On August 28.08.2019, 15, the Canon Lens RF 35-2.8mm FXNUMX L IS USM full-frame lens was introduced.
Canon Lens RF 15-35mm F2.8 L IS USM
Basic properties
- For Canon EOS Full Frame Mirrorless Cameras with RF Mount
- Relative aperture: 1: 2.8-1: 22 over the entire range of focal lengths
- Focal Length: 15-35 mm
- MDF: 0.28 m
- Maximum magnification ratio 1: 3.33
- 5 steps integrated image stabilizer
- Optical design: 16 elements in 12 groups, including 3 aspherical elements and 2 low dispersion elements
- Enlightenment Air Sphere Coating
- The front lens has an extra protective coating
- Number of aperture blades: 9 pieces
- Focus with Nano USM with FTM
- Filter Diameter: 82 mm
- Additional control ring that is programmable
- Protected enclosure
- Weight: 840
- Price: about 2.300 dollars, current prices here
Appearance
An accurate and complete list of all Canon RF lenses:
Fixes:
- Canon Lens RF 5.2 mm F2.8 L DUAL FISHEYE [October 2021, The Amazon | BH Photo]
- Canon Lens RF 16 mm F2.8 STM [September 2021, The Amazon | BH Photo]
- Canon Lens RF 35 mm F1.8 MACRO IS STM [September 2018, The Amazon | BH Photo]
- Canon Lens RF 50 mm F1.8 STM [November 2020, The Amazon | BH Photo]
- Canon Lens RF 50 mm F1.2 L USM [September 2018, The Amazon | BH Photo]
- Canon Lens RF 85 mm F1.2 L USM [May 2019, The Amazon | BH Photo]
- Canon Lens RF 85 mm F1.2 L USM DS (DEFOCUS SMOOTHING) [October 2019, The Amazon | BH Photo]
- Canon Lens RF 85 mm F2 MACRO IS STM [July 2020, The Amazon | BH Photo]
- Canon Lens RF 100 mm F2.8 L MACRO IS USM SA CONTROL [April 2021, The Amazon | BH Photo]
- Canon Lens RF 400 mm F2.8 L IS USM [April 2021, The Amazon | BH Photo]
- Canon Lens RF 600 mm F11 IS STM [July 2020, The Amazon | BH Photo]
- Canon Lens RF 600 mm F4 L IS USM [April 2021, The Amazon | BH Photo]
- Canon Lens RF 800 mm F11 IS STM [July 2020, The Amazon | BH Photo]
- Canon Lens RF 800 mm F8 L IS USM [February 2022, The Amazon | BH Photo]
- Canon Lens RF 1200 mm F11 L IS USM [February 2022, The Amazon | BH Photo]
Zuma:
- Canon Lens RF 14-35mm F4 L IS USM [June 2021, The Amazon | BH Photo]
- Canon Lens RF 15-35mm F2.8 L IS USM [August 2019, The Amazon | BH Photo]
- Canon Lens RF 24-70mm F2.8 L IS USM [August 2019, The Amazon | BH Photo]
- Canon Lens RF 24-105mm F4 L IS USM [September 2018, The Amazon | BH Photo]
- Canon Lens RF 24-105mm F4-7.1 IS STM [February 2020, The Amazon | BH Photo]
- Canon Lens RF 24-240mm F4-6.3 IS USM [July 2019, The Amazon | BH Photo]
- Canon Lens RF 28-70mm F2 L USM [September 2018, The Amazon | BH Photo]
- Canon Lens RF 70-200mm F4 L IS USM [November 2020, The Amazon | BH Photo]
- Canon Lens RF 70-200mm F2.8 L IS USM [October 2019, The Amazon | BH Photo]
- Canon Lens RF 100-400mm F5.6-8 IS USM [September 2021, The Amazon | BH Photo]
- Canon Lens RF 100-500mm F4.5-7.1 L IS USM [July 2020, The Amazon | BH Photo]
XNUMXrd Party Autofocus Full Frame Canon RF Mount Lenses
List of all mirrorless cameras with Canon RF mount
- Canon EOS [September 2018, The Amazon | BH Photo]
- Canon EOS Ra [November 2019, The Amazon | BH Photo]
- Canon EOSRP [February 2019, The Amazon | BH Photo]
- Canon EOS-R3 [April 2021, The Amazon | BH Photo]
- Canon EOS-R5 [July 2020, The Amazon | BH Photo]
- Canon EOS R5C [January 2022, The Amazon | BH Photo]
- Canon EOS-R6 [July 2020, The Amazon | BH Photo]
Material prepared Arkady Shapoval... Look for me on Youtube | Facebook | Instagram | Twitter.
Well, not bad, what can I say. 2.8 with stub, 2.0 without stub, brilliant indicators at 1.2, potential stabilization of the matrix. In terms of technology, Canon has something to show.
So far, Canon has something to show in optics, but it is an absolutely non-competitive camera with one slot, without Ibis, inferior to competitors in rate of fire, DD, ISO, video capabilities.
Well, of course, the wedding is then bombed on 2 slots.
What is the meaning of such a gun per kilogram? Of course, mirrorless do not only for compactness, but still. If you take the middle one, portrait one, and you get the same huge rucksack.
While the matrix is 35mm, the bulkiness of the backpack will not change)
Nobody bothers with professional lenses. And mirrorless ones also have classes, for some compactness does not play any role, as an example, Olympus OM-D E-M1X
A fast full-frame zoom cannot be small. And then there's the stub. If it's hard-expensive - there is a native 17-40 / 4L. If it's too expensive - there are 10-18 per crop with some Canon 100D-200D-250D or EOS M. For their price you can take them right away with a camera.
In general, the correct idea came across several times. What Canon is doing now is a benchmark for them for ten years. Well, in work, including in the secondary housing, there will be another twenty or thirty years.
What is the point of sculpting cheap, simple analogues if you can put EF / EF-S through an adapter with full functionality?
They write that the RF mount with some kind of ghostly enhanced functionality. Touching the future, so to speak. But in general, I agree.
A telescopic adapter, a kind of advanced macro ring, would have been washed down. I would have done in their place (and for that I would have been kicked out of Canon). This is how I dream ...
The main thing is that it is fully backward compatible with EF. And super-lenses will wait for their super-cameras. 50 / 1.0L was produced for 13 years and can still please owners of DSLRs. Well, he, by virtue of exceptionality, is perhaps too expensive on the secondary, but there are a bunch of still film, but frankly inexpensive solutions.
What is it like? Russia doesn’t seem to put on ef in any way, just the opposite
This is what is called "backward compatibility". :)
What is the difference between a mirror and a mirrorless? Why abandoned the prism in favor of electronics, which has its drawbacks in the form of lags and electricity consumption? It is incomprehensible! At the dawn of the BZK, they sang about compactness, and now it seems not to be important. What is the point then?
This is marketing, it was necessary to sell. A sane person did not believe in these fables before, because comparisons even then showed all inconsistency. The only thing that can become more compact is the width due to the shorter segment, but first you need to come up with a matrix that will adequately perceive the rays at an angle. Then the rejection of retrofocus schemes is possible.
Yes, I agree. Only now the user suffers from all this - it is inconvenient, expensive, or something else. I have a park of good manual optics for unhurried shooting, but for more than one month I can't choose. A7 is expensive, but I want a ff matrix and the fact that you don't need to cut these glasses on the bzk.
A7 like the cheapest ff
You will somehow decide whether you love the UPC or not. If I ask myself a question - why is the UPC, I do not want to buy it.
As if I have one main argument against so far - battery life. The rest - the price, the lack of a park of optics, the high cost of native optics - is already secondary. Conveniences, especially in the presence of a chamber stub, are essential.
The point is not so much in marketing, but in the obviousness that the mirror and prism, originally invented for the film, on the digital is a rudiment, atavism and will die out sooner or later. An autofocus rangefinder could be an alternative to a mirror, but it has the same disadvantages as a mirror (front-back focus, a lot of mechanics). So mirrorless is the most promising and logical direction. And gluttony and slow autofocus are fixable, if you purposefully work in this direction, instead of endless coughing of an essentially defective mechanism. It would be if, instead of bringing to mind the internal combustion engine, the designers were engaged in endless "napilling" of steam engines, boilers for them, fuel for them, alloys for them - and all this for a couple of percent efficiency. The mirror reached its peak as piston fighters towards the end of WWII. And after the war, everyone thrashed at them in unison, started developing reactive ones, despite their natural shortcomings - gluttony, fire hazard, etc. We see the result.
Plus
The mirror has long been creating more breakdown than good. Finally, it became apparent to the kenikons. I think that for some time similar whistle-blowers bz and zk with identical sensors will spank, then the zk will leave with the exception of a couple of reports.
Well, yes, the rudiment. Only while the BZK do not have any special advantages, therefore marketing. When all this is untwisted, then I think yes, there will be obvious advantages.
Let's listen to the head of the transport department. Is he in the hall?
Indeed, I would like to finally know what advantages the BZK has?
Do not offer a working segment, this is not an advantage yet.
There are advantages, but they are likely to not be to your taste. Some of them can be found in the section 'Advantages of EVI' here.
Those. firstly, the voracity and problematic AF of the BZK in its importance and necessity cannot even be compared with a bunch of mechanics, a prism, a mirror, front / back focus, etc.
Secondly, I personally have never had problems with heaps of mechanics. The camera still needs to be periodically cleaned, there all the heaps are checked and replaced, if that.
Thirdly, not a single UPC has even come close to the mirrors in the report. None of them can instantly turn on and aim at the target. In any conditions and in any light. EVI is not needed here at all, we do not even take it into account. Even if they come up with an instant response, like an JVI.
But then again, this is a report. About everything else, of course, you can discuss the benefits of the UPC, if any.
took popcorn, waiting for the development of events as one will sing the Beatles, the other will sing a rhapsody from the Freddy and then they will violently argue who is fake, the Beatles or the Freddy.
With compact non-professional lenses, the BZK turns into a trinket for a few bucks. Maybe in Europe and the states this is not money.
Conversations air shake, well, who really in Ukraine will buy this lens?
Here people are collecting money with difficulty for old rubbish.
Well, maybe I'll buy it, in five to seven years. She's not going anywhere by then. These lenses reflect the trends in optical design. This is a high-aperture shirik with a stub, already almost super-wide - “lower” is only a fish-eye or an expensive 11-24 / 4L - some four millimeters.
Mark 4 after a couple of years has a maximum of ten people. Kenon er ka - there are even fewer owners, I really know only one in kiev.
Even fewer people buy expensive glasses from 2000 dollars, and most importantly, the new system from kenon is simply no one so far without a hint of a breakthrough or at least reach the level of competitors. At the same time, she lost the signature color of kenon, look at what slag is laid out by woodlands and others in the photo ru.
The question arises - who will buy it and how many copies will be sold in Ukraine? What to discuss?
I agree completely. D800 on the secondary, for example, is full, but how much will be 850? I think very little