Canon came out swinging when they entered the full frame mirrorless market, with one of their most impressive lenses being the RF 28-70mm f/2 L USM, the first full frame autofocus zoom lens with an f/2 aperture. This has led many to hope that other f/2 zoom lenses might eventually be offered, and their wishes might come true.
Canon Rumors is reporting that Canon is planning another f/2 RF lens to "complement" the RF 28-70mm f/2 L USM. I have had the 28-70mm f/2 for about two years now, and I can attest that it is an absolutely stunning lens that is capable of things no other option is. It is so fantastic that it has replaced several other primes in my bag and is my go-to workhorse of choice.
The rumored lens' focal length range is unknown, though it is likely to be announced at some point early next year. If I had to guess, I would expect it to be something along the lines of a 70-135mm f/2. Anything beyond 135mm would start to make the lens too heavy and unwieldy for general use, while an ultra-wide angle f/2 zoom lens might end up being a bit too niche to sell well. I could see a 70-135mm f/2 being wildly popular among portrait, wedding, and indoors sports photographers, to name a few. Hopefully, we will hear more soon!
Well 70-135/2.0 was rumoured to be in testing already in 2019. To be honest Alex do you really believe that canon will release this lens right after 135/1.8? Knowing canon for 20 years I can only disagree. What about RF 17-35/2.0 ?Wouldn't that be nice for weddings, astro and landscapes... Even street photography?
If we can't get a 50 1.4 then I don't really care about canons supposed wild new designs. I need that lens for my basic shooting and they refuse to offer it and I can't buy it from a third party. I'm adapting the 20-year-old EF version, but unfortunately it's not compatible with the high speed shooting mode. Neither is my 70 to 200 2.8 v2. And I don't want to change that into a push zoom version for nearly $3,000.
As a 13-year Canon user I can't recommend Canon anymore unless you really really really only like their expensive L lenses. Even some of those weren't necessarily better than the EF versions, namely the 24 to 70 and the 24 to 105 which unfortunately they seem to not care about updating the optics anymore.
Seems that many expect Canon to have an EF like line already in service even though the R system is but 5 years old. Did Canon fill out the EF line in 5 years? Nope. This is the society we now live in...instant gratification.
might be a 14-28 F2. Canon had a patent for that maybe a couple of years ago. would also complement the 28-70 well.
This might be an unpopular opinion, but Canon's lens lineup kind of sucks. It's really expensive for what you get, the 100-500 is really slow but still really expensive.
Their prime lens situation is a disaster, The 35 1.8, 50 1.8, and 85 2 are okay, but not built well, and not optically as competent as Nikon's, but if you want anything better, you have to go full exotic to the 1.2's.
It's just a bummer of a system for anyone looking to get strong (both physically and optically) lenses that aren't $2000+ each, or for anyone shooting wildlife at any focal length.
I've noted that whenever there's a Canon lens article, you're right there making sure everyone knows that you don't like Canon's lens pricing. We get it. I have an R5, but no R lenses. My lenses are all adapted and do better than when I had my 5DIV. I can't afford the L line of R lenses, but I don't come here whining about it. Budget is the budget. If you're a Canon shooter, move on. If not, don't buy Canon. You'll be happier that way.
These fast zooms from Canon may be the reason i needed toi ditch my Nikon in the future. A small 70-135 f2 would be a dream come true.
the Canon 28-70 f/2 costs $2899 and takes 95mm filters. No, no, and finally, No.
Well if you professional and you find a better use for it then 3 prime lenses for about double the price, then you will be so Yes, yes, yes so much, you can't even imagine Daniel. Don't forget that sometimes we don't really get chance to change lenses and if you want the best for your reputation and your clients, there isnt really much of a choice. It is the same as the difference between 70-200/2.8 and 70-200/4.0..
I love my 28-70 F2 and use it mainly for outdoor portraits. It's great to not have to carry a camera bag with other lenses in it but the lens with camera body is pretty heavy and hurts my shoulder after long shoots. If you are interested see some examples of my work at www.markschoenfelt.com