Two previously rumoured lenses have appeared in a recent patent

[neuroanatomist]

Canon RF 16-28mm f/2 is much better zoom lens to have.

For you, perhaps. Personally, an f/4 UWA zoom is fine for my use cases. I had the EF 16-35/2.8 II, swapped it for the 16-35/4 IS since <1% of my shots with the former were wider than f/4. A fast (-er than f/2.8) UWA lens would be useful for astro, but for me a prime would be fine for that.

OTOH, for me a 70-150/2 would be a great lens. That would give me the choice of covering 24-300/2.8 or 28-150/2 with two lenses.

 

[6degrees]

For you, perhaps. Personally, an f/4 UWA zoom is fine for my use cases. I had the EF 16-35/2.8 II, swapped it for the 16-35/4 IS since <1% of my shots with the former were wider than f/4. A fast (-er than f/2.8) UWA lens would be useful for astro, but for me a prime would be fine for that.

OTOH, for me a 70-150/2 would be a great lens. That would give me the choice of covering 24-300/2.8 or 28-150/2 with two lenses.

Canon RF 85mm f/1.2 vs. Canon RF 70-150mm f/2, which one is better?

I think these are good combo:
Canon RF 85mm f/1.2
Canon RF 35mm f/1.2
Canon RF 16-28mm f/2

 

[kaihp]

OTOH, for me a 70-150/2 would be a great lens. That would give me the choice of covering 24-300/2.8 or 28-150/2 with two lenses.

Sorry, I must be missing something.

You have the 100-300/2.8, so how are you going to cover the 24-300/2.8 and 28-150/2 with two lenses?

Oh. 28-70/2 + 70-150/2 *or* 24-105/2.8 + 100-300/2.8

Got it. I thought you were going to cover both options with the same two lenses

 

[neuroanatomist]

Canon RF 85mm f/1.2 vs. Canon RF 70-150mm f/2, which one is better?

Personally, I'd choose the 70-150/2.

I had both the EF 85/1.2 II and EF 85/1.4, the latter being only slightly slower but delivering better IQ (at the cost of not looking 'dreamy'), and with the two lenses combined ~50% of my shots were between f/1.8-2.5, with <15% at f/1.6 or wider. I also had the EF 135/2, and ~60% of my shots were at f/2 or f/2.2.

For me, the 28-70/2 replaces multiple wide and normal f/1.2-1.4 primes. Similarly, a 70-150/2 would replace the 85 and 135 with a lens offering much more flexibility.

 

[DhlcadR6]

For you, perhaps. Personally, an f/4 UWA zoom is fine for my use cases. I had the EF 16-35/2.8 II, swapped it for the 16-35/4 IS since <1% of my shots with the former were wider than f/4. A fast (-er than f/2.8) UWA lens would be useful for astro, but for me a prime would be fine for that.

OTOH, for me a 70-150/2 would be a great lens. That would give me the choice of covering 24-300/2.8 or 28-150/2 with two lenses.

The f2.8 is pretty much unused until in the dark. And RF 14-35L being wider&lighter&smaller is so much more useful than f2.8

 

[Exploreshootshare]

The f2.8 is pretty much unused until in the dark. And RF 14-35L being wider&lighter&smaller is so much more useful than f2.8

I had the F2.8 and sold it because for night sky/ (casual) astro and such I´d like a F2 lens even if it is not 15mm. 20mm would be fine imho. Since I don't need F2.8 I sold it and got the 14-35mm. It is wider, MFD is better and magnification as well. Furthermore, it is lighter, smaller and cheaper. For me, it is a home run lens which I will keep

 

[Del Paso]

I had the F2.8 and sold it because for night sky/ (casual) astro and such I´d like a F2 lens even if it is not 15mm. 20mm would be fine imho. Since I don't need F2.8 I sold it and got the 14-35mm. It is wider, MFD is better and magnification as well. Furthermore, it is lighter, smaller and cheaper. For me, it is a home run lens which I will keep

I still haven't found out which one is sharper, particularly at 35mm setting.Testing them is a bit useless for me, since renting lenses in France is difficult, unless living in Paris. I've seen, read and heard so many contradictory reviews that, for the time being, I'll keep using the EF 16-35 f4. Unfortunately, mine is mediocre at 35mm, so that I usually complement my gear with a 35mm prime. I don't care about weight, max. aperture or price, as long as the zoom is really sharp at f5,6, 35mm.
Help needed!

 

[scyrene]

yes yes all good and a 70-150 f/2L sounds great...

but Canon, where's my 35 f/1.2L?!? Announce it already and put me out of my misery one way or the other!

I was waiting for this!

 

[Del Paso]

yes yes all good and a 70-150 f/2L sounds great...

but Canon, where's my 35 f/1.2L?!? Announce it already and put me out of my misery one way or the other!

Looking at your gear list, I think that many would like to share your "misery"!

 

[roby17269]

Looking at your gear list, I think that many would like to share your "misery"!

Ah well, yes, I cannot complain, can I?
But we're in the first worlders problem area here

 

[roby17269]

I was waiting for this!

I'm nothing if predictable

 

[chasingrealness]

I hope this is something they actually put action into. Literally the only two lenses I want are a 35 f/1.2 and a 70< f/2 zoom so obviously those are the only lenses canon refuses to make.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

Canon RF 16-28mm f/2 is much better zoom lens to have.

That would make a nice trinity.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

Canon RF 85mm f/1.2 vs. Canon RF 70-150mm f/2, which one is better?

I feel that an RF 70-150 f/2 IS would be a lot more expensive

 

[EOS 4 Life]

28-70/2 + 70-150/2 *or* 24-105/2.8 + 100-300/2.8

I would hope the f/2 combo costs a lot less.
Hopefully, it is 28-70/2 + 70-150/2 + 200/2 *or* 24-105/2.8 + 100-300/2.8.
I do understand that the goal is probably a 2 lens combo regardless of cost.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I feel that an RF 70-150 f/2 IS would be a lot more expensive

I don't agree. I'd guess ~$3-3.5K, because Canon. The 28-70/2 and 24-105/2.8 are both $3K lenses, and a 70-150/2 is actually an easier lens to make since it's all telephoto instead of spanning wide to short tele. Consider that the maximum iris diaphragm diameter at 200mm f/2.8 (e.g. the 70-200) translates to 150mm f/2.1. Honestly, Canon would not have to do too much work to make a 70-150/2 based on the 70-200/2.8 (most of that work would be around aberration mitigation, not saying it's easy but it's feasible).

 

[Del Paso]

Ah well, yes, I cannot complain, can I?
But we're in the first worlders problem area here

I understand your misery more than you may think.
I'm so desperate since there's no 50 or 180mm macro coming.

 

[EricN]

I don't agree. I'd guess ~$3-3.5K, because Canon. The 28-70/2 and 24-105/2.8 are both $3K lenses, and a 70-150/2 is actually an easier lens to make since it's all telephoto instead of spanning wide to short tele. Consider that the maximum iris diaphragm diameter at 200mm f/2.8 (e.g. the 70-200) translates to 150mm f/2.1. Honestly, Canon would not have to do too much work to make a 70-150/2 based on the 70-200/2.8 (most of that work would be around aberration mitigation, not saying it's easy but it's feasible).

Those are some interesting points. It is also not much more than a 2x

 

[EricN]

I understand your misery more than you may think.
I'm so desperate since there's no 50 or 180mm macro coming.

no 8-15mm fisheye

 

[kaihp]

Consider that the maximum iris diaphragm diameter at 200mm f/2.8 (e.g. the 70-200) translates to 150mm f/2.1.

This got me thinking about what filter size would be realistic for a 150mm f/2 lens.

The 200mm/2.8 has a filter diameter of 77mm, and with the 200mm/2.8 + 71.4mm lens - leaving a 5.6mm outer ring.

If the 5.57mm is realistic for the 150mm/2 lens, then the filter size would be 80.57mm.

So a standard 82mm filter size would be quite realistic. As I have the 24-70/2.8 Mk II, I already have several filters in that size