So what do y'all think of an RF 135mm making it out this year?
So what do y'all think of an RF 135mm making it out this year?
Yeah, that’s due to its unique rendition qualities.RF 135mm f/1.8 or faster would be a very quick purchase for me. For those who haven’t used the EF version, it’s one of those lenses who’s pictures just have something extra.
There has never been an EF 135mm f1.8, there has been an EF 200 f1.8. and a PE 300mm f1.8 (which is an EF mount with AF), but never a 135mm f1.8 so nobody has used one.RF 135mm f/1.8 or faster would be a very quick purchase for me. For those who haven’t used the EF version, it’s one of those lenses who’s pictures just have something extra.
There has never been an EF 135mm f1.8, there has been an EF 200 f1.8. and an EF 300mm f1.8, but never a 135mm f1.8 so nobody has used one.
"RF 135mm f/1.8 or faster would be a very quick purchase for me. For those who haven’t used the EF version..." Sure sounds like you saying you have used an EF 135mm f1.8, which are we supposed to ignore, the 135mm part, the f1.8 part or the 'you have used' part?I didn't say there was one. Read my post please. Reports and patent publications indicated that the RF version would be f/1.8, and given the number f/1.2 RF primes I think an RF 135mm f/1.8 is realistic.
"RF 135mm f/1.8 or faster would be a very quick purchase for me. For those who haven’t used the EF version..." Sure sounds like you saying you have used an EF 135mm f1.8, which are we supposed to ignore, the 135mm part, the f1.8 part or the 'you have used' part?
I think most people differentiate lenses based in the combination of focal length AND aperture.For those who haven’t used the EF version--which everyone knows has a max aperature of f/2..." [/I]
I think most people differentiate lenses based in the combination of focal length AND aperture.
If you read some one saying how much they love the RF 28-70mm 2.0 because it is so much more unique than the EF version - would that make sense to you? I would not call the EF 28-70mm 2.8 "the EF version". Different aperture = totally different lens.
Yes there is an EF 28-70mm:No, because there is no 28-70mm EF lens.
I'm not trying to change how you express yourself. But you seemed irritated about the way your statement was interpreted and wanted to demonstrate why I feel that interpretation was perfectly valid.We should just leave it at that.
Yes there is an EF 28-70mm:
Canon EF 28-70 mm / 1:2,8 L USM Objektiv: Amazon.de: Kamera
Canon EF 28-70 mm / 1:2, 8 L USM Objektiv auf Amazon.de - Kameras und Zubehör zu günstigen Preisenwww.amazon.de
I'm not trying to change how you express yourself. But you seemed irritated about the way your statement was interpreted and wanted to demonstrate why I feel that interpretation was perfectly valid.
I do wonder what the average R user looks like, and what Canon would like it to look like in the future. We saw a lot of lenses that are crazy fast in patents. It makes sense to push for lenses that were impossible to make at a reasonable size and cost in the EF Mount.the reality is that the RF 135mm lens that ends up being produced, is much more likely to be f/1.8 (which also appears in patents) than f/1.4 because the f/1.8 would be much more accessible to the average R shooter
The average R user looks like me!I do wonder what the average R user looks like, and what Canon would like it to look like in the future. We saw a lot of lenses that are crazy fast in patents. It makes sense to push for lenses that were impossible to make at a reasonable size and cost in the EF Mount.
I do wonder what the average R user looks like, and what Canon would like it to look like in the future. We saw a lot of lenses that are crazy fast in patents. It makes sense to push for lenses that were impossible to make at a reasonable size and cost in the EF Mount.