Sad, sad, sad...Yep, I can totally attest to this.
This is the lens I've been waiting for. But still hoping for a firmware correction...
Upvote
0
Sad, sad, sad...Yep, I can totally attest to this.
The idea of an RF 70-300 L f/2-4 isn't as farfetched as you might think. I would just consider that it may take more effort to "suppress" the sub f/4 apertures at the wider end, than to just include them in the formal specification as a "bonus", as long as the image quality is adequate.
I agree and that is why I think Canon would make the rumored 500 mm DO f4.5 lens. Would be great if they combined it with a built in 1.4x TC.
The Nikon 500 PF is more expensive than the RF 100-500mm, which as I wrote above, I find more useful and just about as sharp. The Sony 200-600mm is good value for money but it weighs 2.4kg, 0.8kg more, which is noticeable, and focusses down to only 2.4m, more than twice that of the RF 100-500mm. The grass may look greener but it isn't.
14 years of EF-S with no L lens. Don’t hold your breath. APS-C is aimed at the consumer market. L-lenses aren’t.
If canon makes F1.0 lens, then hopefully it will come with Drop in filter possibility... Today I used Canon Drop-In Variable ND filter with EF lens , and nowJust bought Laowa 33 mm f 0.95…
I’ll be happy to upgrade, if canon would make the RF-s 33 mm F1.0 L …
Hopefully competition drives canon to make it..
Why should Canon produce specific L APS lenses? For a small market?"That doesn't mean Canon will ever give a lens with an "-S" in the name an "L" in the name as well. They won't."
If Sony provides "G" ( Canon "L" equalent ) for APS-C sensors, then It'll be mater of time, when Canon starts to provide it too. What about Fuji? I am sure they have "L" equalent lens for APS-C. These are 33% to 50% cheaper, right?
One 500mm f/2.8 lens exists, the infamous Sigma 200-500. It's still listed for £15k at various UK retailers. A prime would presumably be smaller/lighter/cheaper to produce, but Canon would surely charge more.Do you have any idea how much a lens with an 180mm front element would cost? That's larger than the the 150mm front element of the 800/5.6.
I don’t mean consumer as in non-professional. I mean consumer as in mass-market. Low cost. The R7 is not aimed at the high end of the market, either.There's not a whole lot of market left for upper tier gear other than the consumer market. That is, enthusiasts/amateurs/weekend warriors with lots of money to spend who aren't being paid much of anything for their work are the primary target of today's and tomorrow's top level gear, including L lenses.
The miniscule number of salaried professional shooters left who have top tier gear provided by their full-time employers are no longer driving product development at any of the camera manufacturers. Most working pros today have to buy their own gear and work freelance for pennies on the dollar compared to what they made 15-20 years ago and earlier. They're buying what used to be called "prosumer" gear because it can get the job done at a much lower cost.
Yeah, there are still a handful of high profile rock stars out there. There are still a handful of "world class" agencies with a much more limited number of full-time staffers compared to the past. But the bread and butter of the professional camera/lens market that provided the bulk of the sales numbers for Canon and others was always print media, including local and state/regional newspapers, national and regional magazines specializing in subjects like sports, outdoors, travel, politics, business, etc. Most of those publications no longer exist. The rare ones that did survive no longer have staff photographers. They pay for stock photo usage from Getty, et al. for $5 each and Getty pays the freelancer half of that.
That doesn't mean Canon will ever give a lens with an "-S" in the name an "L" in the name as well. They won't.
But make no mistake about it. The high end consumer market is what Canon, Nikon, and Sony are banking on to keep them in business. The true professional market doesn't have the number of buyers to do it any more.
True, but fortunately some things do change in time. There never was a F2 zoom, now there is.And, as been said before, in 15 APS years, there's never been a specific APS L lens...
Perhaps you need a calculator. 800/5.6 = 143. You should have used the 600/4 as your example, because 600/4 = 150.Do you have any idea how much a lens with an 180mm front element would cost? That's larger than the the 150mm front element of the 800/5.6.
I am not saying you are wrong in your assessment, and I am not saying you are right. I am saying that you are stating a rambling opinion with no data or research to back this up and it really sounds like unsubstantiated hooey.But make no mistake about it. The high end consumer market is what Canon, Nikon, and Sony are banking on to keep them in business. The true professional market doesn't have the number of buyers to do it any more.
I don’t mean consumer as in non-professional. I mean consumer as in mass-market. Low cost. The R7 is not aimed at the high end of the market, either.
The fact that the R7 is not a high-end camera (mid-level weathersealing, no grip available) is evidence in support of the belief that we will not see crop L-series lenses.
My take would be:
That the 1-1000mm F:1 .. to be so cheap that I can afford it.
And that is something that most people don't seem to realize when they complain about variable aperture lenses. You're setting the aperture on the camera, the camera informs the lens what the aperture should be and the lens is responsible for setting that aperture. The only time that rule doesn't hold is, for example, an f/5-6.3 telephone zoom. If you set the aperture at f/5 on the short end, then zoom to the long end, the aperture will transition to f/6.3. Zooming back to the short end causes the aperture to go back to f/5. What the camera is telling the lens is "wide open". I have three variable aperture lenses: a 28-300 Tamron, 100-400 Canon and a 150-600 Sigma Sport and all behave that way.Isn't that what putting the camera's Av setting to f/4 does?
Perhaps you need a calculator. 800/5.6 = 143. You should have used the 600/4 as your example, because 600/4 = 150.
In fact, the measured diameter of the 600/4 II front element is around 144mm, because the lens is probably something like 593mm f/4.12. Similar rounding occurs for all lenses (it saves Canon money) and thus the front element of the 800/5.6 would be even smaller than that of the 600/4 (however, I don’t personally have one of the former to measure).
@Michael Clark was replying to a post about a 500/2.8. In that reply, he stated that the 800/5.6 has a 150mm front element. That’s incorrect, and I called him out on it. A 500/2.8 lens is not relevant to my reply.I think he was talking about a 500 f/2.8.
So what if it's incorrect? Neuro, you're just an obnoxious bully!@Michael Clark was replying to a post about a 500/2.8. In that reply, he stated that the 800/5.6 has a 150mm front element. That’s incorrect, and I called him out on it. A 500/2.8 lens is not relevant to my reply