Pics just came out, guess you are buying it.If it is an L lens, I will buy!
Upvote
0
Pics just came out, guess you are buying it.If it is an L lens, I will buy!
Canon chose to update a lens released in 1996 ahead of a lens released in 2015. I'm shocked, I tell you. Simply shocked.There's more urgent dated line-ups to fill thus probably why we haven't seen a native RF 35L version yet.
if it from 6d2...god help them - the camera will get buried on photo sites. That sensor sucks, with the DR equivalent of newspaper. Its rare that photo reviewers say 'you have no flexiblity' with a sensor...especially a full frame one.Is it from old 6D2 or Rp?
Yes, well clearly Canon didn’t need help from anyone to sell plenty of the 6DII. Sensor measurebation doesn’t mean all that much to people outside of forums. We don’t represent the market.if it from 6d2...god help them - the camera will get buried on photo sites. That sensor sucks, with the DR equivalent of newspaper. Its rare that photo reviewers say 'you have no flexiblity' with a sensor...especially a full frame one.
The EF135 was always good for lightweight. 750g instead of 1500+ as the EF 70-200 2.8. If you only pickup body and one lense, the 135 was a good choice.$2100 is a tempting price, but I sold my EF 135L long ago when I realized the 70-200/2.8 II was much more useful to me. I have the RF 70-200/2.8 so I don’t plan to pick up the RF 135L.
EF 135/2 been in my radar for many years but never really had a chance to get it. I have RF 70-200/2.8 and Samyang 85/1.4. I shoot mostly portrait of my daughter/newphew and niece. Do you think EF 135/2 is worth it on top of those 2 lenses?
I think you will find the difference between 135 and the 70-200 at the same focal length to be minimal. 70-200 is more flexible so you can zoom in or out better on the kids.
The only reason I have 135 is because i got it for $460usd and I personally prefer using lighter primes than zooms (the EF 70-200 is 2x the weight). The RF 70-200 is only 25% heavier (with adapter taken into account) so it is a lot better in that sense.
I rotate between 35, 50, 85, and 135 L primes, use just one lens per outing with kids and try to get good compositions given the fov limitations. Keeps gear light, mind sharp, and body active with the foot zooms.
The Canon EOS R5 was released nearly $1000 below the 1DX series flagship with nearly a decade of technology advancements
I don't get why so many people are convinced it can't be the stacked sensor from the R3. Surely once the development of the sensor is done it is cheaper for canon to use it as many times as possible as opposed to developing a new sensor that isn't stacked just for a cheaper camera.
The R6 has an identical sensor to Canon's flagship 1DXiii so using the R3 sensor for the R6ii isn't out of the question and would make the R6ii much more competitive . Once the sensor is developed then the production costs may well be not much higher than FSI non stacked.
Perhaps Canon plan to use BSI stacked sensors on all their mid to high end bodies from now on ?
Why? Because they can sell plenty more $4.5k cameras than they do $6k. People around the interwebs (unrealistically) wishing the R6ii have a stacked sensor shows there's a market appetite for a cheaper stacked sensor camera that's not at $6k. Canon can meet them halfway at the $4.5k price point.
there are tests @ optical limits site - EF 85mm f/1.2 USM L II is not that great @ borders wide open or close to wide open on 21mp sensor ( see how border fare vs center) while RF one does well @ 30mp (the same see how borders fare vs center)
Three.The 35L II has phenomenal sharpness wide open and utilizes BR, one of the only 2 lenses that have it thus far.
Agreed the EF is still a worthy lens, but the lack of weather resistance and IS are significant weaknesses. I imagine the optics will be improved after 26 years, too, so I will be sorely tempted to pick one up.
I only know of the 35 and 85 lenses. The 85 DS does not count as a different lens in my book.Three.
I use the EF 135 regularly. For times when I need zoom now I use the RF 100-400. I used the 70-200 ii but the bulk and weight was getting to me as I do get sporadically active while shooting (ie running and jumping to keep up with kids). Much easier holding onto a small prime or zoom than trying to protect big white.Do you regularly shoot with both the EF 135/2 and the EF 70-200/2.8 II, III or RF 70-200/2.8?
It's different enough that people pay hugely more for it, and theoretically a professional might even own both. They wouldn't do so if it were "the same." It's been listed as a different lens on every Canon lens list I've ever seen, as well. You're welcome to count all RF lenses made as "the same lens" if you want but it doesn't really affect how the rest of the planet counts them.The 85 DS does not count as a different lens in my book.
While your point is extreme, what you are suggesting does in fact happen. New and expensive tech eventually trickles down into consumer products. In cars and in cameras because of the economics of scale. So my point stands. While in this case the sensor obviously did not get used, eventually ALL cameras with ES will have stacked sensors. It is just a matter of timeI don't get why all cars do not have Ferrari V12 engines in them, since Ferrari has already spent the development costs and it would be cheaper for all car companies to just use it instead of spending more money developing new inline 4-cylinder engines with massively fewer parts, massively fewer assembly steps, and significantly lower tolerances.
Well, it was not promoted as having any, and was promoted as an "indoor sports" lens.The EF 135mm f/2 L doesn't totally lack weather resistance, it just has a little less of it than other lenses than have a little more. It's not built like an open truss Newtonian telescope or something. The lens elements, aperture diaphragm, AF motor, etc. are all inside the lens barrel. Neither the front nor rear elements move at all when the focus position is changed. So what if it doesn't have a little rubber ring on the outside of the flange?
Well, it was not promoted as having any, and was promoted as an "indoor sports" lens.
I'm sure you know the weather sealing is not just a rubber ring at the mount. Take the RF 85mm 1.2 for example. The lens elements, aperture diaphragm, AF motor, etc. are all inside the lens barrel, as well. Even with all that, Canon added the rubber ring and seals in many other places to make it weather-resistant (see attached pic). Hopefully the RF 135 will get this same treatment.
The question is, would you feel confident taking your lens out in the rain/snow/dust knowing your lens had no advertised weather sealing?
I was too chicken to use my EF 135 during inclement weather, but will not be so much with the RF version.
View attachment 206518