Search results

How soon before drone footage of the Mona Lisa? Cameras getting it from all sides.... smart phones, and now super high quality drones.

Taking a few lenses to Hawaii in January. Any suggestions if going in checked baggage? (Image stabilization, etc.) Thanks... :))

I'm looking for a multi-purpose "L" quality zoom to replace my iPhone. I currently use my 24-240 for walking around sightseeing, putting in the bike on long bike rides, but it is not weatherproof. Image quality good, but not magical. If they were to build such a lens (similar to the old EF...

So the new 24-105... One stop faster than the f/4. IQ probably about the same (both good). Slightly better bokeh, slightly better low light and high speed (usually fairly easily compensated by ISO change). But, much bigger, heavier, more obvious for walking around, and, of course, considerably...

Close, but possibly no cigar, (unless it has much better optics than the 24-104 f/4). Now, if it was an RF 24-240 2.8 "L" I'd buy two of them, and ditch my iPhone for walking around, day trips, and vacay / sightseeing (with the occasional Shutterstock worthy photo in the mix). :cry:

Which, I think, means that it is even slower than the RF100-500, since you have to stop down for sharpness, plus the 2X teleconverter already slows it down 2 f stops just by itself. I've got an EF 300 2.8 and an EF 600 plus 1.4 and 2X teleconverters. I might sell my EF 300 2.8 and 600 primes for...

Called it. RF100-500 FTW. To be as sharp, the 100-300 needs to be stopped down 2-3 stops, which, of course largely negates the f2.8 advantage. Canon- please bring out an RF 24-240 "L" lens for walking around. If you do, people, who now walk around with the iPhone, will go back to walking...

It'll be interesting to see if the 100-300 2.8 is as sharp as the 100-500. Some people say that the 100-500 is sharper than the Canon primes at comparable focal lengths. That's pretty amazing, if true. It'll be interesting to see if that big ass front element on the 100-300 softens the focus...

I have the 24-105 L and the 24-240 "not L". And, since most of the time my photos have a subject somewhere towards the center 2/3rd of the frame, and the outer 1/3rd is bokeh anyway, I end up using the 24-240 almost always (when choosing between the two). (But at this point, I mostly use my...

Thanks for posting that article. After studying it, it appears to me that adding an RF 1.4 extender on an R5 body (that I already own 2 of) for less than $500 will give me almost identical IQ as adding a new R7 that costs $1400. Of course one is also getting an extra body, so less lens swapping...

I could afford this lens if I could justify it. But, as much as I'd love to, I really kind of can't. Yes, it's considerably faster than my RF 100-500. Yes, it is considerably longer reach than my RF 70-200 2.8. Yes, it is more versatile than my EF 300 2.8. But is costs almost as much as all...

A Canon RF 24-240mm f/4 L. Or, even a Canon RF 24-240mm f/2.8 L! If it was great in the middle 2/3rd of the frame, I would absolutely wear that sucker out. I get tired of changing big heavy $2000+ lens on the fly, a process that need 3 hands, when I only have 2 hands.

Seems like a waste of money. In the example where he used the extension tube to focus on the droplet, the focus point was a millimeter or two behind where it was with the macro lens. This may explain the tiny difference on the droplet? Otherwise, extension tube is essentially the equivalent in...

RF doesn't need the adaptor. Sigma does. Resale / future-proof goes to the Canon.

I had a 35-350 also. Sold it, because it was a big, heavy push-pull and everybody always crapped on it. But I later regretted it. It is a lot harder to change lenses now that the lens diameter (RF 85 f1.2 and/or 28-70 f2!!!) is so much larger and they are so heavy. Also, at $2500-$3300, dropping...

Based on my surprisingly good results the RF 24-240, I'd have to say that a world-class (the best humanly possible given the 10x range) weather-sealed, coated-lens f/2.8 - 5.6 "L" glass RF 24-240 would be an absolutely enormous success. The problem for Canon is, it would probably cannibalize...

I have extension tubes for my EF lenses. And, I just bought an RF 100 f/2.8 macro. But, I'm wondering why? I already have many lenses with focal length 100 mm. For macro purposes, what is the benefit of a $1000 lens vs. $150 extension tubes attached to a 50mm good prime?

If they made a weather-sealed "L"-glass quality of this lens (in f/2.8-5.6?), it would be the most amazing lens on the market. Just imho.

It does fall off noticeably. But most of my photos have a subject that is at or nearer the center of the frame, and everything else is expected (planned) to be out of focus anyway. So, with that in mind, yes, I am quite satisfied. Especially for a walking around lens that I bought (like new)...

IT WASN'T. Not even close... I bought every other lens first, available thinking that, "My R5 walk around lens is my iPhone Pro Max". So, I bought a 24-240 last, just so I could use the same editing software, and half out of curiosity. And I was pleasantly surprised. And I mean "almost shocked"...