RF 28/2.8 STM optical formula : it's a WoW!

[Sittatunga]

The Associated Press is doing camera lens previews now?

Oh. Amateur Photographer. ;-) I've never visited that site before.

I thought this was a photography forum. Never mind, I'm still wondering what chains have to do with football. (Different thread)

 

[sportyaccordy]

They should have made this up to the standard of the 24/35. Especially given how nicely 28mm lines up for EF-S. An extra stop of light would have been nice.

 

[thunder storm]

They should have made this up to the standard of the 24/35. Especially given how nicely 28mm lines up for EF-S. An extra stop of light would have been nice.

I think this pancake might have it's charms, especially if it will have a low distortion.

RF 28mm f/1.8 IS stm would be nice as well. But an internally focusing RF 50mm f/1.4 USM L is more important.

And for crop sensors a bright crop specific lens is the best solution anyway. Crop specific, as that's the best way to keep it both bright and compact. A full frame lens on a crop sensor is always a waste of glass.

 

[drsnoopy]

They should have made this up to the standard of the 24/35. Especially given how nicely 28mm lines up for EF-S. An extra stop of light would have been nice.

 

[LennyLevino]

I’m curious to find out how it stacks up against the 26mm f2.8 Nikon pancake. This one will cost almost half of what the Nikon costs.

 

[sportyaccordy]

They should have made this up to the standard of the 24/35. Especially given how nicely 28mm lines up for EF-S. An extra stop of light would have been nice.

Then it wouldn’t be a pancake …

Does the difference in size between this and say the 35 1.8 really make that big of a difference? IME not really.

 

[Sittatunga]

They should have made this up to the standard of the 24/35. Especially given how nicely 28mm lines up for EF-S. An extra stop of light would have been nice.

Then it wouldn’t be a pancake …

Does the difference in size between this and say the 35 1.8 really make that big of a difference? IME not really.

It's less than half the size of the 24mm and 35mm lenses. You might not see the point of a pancake lens, but some people really like them and this focal length could be the one that works equally well on both FF and APS-C.

 

[phenix jc]

I’m curious to find out how it stacks up against the 26mm f2.8 Nikon pancake. This one will cost almost half of what the Nikon costs.

Precisely.

And you may think to the imaginative new market of affordable Chinese lens too...The RF mount being locked anyways.

At least we see here an innovative optical design by Canon.

 

[thunder storm]

They should have made this up to the standard of the 24/35. Especially given how nicely 28mm lines up for EF-S. An extra stop of light would have been nice.

Then it wouldn’t be a pancake …

Does the difference in size between this and say the 35 1.8 really make that big of a difference? IME not really.

It's less than half the size of the 24mm and 35mm lenses. You might not see the point of a pancake lens, but some people really like them and this focal length could be the one that works equally well on both FF and APS-C.

Compared to the ef-m 22mm f/2.0 it's quite a compromise.

 

[Aoi Usagi]

Too bad that I can't read Japanese, and the figure caption is an image rather than text (equivalent).

It says that the green colored elements are made from PMo (plastic molded aspherical elements.

I wonder if that includes a glass windows, to avoid exposing a plastic element? (Maybe not. A scratch resistant coating may be more than sufficient.)

Its probably has scratch resistant as modern eye glasses, which should be sufficiently strong for normal use.

 

[Sittatunga]

They should have made this up to the standard of the 24/35. Especially given how nicely 28mm lines up for EF-S. An extra stop of light would have been nice.

Then it wouldn’t be a pancake …

Does the difference in size between this and say the 35 1.8 really make that big of a difference? IME not really.

It's less than half the size of the 24mm and 35mm lenses. You might not see the point of a pancake lens, but some people really like them and this focal length could be the one that works equally well on both FF and APS-C.

Compared to the ef-m 22mm f/2.0 it's quite a compromise.

Pretty good compromise considering that it will cover FF, which the 22mm f/2 can't even if you could fit it onto a full frame camera. The EF-M lens is less than 2mm shorter, 15g lighter and it's effectively ⅓stop slower with 10° less angle of view than the 28mm on full-frame.

 

[thunder storm]

They should have made this up to the standard of the 24/35. Especially given how nicely 28mm lines up for EF-S. An extra stop of light would have been nice.

Then it wouldn’t be a pancake …

Does the difference in size between this and say the 35 1.8 really make that big of a difference? IME not really.

It's less than half the size of the 24mm and 35mm lenses. You might not see the point of a pancake lens, but some people really like them and this focal length could be the one that works equally well on both FF and APS-C.

Compared to the ef-m 22mm f/2.0 it's quite a compromise.

Pretty good compromise considering that it will cover FF, which the 22mm f/2 can't even if you could fit it onto a full frame camera. The EF-M lens is less than 2mm shorter, 15g lighter and it's effectively ⅓stop slower with 10° less angle of view than the 28mm on full-frame.

That's only true if you've forked out the bucks for a full frame body next to your aps-c body. If you're just comparing available pancakes for crop RF bodies vs M bodies the 22mm f/2.0 stm wins hands down, especially when not forgetting about the diameter.

On a full frame body the RF 28mm is better, no doubt. Used RP's are the R100 killers for customers thinking ahead a bit. There are too many other customers I guess.

 

[Sittatunga]

That's only true if you've forked out the bucks for a full frame body next to your aps-c body. If you're just comparing available pancakes for crop RF bodies vs M bodies the 22mm f/2.0 stm wins hands down, especially when not forgetting about the diameter.

I've had the full-frame body for 4½ years, it's the RF-S body I've not forked out for as the only one I fancy is too big and expensive to replace my herd of EOS M cameras. I've had the 22mm for 6 years or so, but I usually use the 11-22mm instead unless I need to stop motion in low light.

On a full frame body the RF 28mm is better, no doubt. Used RP's are the R100 killers for customers thinking ahead a bit. There are too many other customers I guess.

--

 

[m100]

They should have made this up to the standard of the 24/35. Especially given how nicely 28mm lines up for EF-S. An extra stop of light would have been nice.

Then it wouldn’t be a pancake …

Does the difference in size between this and say the 35 1.8 really make that big of a difference? IME not really.

It's less than half the size of the 24mm and 35mm lenses. You might not see the point of a pancake lens, but some people really like them and this focal length could be the one that works equally well on both FF and APS-C.

Compared to the ef-m 22mm f/2.0 it's quite a compromise.

Pretty good compromise considering that it will cover FF, which the 22mm f/2 can't even if you could fit it onto a full frame camera. The EF-M lens is less than 2mm shorter, 15g lighter and it's effectively ⅓stop slower with 10° less angle of view than the 28mm on full-frame.

That's only true if you've forked out the bucks for a full frame body next to your aps-c body. If you're just comparing available pancakes for crop RF bodies vs M bodies the 22mm f/2.0 stm wins hands down, especially when not forgetting about the diameter.

On a full frame body the RF 28mm is better, no doubt. Used RP's are the R100 killers for customers thinking ahead a bit. There are too many other customers I guess.

Some of the modern lens designs that need a lot of digital corrections make my camera run hotter and run the battery down faster ?

 

[thunder storm]

They should have made this up to the standard of the 24/35. Especially given how nicely 28mm lines up for EF-S. An extra stop of light would have been nice.

Then it wouldn’t be a pancake …

Does the difference in size between this and say the 35 1.8 really make that big of a difference? IME not really.

It's less than half the size of the 24mm and 35mm lenses. You might not see the point of a pancake lens, but some people really like them and this focal length could be the one that works equally well on both FF and APS-C.

Compared to the ef-m 22mm f/2.0 it's quite a compromise.

Pretty good compromise considering that it will cover FF, which the 22mm f/2 can't even if you could fit it onto a full frame camera. The EF-M lens is less than 2mm shorter, 15g lighter and it's effectively ⅓stop slower with 10° less angle of view than the 28mm on full-frame.

That's only true if you've forked out the bucks for a full frame body next to your aps-c body. If you're just comparing available pancakes for crop RF bodies vs M bodies the 22mm f/2.0 stm wins hands down, especially when not forgetting about the diameter.

On a full frame body the RF 28mm is better, no doubt. Used RP's are the R100 killers for customers thinking ahead a bit. There are too many other customers I guess.

Some of the modern lens designs that need a lot of digital corrections make my camera run hotter and run the battery down faster ?

You're asking me, but it has to be true and significant enough to be an argument. Maybe you can l find out yourself?

 

[m100]

They should have made this up to the standard of the 24/35. Especially given how nicely 28mm lines up for EF-S. An extra stop of light would have been nice.

Then it wouldn’t be a pancake …

Does the difference in size between this and say the 35 1.8 really make that big of a difference? IME not really.

It's less than half the size of the 24mm and 35mm lenses. You might not see the point of a pancake lens, but some people really like them and this focal length could be the one that works equally well on both FF and APS-C.

Compared to the ef-m 22mm f/2.0 it's quite a compromise.

Pretty good compromise considering that it will cover FF, which the 22mm f/2 can't even if you could fit it onto a full frame camera. The EF-M lens is less than 2mm shorter, 15g lighter and it's effectively ⅓stop slower with 10° less angle of view than the 28mm on full-frame.

That's only true if you've forked out the bucks for a full frame body next to your aps-c body. If you're just comparing available pancakes for crop RF bodies vs M bodies the 22mm f/2.0 stm wins hands down, especially when not forgetting about the diameter.

On a full frame body the RF 28mm is better, no doubt. Used RP's are the R100 killers for customers thinking ahead a bit. There are too many other customers I guess.

Some of the modern lens designs that need a lot of digital corrections make my camera run hotter and run the battery down faster ?

You're asking me, but it has to be true and significant enough to be an argument. Maybe you can l find out yourself?

I saw the temp warning bar come on when doing focus stacking with a RF 16mm.

Camera was warm too.

Can do it for hours with an adapted EF-S 24mm and not see that.

Need to try 4K tests and see.

 

[thunder storm]

That's only true if you've forked out the bucks for a full frame body next to your aps-c body. If you're just comparing available pancakes for crop RF bodies vs M bodies the 22mm f/2.0 stm wins hands down, especially when not forgetting about the diameter.

I've had the full-frame body for 4½ years, it's the RF-S body I've not forked out for as the only one I fancy is too big and expensive to replace my herd of EOS M cameras.

If the bodies aren't satisfying, don't even get us started about the lenses.

Whatever. The RF 28mm does fit some aps-c bodies, true. 45mm f/4.5 equivalent. Not wide enough for scape, not bright enough for portraits, and not stabilized on the affordable and compact bodies, made "compact" by cramming the glass elements into the too big mount.

I've had the 22mm for 6 years or so, but I usually use the 11-22mm instead unless I need to stop motion in low light.

On a full frame body the RF 28mm is better, no doubt. Used RP's are the R100 killers for customers thinking ahead a bit. There are too many other customers I guess.

 

[thunder storm]

They should have made this up to the standard of the 24/35. Especially given how nicely 28mm lines up for EF-S. An extra stop of light would have been nice.

Then it wouldn’t be a pancake …

Does the difference in size between this and say the 35 1.8 really make that big of a difference? IME not really.

It's less than half the size of the 24mm and 35mm lenses. You might not see the point of a pancake lens, but some people really like them and this focal length could be the one that works equally well on both FF and APS-C.

Compared to the ef-m 22mm f/2.0 it's quite a compromise.

Pretty good compromise considering that it will cover FF, which the 22mm f/2 can't even if you could fit it onto a full frame camera. The EF-M lens is less than 2mm shorter, 15g lighter and it's effectively ⅓stop slower with 10° less angle of view than the 28mm on full-frame.

That's only true if you've forked out the bucks for a full frame body next to your aps-c body. If you're just comparing available pancakes for crop RF bodies vs M bodies the 22mm f/2.0 stm wins hands down, especially when not forgetting about the diameter.

On a full frame body the RF 28mm is better, no doubt. Used RP's are the R100 killers for customers thinking ahead a bit. There are too many other customers I guess.

Some of the modern lens designs that need a lot of digital corrections make my camera run hotter and run the battery down faster ?

You're asking me, but it has to be true and significant enough to be an argument. Maybe you can l find out yourself?

I saw the temp warning bar come on when doing focus stacking with a RF 16mm.

Camera was warm too.

Can do it for hours with an adapted EF-S 24mm and not see that.

I see your point. Interesting.

I'm really interested to see how much distortion the RF 28mm will have.

It's a matter of GAS for me though. I really don't need this lens. But it looks fun.

It will hit the market too late for summer holidays, so that helps to treat my wallet friendly and gentle.

Need to try 4K tests and see.

 

[sportyaccordy]

They should have made this up to the standard of the 24/35. Especially given how nicely 28mm lines up for EF-S. An extra stop of light would have been nice.

Then it wouldn’t be a pancake …

Does the difference in size between this and say the 35 1.8 really make that big of a difference? IME not really.

It's less than half the size of the 24mm and 35mm lenses. You might not see the point of a pancake lens, but some people really like them and this focal length could be the one that works equally well on both FF and APS-C.

I guess we will see. Optically this seems superior to the EF 28/1.8, but it's a downgrade in many other important ways (USM -> STM, 2.8 -> 1.8, cheaper construction etc). Much of the consumer RF glass made some compromise vs their respective EF equivalents, often at a higher price.

 

[KLO82]

I'm really interested to see how much distortion the RF 28mm will have.

This lens is unusable without digital distortion correction. You can not switch off in-camera distortion correction while using this lens.