Michael Clark said:

Some did, others not so much.

Click to expand...

The same is true for RF lenses. The EF 11-24/4 has over 4 stops of vignetting. That’s a bit more than the RF 10-20/4.

ctk said:

RF on a budget = you should have an EF-RF adapter in your bag anyway.

Click to expand...

I run an R3 and and R6, each with a control ring adapter. Check my sig for the EF lenses and accessories. I can state that I enjoy remarkable success with all of them. RF has an advantage in terms of AF speed for USM -variety and VCM lenses, from my limited testing, and in some cases there's a sharpness edge, but nothing I'd pay $1000+ extra for unless my mortgage depended on the outcome. Turn on DLO for sooc improvements (I use max DLO, but the fastest things I shoot are sprinting deer and galloping horses). Especially for Macro I really appreciate the manual focus with the EF lenses as it stays put and can't be damaged when the camera sleeps, gets turned off, undergoes a battery swap, etc. If you're on the fence it's worth hauling your camera to the local store and testing both EF and RF equivalents. Stuff like the 100mm macro should still be in good supply around the place, and right now Canon / vendors tend to run early summer specials.

AJ said:

That decision is looming for me as well. I have a 20-year-old Tamron 90/2.8 Di macro that is dying. I love this lens dearly but the focus ring is becoming very stiff and the AF motor is struggling to move it. My requirements for a new lens: good AF, stabilization, 1:1 magnification.

For me, the RF 100 is beyond my budget.

For me the contenders are:

EF 100/2.8 L. These are readily available on the used market for a reasonable price. Has hybrid IS. However, the adapter is needed. One the one hand the adapter is not a big deal, but on the other hand it'd be nice to go without.

RF 85/2 plus something like a NiSi dual-element close-up filter. The 85/2 alone does 2:1 which is sufficient most of the time, and if I want to get closer then I could add the front filter. Like the EF 100 is is not an all-in-one solution and involves messing around with accessories.

Click to expand...

RF on a budget = you should have an EF-RF adapter in your bag anyway.

snapshot said:

i keep wishing i had a compelling reason to buy a 200 F/2. the problem i see with constant aperture zooms is how big the front element is, and how such are large front element should deliver an even wider aperture for the wide angle end of the zoom range. if you buy a 70-200 F/2 and shoot a bunch at 100 you might have been better off with a 100 F/1.4.

Click to expand...

The diameter of the front element is only directly relevant if the entrance pupil is roughly the same size as the front element and the lens' angle of view is fairly narrow, which is usually the case for most telephoto lenses. But as you zoom out to wider focal lengths, the entrance pupil gets smaller because magnification between the physical aperture diaphragm and the front of the lens is reduced. Fast wide angle lenses need large front elements so that all or most of the entrance pupil is visible from the entire field of view of the lens. If the entire entrance pupil is not visible from the extreme edges of the field of view, then vignetting results in peripheral light falloff and the edges and corners are darker than the center of the image.

Ozarker said:

There are so many bogus quotes with photos of respected people floating around. People see the photo, read the quote, and say, "It must be true. His picture is right there." The quotes can even be accurate, but a meme doesn't have context. Context means everything.

Click to expand...

neuroanatomist said:

Yeah, because EF lenses never had 3-4 stops of vignetting.

Click to expand...

Some did, others not so much.

Bob Howland said:

What other focal lengths would be appropriate for this architecture? Does anybody care to make a guess?

Click to expand...

I think that anything in the 14 to 70mm range with a constant aperture would be popular. The 20-50 is going to be a hit at f4.

I had the R50v with the RF-S 14-30 and while the focal length worked well, The f6.3 aperture at 30 mm wasn't helpful in dimly lit or low light situations. The camera was remarkably light and from a portability standpoint, a great vacation camera. It struggled in the evening and indoors, even if you bumped ISO. I knew this going in and was curious, so it served its intended purpose.

At some point I could opt for the R6v because of the lenses I own. It's a harder sell for me because I have the R5 C. If I did more gimbal work though, I'd get it. The power zoom feature is nice but not mandatory. I think a lot of people purchasing the 20-50 are not going to buy it for the PZ feature. Many will already have a body without a zoom rocker in mind.

It's also possible that Canon won't release another PZ lens for the R6v.

AJ said:

RF 85/2 plus something like a NiSi dual-element close-up filter. The 85/2 alone does 2:1 which is sufficient most of the time, and if I want to get closer then I could add the front filter. Like the EF 100 is is not an all-in-one solution and involves messing around with accessories.

Click to expand...

Users of the RF 85mm have mentioned the slow AF of the RF 85mm.

sanj said:

This lens is wonderfully designed/featured for video.

Click to expand...

What other focal lengths would be appropriate for this architecture? Does anybody care to make a guess?

The new compact camera's absolutely need to have raw instead of only jpeg, but we are end of june now why is canon so quiet?
Come one canon give us some news about the new compact camera's

I love my RF 45mm f/1.2 and a similar RF 80mm f/1.2 would be great as I like that focal length/aperture but I'm reluctant to buy the RF 85mm L f/1.2 as it costs nearly $5K NZD and I'd much rather spend say $1200 NZD on a smaller, lighter version and put the money left over towards a 2nd R5ii body