Is a non-L RF 70-200 f/2.8 or similar lens on the horizon?

#2
a FF non L 2.8 70-200 might be interesting to me. I have the original EF f/4 IS version that I don't use a lot. I've looked at 2.8s on the used market thinking the wider apeture would make it more usable. I wonder how the price of a non-L would compare to used prices on the EF vII and vIIIs? A smaller size may make it more desirable even if similarly priced.
 
Upvote 0
#11
GMCPhotographics said:
I've often said that a 35-135mm f2.0 would be a perfect "one and done" portrait lens. I think the Tamron 35-150mm f2.0-2.8 comes very close to this in practical terms.
Click to expand...

I'd like a 24-35 f/1.4 with clicking at 24, 28 and 35.... sort of a tri-elmar. Yeah, never going to happen, plus I whine about cinderblock lenses. Or I'm just inventing new ways to get a 28 1.4L.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
#16
OldDudePhotog said:
Perhaps call me spoiled, but I will probably never buy a non-L lens as I think the L quality is just too superior. This is not a statement made of solid scientific standing, just an opinion.
Click to expand...
I certainly have a strong preference for L lenses. 72% of my FF lenses (10/14 RF, 3/4 EF) have the red ring.

For me, there are use cases where non-L makes more sense. For example, there’s no L version of a lens like the MP-E 65. Mainly, though, I find non-L lenses useful for travel. Except for the 1-5x macro, the non-L lenses I have are the 24-240, 100-400, 24/1.8, and 28/2.8.

I just bought the 24-240, mainly for family trips where I want decent pictures but don’t want to carry multiple lenses and switch between them. I’ll play with it on the R8 for a few days around the house and return it if think I’d prefer to just take the 24-105/4L as a single lens.
 
  • Like
  • Wow
Reactions: 3 users
Upvote 0
#18
SwissFrank said:
Thanks again though for publicizing the Adorama sales on the Sigma. I got one there and I'm a happy user. AF works great despite the adapter.
Click to expand...
I also have the Sigma 28. An RF 28 1.4 would be nice, but I'm happy with the Sigma, and don't really have any need for something else from Canon. I'm also not even slightly interested in the new RF 24 or 35 lenses. 28 is more natural to me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0
#19
neuroanatomist said:
I certainly have a strong preference for L lenses. 72% of my FF lenses (10/14 RF, 3/4 EF) have the red ring.

For me, there are use cases where non-L makes more sense. For example, there’s no L version of a lens like the MP-E 65. Mainly, though, I find non-L lenses useful for travel. Except for the 1-5x macro, the non-L lenses I have are the 24-240, 100-400, 24/1.8, and 28/2.8.

I just bought the 24-240, mainly for family trips where I want decent pictures but don’t want to carry multiple lenses and switch between them. I’ll play with it on the R8 for a few days around the house and return it if think I’d prefer to just take the 24-105/4L as a single lens.
Click to expand...
I'd be interested in your thoughts regarding the 24-240mm. Please let me know what you thought. Cheers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Canon Rumors
Two more lenses coming with the 3 hydrids or soon after
Replies
71
Views
6K
EvilTed
E
Canon Rumors
A new wide angle Z lens is coming after the RF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM Z
Replies
44
Views
4K
Jacob Kelso
J
Canon Rumors
Is the RF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM Z coming in two colours?
Replies
69
Views
7K
neuroanatomist
neuroanatomist
Canon Rumors
Report: The RF 200-500mm f/4L IS USM is delayed until 2025
Replies
46
Views
4K
upallnight
U
Canon Rumors
Ready for the Canon RF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM Z?
Replies
74
Views
9K
EvilTed
E
Top Bottom
Back
Home
Forums
Media
Menu