Is something like the RF 70-150mm f/2L USM actually coming?

[West Coast Birder]

Some random speculation about a possible RF 70-150 F/2 lens, based on a patent application. Now, that would complement (why do people have trouble with this world and throw in "compliment" everywhere?) the RF 28-70 F/2. It will, if realized be a portrait photographer's dream, probably.

Anyway, here are some random musing on the topic, courtesy of CR.

Is something like the RF 70-150mm f/2L USM actually coming?

Recently Richard broke down a patent application that showed an RF 70-150mm f/2L USM optical design, one that may would consider a dream lens. Now, back in J

www.canonrumors.com

 

[Joeseph]

how big/heavy is this going to be - any guesses?

 

[West Coast Birder]

how big/heavy is this going to be - any guesses?

Good question! The RF 28-70 F/2 weighs 1430 g (3.15 lb). Any F/2 lens with a 70-150mm range has to be north of that. Yikes. Maybe it comes with a 1 year gym subscription included in the price!

 

[pcs]

Some random speculation about a possible RF 70-150 F/2 lens, based on a patent application. Now, that would complement (why do people have trouble with this world and throw in "compliment" everywhere?) the RF 28-70 F/2. It will, if realized be a portrait photographer's dream, probably.

Anyway, here are some random musing on the topic, courtesy of CR.

Is something like the RF 70-150mm f/2L USM actually coming?

Recently Richard broke down a patent application that showed an RF 70-150mm f/2L USM optical design, one that may would consider a dream lens. Now, back in J

www.canonrumors.com

(Auto correct? Or difficulty distinguishing between them, like word~ world?)
Besides being very big/heavy(although I find the 28-70 quite manageable) I think a 70-200 already complements it nicely.

 

[paddler4]

The RF 28-70 F/2 weighs 1430 g (3.15 lb). Any F/2 lens with a 70-150mm range has to be north of that.

Indeed. That's one reason I mostly use f/4 lenses. I still use my EF 70-200 L f/4 II, which weighs 880 g after you add the EF->RF adapter. (The other reason is the much lower cost.) If I did studio portrait work or some other type of photography where the shallower DOF would be useful, I would consider some f/2.8 or faster. However, for my purposes, it makes a lot more sense to boost ISO a stop or two when f/4 isn't fast enough. Different strokes.

 

[MakisM1]

One would need a Sherpa!....

 

[paddler4]

One would need a Sherpa!....

Mine quit.

 

[West Coast Birder]

Mine quit.

Maybe the burro market will make a comeback! Buy a lens, get a 10% off coupon for a nice burro!

 

[Mike_d]

Indeed. That's one reason I mostly use f/4 lenses. I still use my EF 70-200 L f/4 II, which weighs 880 g after you add the EF->RF adapter. (The other reason is the much lower cost.) If I did studio portrait work or some other type of photography where the shallower DOF would be useful, I would consider some f/2.8 or faster. However, for my purposes, it makes a lot more sense to boost ISO a stop or two when f/4 isn't fast enough. Different strokes.

For studio portrait work with shallow DOF, you'd probably be just as well off with a couple of fast primes. 2.8 zooms really earn their keep in situations where you can't control the environment and need to run and gun, like weddings, events, and sports.

 

[Scott M]

Maybe the burro market will make a comeback! Buy a lens, get a 10% off coupon for a nice burro!

But then I would have to buy a bigger camera bag in order to fit the burro.

 

[Nick5]

Fraternity pledges…… certainly not “hazing”