Sigma RF-S 16-300mm F3.5-6.7 DC OS
- By TexPhoto
- Third Party Lenses
- 3 Replies
It sounds cool, but it's an APS-C lens. So it's equivalent to a 24-450. I'd rather have more wide end than telephoto.
Upvote
0


The RF 85 f/2 is not so great for video.If Canon does come out with the 85mm 1.8 L IS it better be the cheapest L prime in history. I can see it being targeted at video, but with the f2 IS version basically filling that use scenario already, it would be a tough sell to charge much more for some basic weather sealing.
OK thanksI have the Lens Trekker 600 AW II for my EF 600/4 II. I always have the Canon lens cover over the reversed hood, don’t find it to affect the fit (which isn’t tight, IMO, even with the TC, adapter and R1/3).
Thank you for these photos and impressions. I think this lens is perfect for my uses, along with a longer f/2,8 zoom. Expensive, yes, but considering what the two cover I think they are a bargain.Post your shots from the One Zoom to rule all standard zooms, combining the useful focal range of the 24-105/4 with the faster aperture of the 24-70/2.8 and beating both on IQ.
My first impression of the lens is that it's reminiscent of the EF 70-200/2.8 zooms but with a petite hood – not a small lens but pretty easy to handle. It's a little weird seeing open screw holes on a weather sealed lens.
I'm not a fan of the tripod ring, and I wish Canon had made it removable. The tripod foot is easy to remove (which is a good thing), and the mount left behind is not as obtrusive as I thought it would be. The foot extends to the far end of the zoom ring, and that makes the ring harder to use with the foot installed. At least the zoom throw is short. With a lens plate (the RRS L85 fits fine) on the foot it's even worse (hand under the foot is even further from the barrel), so I really hope RRS makes a replacement foot. I've already put in a request, which received the usual 'we are tracking customer demand for this product' response.
I also don't like that there are no 90° detents in the ring rotation; my other lenses with a non-removable tripod ring (RF 100-300/2.8, EF 600/4 II) have those detents, and that makes it easy to position the ring at 0° (landscape) and 90° (portrait) orientations. The ring rotates smoothly, but you need to line up the markings to get it properly oriented.
On my way home from picking up the lens, I stopped by a local cemetery for some initial shots. Below is a selection, reduced for posting but otherwise just with basic processing in DxO.
This is another lens that requires correction of barrel distortion. I did not check, but I'm sure it's 'forced' in camera. The corners are black at 24mm, however the distortion resolves pretty quickly since the black corners are gone by 28mm. DxO PL7 does not have a profile yet, but applying manual barrel distortion correction of +80 takes care of it (but probably not optimally, since the distortion is probably non-linear as is the case for the RF 14-35/4L).
Sharpness is excellent, the bokeh can be a bit nervous with some backgrounds. Nice sunstars thanks to the 11-bladed aperture, lots of flare at f/22 but not at more typical apertures.
"Headstones"
View attachment 213432
EOS R3, RF 24-105mm f/2.8L IS USM Z @ 95mm, 1/800 s, f/2.8, ISO 100
"Flags"
View attachment 213434
EOS R3, RF 24-105mm f/2.8L IS USM Z @ 24mm, 1/15 s, f/22, ISO 200
"Flags corrected" (+80 manual correction of barrel distortion in DxO PL7)
View attachment 213433
EOS R3, RF 24-105mm f/2.8L IS USM Z @ 24mm, 1/15 s, f/22, ISO 200
"Sunstar"
View attachment 213435
EOS R3, RF 24-105mm f/2.8L IS USM Z @ 28mm, 1/80 s, f/22, ISO 1250
"Cannon shot with Canon"
View attachment 213436
EOS R3, RF 24-105mm f/2.8L IS USM Z @ 105mm, 1/200 s, f/4, ISO 100
"Wren" – bonus shot, one of our two kitties with one of our four Christmas trees in the foreground
View attachment 213437
EOS R3, RF 24-105mm f/2.8L IS USM Z @ 105mm, 1/60 s, f/2.8, ISO 6400
Look harder. A preorder page screenshot for the RF versions was posted by @P-visie.Welp, looks like they're going to Nikon Z and Sony, I don't see anything about RF

Obviously. Thus theI was obviously saying Canon had to follow the path they started with the RF 85mm f/1.2 and realease a 35mm f/1.2 instead of the f/1.4.
Ooops, sorry, I answered the wrong post...No! But I’m also not having any trouble with anything - I just wanted to mention the sensor to the op in case they weren’t aware.