posture of the mechanism that supports it is inevitably disturbed. This time, the center of gravity of each part that makes up the IS has been precisely calculated and its position optimized. The center of gravity has been repositioned so that it matches perfectly, making it an ideal design. The RF28-70mm F2.8 IS STM is equipped with a miniaturized IS unit.
  IS is a technology that has been handed down for many years at Canon, but something revolutionary is happening now. The ideal design has made it possible to miniaturize it, and we have been able to keep the weight at less than 500g for this size.
• The focus mechanism, called the "lead screw type STM (Stepping Motor)," has also evolved. The focus mechanism installed in this lens has been powered up to the point where it can move lenses that are about twice as heavy as the previous lenses that were moved.
  USM has been used for the lenses of higher-end models. It is powerful, but large and expensive. The small STM has evolved to be able to move lenses that are about twice as heavy, which has contributed to this compactness.
  Actually, when I first thought about "I want to make it with these specifications," I still couldn't move lenses of this weight. So if I had manufactured it five years ago, the housing would have been one size larger. This time, the design was approved at a time when various technological advances were in place, and the idea of a retractable barrel was also incorporated, so you could say that it is a crystallization of everything condensed into one.
• Normal STM is open control. Simply put, the motor rotates at a set speed and stops at a set position. It's a very simple control. But this STM has a sensor that reads the motor's rotation speed.
  As with electric vehicles, reading the motor's rotation speed allows for more advanced feedback control. Canon's interchangeable lenses have rarely had focus mechanisms with this kind of advanced control in telephoto zoom and macro lenses, but this is the first time they have been installed in a standard zoom.
• The Nano USM and VCM are quite excellent motors, but this lens's STM control is very good, so it is able to achieve speed and accuracy that are comparable to them.

Thanks.... I hadn't seen that interview yet.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

Well, the Z version is next. There is talk of RF-S lenses like this that are FOV equivalent to the 70-200.

Could they? Absolutely. That's a cool idea. More lenses like this with the apparent optical performance kind of hit back at the "we need Sigma" narrative.. though that will always exist. (I won't participate in that debate! )

I just figured that this new lens is obviously influenced by the Tamron 28-75/2.8, so why not go the whole 9 yards and create an answer to the excellent Tamron 70-180mm / 2.8.
Looking at the Tamron / Sony E catalogue....that 35-150mm f2 - f2.8 is mighty tasty for portraiture. It's a wedding photographer's "one lens" wet dream.

 

[m4ndr4ke]

I'm wondering if we'll see a matching super light weight 500g RF 70-180mm f2.8 soon?

I wouldn't say 500 grams, but maybe...in two to three years or so.


I really need to put this against my EF 24-70mm f/2.8 II.
I never went for the RF 24-70mm f/2.8 because the size and weight are almost the same as my EF lens with an adapter.
That made me consider jumping to the RF 28-70mm f/2, and it's been less than a year since I almost pulled the trigger on that one, but the weight on my neck and forearms made the final decision. Since then, I decided to keep my EF lens until something else came, like a RF 24-70mm f/2.8 II, but this may do the trick. Sacrificing 24mm has never been an issue to me, so...

 

[Berowne]

It's 2.8 and has a better MTF. The 24-105 doesn't really earn the red ring. Let's be honest.

Why?

 

[Deleted member 383640]

It's 2.8 and has a better MTF. The 24-105 doesn't really earn the red ring. Let's be honest.

Honestly, I don't agree with your assessment at all - a great lens in every way except that, in my opinion, the zoom ring should be less sticky (but the zoom ring is like that on the RF 24-70 f/2.8L IS USM, so neither this characteristic does not deviate from the RF L-standard).

 

[SwissFrank]

wow, it\'s only a bit longer than the RF35 f/1.8. This is going to be a huge seller. Expect the uncorrected files to have massive distortions and vignette. This is a lens which NEEDS a lot of in camera hocus pocus to manage this size with IS at a sub 1000 price.

Does it matter?! Everyone keeps bitching about correction. I keep on asking for example photos that were ruined, and I've been asking for years, and still haven't seen any, with one exception being vignetting correction increasing corner noise in astro. And even then, the photo wasn't paired with an alternative lenses' photo that didn't use correction. Now I understand people aren't going to be shooting with two lenses that take the same photo, and I agree that in this one VERY narrow and specific case, correction does cause visible artifacts. And yet, without a "control" to compare against, we don't see any advantages of the novel lens, perhaps such as better sharpness and contrast, weight and size, or price. It's quite possible (even likely?) that the novel lens design that needs corrections on one hand has offsetting benefits on the other, that a single image won't convey.

Seriously, if anyone has ANY example images where electronic correction of distortions causes visible artifacts, ESPECIALLY if they have an equivalent photo from a non-correction-requiring lens, I'm seriously eager to stand corrected. I hate being wrong about something and if I'm wrong on this, I want to learn so as soon as I can so PLEASE, ANYONE, share such an image. And if you have no such images, maybe you in turn could be open-minded that possibly, just possibly, your complaints about "massive distortions needing correction" may in fact be bogus.

 

[koenkooi]

Expensive in the Netherlands: €1319. Close to the 24-105L f/4.

This lens is close to the RF24-70 F/4L I've been asking for: smaller and lighter than the RF24-105L. I'm tempted to sell the RF24-105L and get this one instead, for family type things I want a compact kit, with useable electronic shutter, which currently alternates between R8+16/28/50 and R8+24-105L. I have the 24-50, which I stopped using after getting the RF28mm pancake.

 

[m4ndr4ke]

By the way, the new lens uses the same lens hood as the EF-S 18-135mm IS USM and the RF 24-105mm IS STM, so there's already a ton of cheap options available.

I'm tempted to sell the RF24-105L and get this one instead

I'm tempted to sell my EF 24-70mm f/2.8 II.
With the RF 70-200mm f/2.8, that I already own, and this RF 28-70mm f/2.8, I can reduce the weight of my two main zooms by almost 1Kg, when compared to similar EF lenses, and that is A LOT.

 

[SwissFrank]

It's 2.8 and has a better MTF. The 24-105 doesn't really earn the red ring. Let's be honest.

Read my longer essay answer about f/2.8, but in short I feel like many smart and knowledgeable shooters are nonetheless sticking to the received wisdom that "pros use f/2.8" far longer than they should. I'd invite anyone who uses "f/2.8" as a checkbox to read my essay and mull over whether that's really a useful category any more.

I'd be surprised if MTF is really a serious benefit. They're both excellent, I think, even if neither is in the 135/1.8 class. Can we even see the difference when pixel-peeping? If we can, can we also see a difference in a full-screen 1500x1000 edit? Which is just 1.5MP? If anyone can shoot the two side by side and show the new lens to be usefully sharper, even pixel-peeping much less a real-world edit, I'll happily and publicly stand corrected, but I'll believe it if/when I see it not before.

 

[candyman]

It's 2.8 and has a better MTF. The 24-105 doesn't really earn the red ring. Let's be honest.

I still prefer the f4L. It starts at 24 (up until 105) and I do not have complaints about it's quality. I guess maybe that depends on the usecase. Usecase is also relevant for the 2.8 (with lack of 24/105, buildquality/weathersealing, Nano usm vs STM)

 

[Maximilian]

Great surprise, Canon did offer to us here. TBH, 1.299,- € isn't cheap, but it also offers a lot.
Personally I prefer 105mm of the f/4 over f/2.8. So I will stay with what I have.
But I fully agree with those that say it's a great partner for the R8 for travel.

Now let's hope for an constant f/2.8 RF-S zoom for the APS-C users.

 

[GrunRad]

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!

The RF 28-70/2.8 does have a rubber mount gasket. See Gordon Laing's review: https://youtu.be/VC0sTftOKPI?si=ETXtJYWs5E8Mmov8 at 0:46

 

[Maximilian]

I took a quick look at the data and told Craig. I want two of these, please. When mounted on Canon's EOS R8, this will now be my perfect travel companion. ...

@Richard CR , I think you hit the nail. Thanks for all those comparisons.

Personally I prefer 105mm of the f/4 over f/2.8. So I will stay with what I have.
But I fully agree, that it's a great partner for travel (e.g. for the R8).

Now let's hope for an constant f/2.8 RF-S zoom for the APS-C users.

 

[Toamelicious]

As decently good as the specs of this lens seem to be, I do have to say that lenses like this are pretty much the reason, why we can't have full frame third party lenses.
If there was actual competition in the RF system, they wouldn't win anyone's favour with such a boring product.
Yes it's lightweight and small, yes it's not L style pricing to the moon. But that's pretty much it.
The focal range is very limited, f2.8 seems fine, but as people said, is probably going to result in digital correction galore and should have been f4, and knowing canon, they will have implemented limited weather sealing to make the L lenses look more appealing.

In this world it seems a decent offer.
In a parallel universe with Tamron and sigma products open to us, we would absolute shit on this thing.

 

[Canon Rumors]

Why?

Becase it's nowhere near as good as other L lenses optically. It's a $1200 L lens. There are going to be a lot compromises made for a 4x zoom at that price point. It's good in the center, but falls apart outside of that. It also has issues with CA, flare and ghosting.

Now, some don't have that sort of critical eye and it's totally fine for them. It's also a range that some people like a lot, all of which is great. I'm not crapping on the lens to be a "hater", it's simply nowhere near as good as the other L zooms, but they cost a lot more!

I think I'd rather have this 28-70, and I decided to preorder it. I do have the L 28-70, but as I've said before, it's not the most enjoyable lens to shoot with in a lot of situations.

 

[john1970]

This is a very nice lens. Next year when dealers have discounts I might pick one up and even trade I my 24-106 mm f4 L lens towards the purchase. There is no rush, but I am pleasantly surprise to see Canon release such as lens. 28-70 mm f2.8 with weather sealing for $1100. Good job.

 

[Canon Rumors]

As decently good as the specs of this lens seem to be, I do have to say that lenses like this are pretty much the reason, why we can't have full frame third party lenses.
If there was actual competition in the RF system, they wouldn't win anyone's favour with such a boring product.
Yes it's lightweight and small, yes it's not L style pricing to the moon. But that's pretty much it.
The focal range is very limited, f2.8 seems fine, but as people said, is probably going to result in digital correction galore and should have been f4, and knowing canon, they will have implemented limited weather sealing to make the L lenses look more appealing.

In this world it seems a decent offer.
In a parallel universe with Tamron and sigma products open to us, we would absolute shit on this thing.

Well, the sealing looks pretty good. https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/t...m-is-coming-shortly.43929/page-4#post-1008924

What's interesting, is that "boring" lenses are the ones that sell. It's not like the L lenses in this range are all that exciting. What they are is workhorses.

What lenses in this range aren't "boring"? (Maybe the 28-70L and the upcoming Sony 24-70 f/2?).

As for digital correction....... it's just another advancement in camera development that people are going to resist. Heck, people called autofocus stupid back in the 80s. "I don't want my camera focusing for me!"

There are plenty of lenses out there that don't utilize "digital correction", so just buy those? People were correcting lens weaknesses in darkrooms. Then they were correcting them with computer software, now the camera does the correction if you want it to. Which has brought us to new and interesting lens designs that we haven't seen before.