Well I don't need to worry about the price, I can't afford it anyway! The 200 f/1.8 and f/2 were dream lenses for me, but I never got to try them.
Upvote
0
Patent Application: The Zoom You’ve Dreamt About: 70-150mm F2.0
- Thread starter Richard CR
- Start date
"The Zoom You’ve Dreamt About" in my case is just a 24-105/4 with better and better quality. The current one seems as good as the EF24-105/4 MkII, and I think it is good. I'd just like yet better and would pay a lot more yet for one with good enough images.
Upvote
0
it looks more reasonable to have the 70-140mm zoom cause it covers a little larger on the range.In this patent application (2024-154138), Canon hits the ground running on some downright jaw-dropping lovely zooms. Will we see any? I hope so, but I'm sure someone out there will complain about them being too expensive and too heavy. Going by the embodiments, these will be both.
Patent Application: The Zoom You’ve Dreamt About: Canon RF 70-150mm f/2L IS USM
In this patent application (2024-154138), Canon hits the ground running on some downright jaw-dropping lovely zooms. Will we see any? I hope so, but I’m sure someone out there will complain about them…www.canonrumors.com
Upvote
0
Another site is reporting a variation they describe as a 70-150 f/1.8. The exact specs look like 72-146 @ f/1.89.
I'm not a portrait guy, but wouldn't that be an awesome single lens solution for wedding/senior pictures photographers? As someone else mentioned, pair that with the 28-70 f/2 and you'd be about done, wouldn't you?
I'm not a portrait guy, but wouldn't that be an awesome single lens solution for wedding/senior pictures photographers? As someone else mentioned, pair that with the 28-70 f/2 and you'd be about done, wouldn't you?
Upvote
0
For me the upcoming 70-200 mm f2.8 Z lens that is compatible with TCs is the better option. I once did own the 28-70 mm f2, but found the lens too heavy for all day use. Don't get me wrong the 28-70 mm f2 is an amazing lens, it was just too much lens for me. I much prefer the current f1.4 VCM lenses.
Upvote
0
dennishensphoto
Wedding & Family Photographer based in Belgium
I'm dreaming about an R9 body, similar to the A7C from Sony, perfect to take on holidays.
Thinking about full frame R8 sensor with the same AF, no IBIS, no articulating screen, potentially even no viewfinder would be ok for me or a small one on the side like the Sony.
Any news on something like this being on the horizon?
Thinking about full frame R8 sensor with the same AF, no IBIS, no articulating screen, potentially even no viewfinder would be ok for me or a small one on the side like the Sony.
Any news on something like this being on the horizon?
Upvote
0
The one contra-indicator I really see on a 70-150/2 is that I've never seen a zoom out-spec primes. With the exception of the 200/1.8 "Eye of Sauron," there's never been a prime that I know of, (or if I'm wrong, at least in the EF/RF lines) with that size aperture.
Talk is free so I allow my my biannual recitation of halo lenses I'd like to see from Canon:
135/1.0DS. This would have perfectly round highlights out to the corners at f/1.4, and have a apodization filter cutting transmission to f/2 that turns those round highlights into spheres. So, in practice it wouldn't be overkill. 135/2 is definitely usable. You'd also be able to use it at f/1.4 if you want circles, and the full f/1.0 would have football-shaped highlights in the corners as most lenses do. Using it with the DS filter would create the best portrait photos and cinema in the history of mankind, though, and give images that you could recognize even in thumbnails. That image there--I know the lens. Physically it'd "only" need a 135mm aperture, not dissimilar to a Canon 400/2.8, 600/4, 800/5.6, or Nikon's rara avis 300/2. It's not crazy. In mass production it'd only need to be a $15k lens, but production might be more limited, and it might only be available for ownership or rental "by invitation" from Canon.
50/0.7. It's not a hard lens format to do. Kubrik had several of them, originally designed by Carl Zeiss for NASA, and used them shooting Barry Lyndon. I mean, the Zeiss design is off patent, you could literally use that, though I'm sure you could do far, far, far better too. https://celluloidpopculturejunkie.wordpress.com/tag/zeiss-50mm-f0-7-lens/
35/0.95. Others make 35/1.0 and Canon has had periods where it always slightly out-spec'd the competition. The spec specifically echoes the S 50/0.95 from 1961, of their old Canon 7 rangefinder system. https://www.flickr.com/photos/leicarumors/albums/72157712877553957/ https://global.canon/en/c-museum/product/s43.html
Talk is free so I allow my my biannual recitation of halo lenses I'd like to see from Canon:
135/1.0DS. This would have perfectly round highlights out to the corners at f/1.4, and have a apodization filter cutting transmission to f/2 that turns those round highlights into spheres. So, in practice it wouldn't be overkill. 135/2 is definitely usable. You'd also be able to use it at f/1.4 if you want circles, and the full f/1.0 would have football-shaped highlights in the corners as most lenses do. Using it with the DS filter would create the best portrait photos and cinema in the history of mankind, though, and give images that you could recognize even in thumbnails. That image there--I know the lens. Physically it'd "only" need a 135mm aperture, not dissimilar to a Canon 400/2.8, 600/4, 800/5.6, or Nikon's rara avis 300/2. It's not crazy. In mass production it'd only need to be a $15k lens, but production might be more limited, and it might only be available for ownership or rental "by invitation" from Canon.
50/0.7. It's not a hard lens format to do. Kubrik had several of them, originally designed by Carl Zeiss for NASA, and used them shooting Barry Lyndon. I mean, the Zeiss design is off patent, you could literally use that, though I'm sure you could do far, far, far better too. https://celluloidpopculturejunkie.wordpress.com/tag/zeiss-50mm-f0-7-lens/
35/0.95. Others make 35/1.0 and Canon has had periods where it always slightly out-spec'd the competition. The spec specifically echoes the S 50/0.95 from 1961, of their old Canon 7 rangefinder system. https://www.flickr.com/photos/leicarumors/albums/72157712877553957/ https://global.canon/en/c-museum/product/s43.html
Upvote
0
Not sure what you mean. There have been lots of primes and zooms with physical apertures larger than 75mm (150/2), not just the 200/1.8. Also, the 135/1.8 has a 75mm iris diaphragm.
Upvote
0
My wish is to have your bank account, such a zoom will cost a fortune.
Upvote
0
Or a tack-sharp 24-105 f/4.
The current one didn't convince me. It was good, but less than I expected.
The f/2,8 version is a bit too bulky to be taken everywhere. An excellent zoom for those needing f/2,8 often, not my case.
The current one didn't convince me. It was good, but less than I expected.
The f/2,8 version is a bit too bulky to be taken everywhere. An excellent zoom for those needing f/2,8 often, not my case.
Upvote
0
I'd rather have a RF 85-135mm f/2L IS USM instead.
The shorter zoom range would allow for a lighter and smaller body as well as built-in IS. And the 85-135mm range is basically a 85mm, 105mm and 135mm primes; it's perfect. No need for the 70-85mm or 135-150mm ranges imho.
Heck, I would be plenty happy if the lens only had 3 selectable fixed focal length (85mm, 105mm and 135mm) if that would allow for a more compact body and/or better IQ.
The shorter zoom range would allow for a lighter and smaller body as well as built-in IS. And the 85-135mm range is basically a 85mm, 105mm and 135mm primes; it's perfect. No need for the 70-85mm or 135-150mm ranges imho.
Heck, I would be plenty happy if the lens only had 3 selectable fixed focal length (85mm, 105mm and 135mm) if that would allow for a more compact body and/or better IQ.
Upvote
0
