They seem to be going with more than one trinity.correction: upcoming RF Trinity are F2.8 zoom lenses. as per announcement and these are not huge. F2.0 zooms are a specialty lenses.
Upvote
0
They seem to be going with more than one trinity.correction: upcoming RF Trinity are F2.8 zoom lenses. as per announcement and these are not huge. F2.0 zooms are a specialty lenses.
I would expect three.They seem to be going with more than one trinity.
The R + 24-70/2 is a bit bulkier, and it's 400 g heavier than the 5DIV + 24-70/2.8 II. The lenses alone have a weight difference 625 g, i.e. the RF 24-70/2 weighs 75% more than the EF 24-70/2.8. If that delta holds true for the rest of the trinity (and it won’t, it will be much worse for the 70/200/2 teiezoom which will be larger than the EF 200/2), the f/2 RF zoom set will weigh 2.3 kg more than the EF 2.8 trinity, meaning the package with the body will be 2 kg heavier. That's not 'relatively the same weight', that means carrying around the R and the RF f/2 trinity is like carrying around the 5DIV and EF 2.8 trinity plus a standard brick. I'm not saying adding the weight of a brick (literally) to your kit for an extra stop of light isn't worth it, but claiming that adding the weight of a brick results in a 'relatively the same weight package' is ludicrous.Plus the total package with these f2 zooms is relatively the same weight and size package as a DSLR and 2.8 trinity. Why is this not being praised? Does anyone appreciate the accomplishment here?
See my response above. Go to a camera shop and put them side by side and shoot with them.The R + 24-70/2 is a bit bulkier, and it's 400 g heavier than the 5DIV + 24-70/2.8 II. The lenses alone have a weight difference 625 g, i.e. the RF 24-70/2 weighs 75% more than the EF 24-70/2.8. If that delta holds true for the rest of the trinity (and it won’t, it will be much worse for the 70/200/2 teiezoom which will be larger than the EF 200/2), the f/2 RF zoom set will weigh 2.3 kg more than the EF 2.8 trinity, meaning the package with the body will be 2 kg heavier. That's not 'relatively the same weight', that means carrying around the R and the RF f/2 trinity is like carrying around the 5DIV and EF 2.8 trinity plus a standard brick. I'm not saying adding the weight of a brick (literally) to your kit for an extra stop of light isn't worth it, but claiming that adding the weight of a brick results in a 'relatively the same weight package' is ludicrous.
And real estate......
Perhaps you need a more realistic perspective on the R + 28-70/2 being 0.5" shorter...preferably one based on facts. Hint: the thickness measurements of camera bodies are at maximal dimension, you cannot just add the the body depth and lens length or subtract the 23 mm of shorter RF flange from the lens length to arrive at the lens-mounted dimension (well, apparently you can...but doing so is, for lack of a better word...ludicrous).This might put some proper perspective on size and weight.
5D IV + 24-70 f2.8 = 1,725g
R + 28-70 f2.0 = 2,135g and .5” shorter
Going to a camera store and comparing them is evidently something you haven't done, or else you would not have incorrectly stated the relative sizes.See my response above. Your expectations are the only thing ludicrous here and expecting an f2 zoom to be the size and weight of a 2.8 zoom. Go to a camera shop and put them side by side and shoot with them.
Oh, I see. So when you stated, "Plus the total package with these f2 zooms is relatively the same weight and size package as a DSLR and 2.8 trinity," to which '2.8 trinity’ were you referring? Some random collection of three lenses you made up in your head? When used in the context of Canon lenses, the '2.8 trinity' clearly refers to 16-35/24-70/70-200. So if you refer to 'these f/2 zooms' and '2.8 trinity' in the same sentence, you are the one proposing an RF 70-200/2, and any discussion about a lens that will probably never exist began with you.That’s also quite a leap to start talking about a 70-200 f2 that will probably never exist to try and exaggerate a point.
I routinely carry my 600/4L IS II, and shoot it handleld. I have no doubt that the 600 II is heavier (and more more expensive) than a ≤200mm RF f/2 zoom. Not that I was complaining (about lenses, that is...I always object when people mangle facts as you are doing).If the lens is too heavy for you, don’t buy one haha. No need to complain about something you’ll never buy.
I’m referring to the working dimensions when zoomed out.
So in one case you’re referring to the ‘working dimensions when zoomed out,’ but in the other you’re not? Nothing like moving the goalposts, ‘eh?R + 28-70 f2.0 = 2,135g and .5” shorter
R + RF 70-200 f2.8 IS = ????g but way shorter
As I already stated, you mentioned ‘these f2 zooms’ (plural), comparing them to the ‘2.8 trinity for DSLR’ in the same sentence. If you can’t grasp that you’re proposing an RF 70-200/2, you need to have your metacognition tested.I’ve never proposed a 70-200 f2. I’d like to see where you got that quote from.
You’re right about the 70-200. It wasn’t an intentional moving of goals posts. I’ll correct it for a more logical and linear comparison.So in one case you’re referring to the ‘working dimensions when zoomed out,’ but in the other you’re not? Nothing like moving the goalposts, ‘eh?
I see you edited your post to add the bit that the 70-200 ‘probably will telescope’, but there’s no probably about it – it’s an extending zoom (unless maybe you believe Canon put a zoom lock switch on a fixed zoom lens?). Based on the patent, the RF 70-200 is longer than the EF version, and the combined body + lens length is the same as the EF version on a DSLR.
This discussion is going nowhere. You’re making false statements and re-interpreting your own posts, you should just quit while you’re behind.
Very true. And I do have it since last JulyThere is already a 14mm 1.8f from Sigma !
Sorry, but clearly you don’t know how to measure cameras and lenses...or you do know how but just suck at it.Yes I know how camera bodies are measured.
I find you very condescending to assume that I believe there’s going to be a 70-200 f2 and I don’t know how cameras are measured.
5D IV + 24-70 f2.8 = 1,725g
R + 28-70 f2.0 = 2,135g and .5” shorter
The second set of pictures assumes they’re mounted in the same location of the body. I don’t own an R and instead bought RP for non work related shoots and to get familiar with my RF lenses until a pro comes out.Sorry, but clearly you don’t know how to measure cameras and lenses...or you do know how but just suck at it.
First, understand that the R + RF 28-70/2 is physically longer than the 5DIV + EF 24-70/2.8 II with the lenses retracted. Then look at the TDP measurements (Bryan does know how to measure things), showing that at full extension the RF 28-70/2 is 0.66” longer than the EF 24-70/2.8 II. Now explain how a longer body + retracted lens combo with a lens that’s longer at ‘working dimensions when zoomed out’ results in a combination that’s 0.5” shorter, according to you.
Let's make it even simpler. First, look at the following two pictures:
View attachment 185379
View attachment 185380
Then, look at your previous statement:
So which is it? Do you really not know how to measure cameras? Or do you just suck at it?
As I said, you should have quit while you were behind. Instead, you doubled down...and have succeded in making yourself appear even more foolish. I have found that people can always manage to reveal further depths of incompetance, so you're welcome to keep going...but I really don't advise it.
This trinity is probably going to tip the scale at somewhere north of 10lbs... that's pretty dam heavy if you are actually carrying it as a regular part of your kit. Add in the "Pro" body and it might become rather unpleasant rather quickly.
I thought the promise of mirrorless was smaller, faster, higher quality glass?
First like I said above, the lenses aren’t mounted the same on DSLR vs R or RP and this is all slightly relative. But here’s the absolute, RP and R lens mount is closer to the sensor and deeper into the grip about an inch. Probably less so on the R.First, understand that the R + RF 28-70/2 is physically longer than the 5DIV + EF 24-70/2.8 II with the lenses retracted. Then look at the TDP measurements (Bryan does know how to measure things), showing that at full extension the RF 28-70/2 is 0.66” longer than the EF 24-70/2.8 II. Now explain how a longer body + retracted lens combo with a lens that’s longer at ‘working dimensions when zoomed out’ results in a combination that’s 0.5” shorter, according to you.