Canon RF 28-70mm f/2L USM II mentioned [CR2]
- Thread starter Canon Rumors
- Start date
Three thoughts:
1. Please Canon release the RF35mm F1.2 L ahead of this lens, otherwise a lot of people will be seriously pissed
2. Please Canon use the same magic you used when you released the RF 10-20mm F4 L compared to the EF 11-24mm F4 L
3. Please released it alongside a 70-150mm F2 which already has the weight savings of a mkii version!
1. Please Canon release the RF35mm F1.2 L ahead of this lens, otherwise a lot of people will be seriously pissed
2. Please Canon use the same magic you used when you released the RF 10-20mm F4 L compared to the EF 11-24mm F4 L
3. Please released it alongside a 70-150mm F2 which already has the weight savings of a mkii version!
Upvote
0
You people are too cruelWith a bit of luck, Canon manages to release these updated lenses before the RF 35mm f/1.2L
no consideration whatsoever for my abused feelings...
Upvote
0
I would certainly be!Three thoughts:
1. Please Canon release the RF35mm F1.2 L ahead of this lens, otherwise a lot of people will be seriously pissed
A missing niche fast prime should have priority over a new version of an existing niche fast zoomWhile I enjoy my 10-20 f/4L, call me old fashioned, but I'd prefer more glass and less software corrections.2. Please Canon use the same magic you used when you released the RF 10-20mm F4 L compared to the EF 11-24mm F4 L
I dunno. The limited range is one of the reasons I do not have the 28-70 f/2L - a 70-150 f/2 would not entice me to take the place of my fast primes.
Upvote
0
Oh boy, the timing on this . . . I was planning to buy new gear in the next 6 months. Hmm.
Upvote
0
Analogous to the 300/2.8 becoming a 100-300/2.8, I could see a 70-200/2 that is bigger than the 200/2 but offers the convenience of a zoom. Like the combination of 24-105/2.8 and 100-300/2.8, a 70-200/2 would pair very well with the 28-70/2.
Upvote
0
True, though I think it would be a $6000+ lens (if not closer to the $9500 price point of the 100-300), which puts it out of the price range of most people, and puts it into the same target market as the EF 200/2.
Upvote
0
I'm pretty sure it would end up close to $10K like the 100-300/2.8. A $6000 lens (which is what the EF 200/2 launched at) is out of the price range for most people anyway, and I'm not sure that a 50-60% increase makes a big difference at that point.
Upvote
0
I dont´think there are a lot of potential buyers for a 100-200mm F2 when there is an excellent 100-300mm F2.8 option.
Upvote
0
I got to try this lens for about three months in 2023 as a lifestyle and portrait photographer.
Was 99% sure I'd bite the bullet and get this in 2024 to partially replace my EF 35 and 85 1.4s but the weight and size have always just been the largest dealbreaker. It also doesn't help that it has quite bad focus breathing which makes filming video on it quite challenging, to say the least.
However, in my experience, the IQ in a zoom package was just unbeatable and made it worth the squeeze. Now the biggest dilemma is does one hold off on buying the current 28-70 in the hopes of an updated version within a year or just buy it anyway- deal with the cons and probably sell it at a significant loss when the improved V2 comes out?
Was 99% sure I'd bite the bullet and get this in 2024 to partially replace my EF 35 and 85 1.4s but the weight and size have always just been the largest dealbreaker. It also doesn't help that it has quite bad focus breathing which makes filming video on it quite challenging, to say the least.
However, in my experience, the IQ in a zoom package was just unbeatable and made it worth the squeeze. Now the biggest dilemma is does one hold off on buying the current 28-70 in the hopes of an updated version within a year or just buy it anyway- deal with the cons and probably sell it at a significant loss when the improved V2 comes out?
Upvote
0
24mm would exponentially drive the size and weight i think. certainly if they did, it wouldn't weigh less.
either way the 28-70 is still meh optically. it's not really all that sharp wide open, unless your subject is highly centralized. a zoom is still a zoom, especially as wide as standard ones go.
Upvote
0
A patent application was mentioned in a recent post:
Two previously rumoured lenses have appeared in a recent patent
In 2023, Canon aggressively expanded its RF lens lineup with several new lenses. Looking ahead to 2024, we anticipate that Canon will continue this trend and fo
www.canonrumors.com
Upvote
0
The gimbal balance makes sense for video... I assume you don't mean fixed gimbals ie safari etc.Apart from sealing, there are other reasons for preferring and internal zoom, like gimbal or underwater works. But you already known that
For underwater, you would need to support via ports based on the max length so a retracting design wouldn't be a negative in that case or have I missed something? Ikelite supports the RF24-105/4 but requires a +4 diopter to make it work. I don't think that it is a commonly used lens though.
Note that the RF28-70/2 isn't supported by Ikelite as it is too wide to fit within the port system.
70-200mm isn't supported by most scuba systems as far as I know. It may be supported for some surf housings as you are mostly shooting through air and not through water with its turbidity limitations at distance.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Similar threads
