Which ones? IS stops for AF are better on EF lens on R bodies than on EF bodies? Using the R mount adapters provides even more functionality for EF lenses.Not all of them.
Upvote
0
Which ones? IS stops for AF are better on EF lens on R bodies than on EF bodies? Using the R mount adapters provides even more functionality for EF lenses.Not all of them.
I use my EF100mm macro a lot too (macro and portrait). Besides the adapter (which I can weld on), I don't see the advantage of a RF version. If it was f2 or 2x macro then it would have a benefit over the EF version.
My R5 works flawlessly and to specification since July. Unless Canon comes out with a R5 II with better heat management then I don't see how the first batch is fauty
The biggest experts are always the ones who don't own (or never owned) what they are talking about.It's kinda funny: the R5 seems to be faulty only for those who don't use it!
I wish Canon would come out with an R5II so I could grab the original R5 at a discount.
The only lens that should be relatively simple but not in the list is a 40mm/2.8 pancake. It should truly be small, light and preferably cheap.... perfect for street photography.
Adding an adapter to the EF version doubles the size and cost of it.
Along the same line, I'm looking forward to Canon speeding up distribution of the RS 100-700L so everyone can sell their EF 100-400L lls and I can upgrade my version 1. I'm not a very early adopter...I wish Canon would come out with an R5II so I could grab the original R5 at a discount.
They can't kill it off. The worst they could do is not add to it. You will have what you have. I find it ironic that I'm waiting for a fast wide prime in the RF as well as the EF-M line. I do a lot of waiting...wish canon would AT LEAST address the ef-m line... I wanted to invest in more ef-m lenses but I'm scared that they're gonna kill it off soon
You wish. Canon was able to manage 3.09kg 600/4.0L IIIPlastic lens elements?
I wonder what the weight/cost ratio would be? $2k/kg?You wish. Canon was able to manage 3.09kg 600/4.0L III
I would not be surprised if they can do a 1200/8.0L at less than 3kg.
I think the #1 selling point for moving from EF to RF is the weight reduction.
I keep wondering where people are seeing all this weight reduction. In a couple of lenses, yes.... otherwise, no way.You wish. Canon was able to manage 3.09kg 600/4.0L III
I would not be surprised if they can do a 1200/8.0L at less than 3kg.
I think the #1 selling point for moving from EF to RF is the weight reduction.
They would've been designated as the TS-RF lenses, I suppose?Autofocus tilt shifts are expected, I couldn't imagine Canon making a new mount and not thinking about how to make these possible and MF is a bit wonky for the new toys. [...]
Not true!The biggest experts are always the ones who don't own (or never owned) what they are talking about.
...It would take something strong from Canon to give me a reason to change it for an RF version.
I see dead people.Not true!
I already know that the planned 1200mm f8 won't be a sharp lens, and have lots of AF issues.
This is called second sight, which I share with rontele7 !
That’s what happened with the last 1200mm lens. Though it was an f/5.6 L, only around 20 are known to have existed, and only 3 have been sold on the used market in the last 30 years, each for well over $100,000. The last going for $180,000. CNN owns 1, NatGeo has at least 2 & ESPN 1 (giving Disney 3), discovery has 2. I think only 4 of them are in private hands. Canon kept 2 for themselves. The FBI is rumored to have one.