Search results

24mm would exponentially drive the size and weight i think. certainly if they did, it wouldn't weigh less. either way the 28-70 is still meh optically. it's not really all that sharp wide open, unless your subject is highly centralized. a zoom is still a zoom, especially as wide as standard...

How about the new Canon APS-C sensor being used on RF-S but in a retro fixed lens package? The reason to jam the sensor back is so you can use the frontal area behind the mount for lens optics. This is how the Fujifilm X100V accomplishes such a fast lens inside a pancake profile. Half of the...

It's extremely clear that if Canon intends to be the mirrorless leader, they absolutely need a cropped RF-mount. (OG EF-M user here since launch day of the original M) Fun system, but it was really a half-assed experiment were Canon was testing the waters more or less when mirrorless crop was...

Eh I'm guessing you don't know how these tests work, but they're often low-moderate frequency tests as well as these #s are wide open. It's a bit misleading to compare a super fast prime vs. a zoom. When it comes to high-frequency resolution such as MTF50, especially periphery at optimum...

Yeah not really interested in generic vanilla people/youtubers opinions, particularly those with vanilla followers/fans. He's obviously clickbait/amazon link farming so take it with a grain of salt. No doubt it's a good lens for sure, but there's other considerations like size and weight. I'm no...

Easily and fully without EVF. I've been hammering that for years. This is what I want and need to bring me back to RF. I like the size of the RP but I still think it's unnecessarily big, particularly due to the EVF which I rarely used. Why use a .75" screen when you can use a 3.5"+ screen? EVFs...

As I've been saying for years, I would absolutely love a full frame version of the inexpensive Canon M6. No need for a 1960s EVF--no real person needs that in 2021, providing a decent screen is available. This would easily cut costs down. Canon PLEASE make this as TINY as possible. If you can...

To be honest $1699 was my first thought... then I backspaced and went nahhh... that can't be. Look at the Nikon Z 14-30... so then I went.. yeah it'll be $1399. $1699 is heavy but I think as per usual, the price will go down a couple hundred after a few months. This is the early adopter price...

I wouldn't have minded a 17-40 remake, especially if they can make it super light and small, no IS etc. i'd buy that in a heartbeat. of course it would have to be cheaper. the 17-40 got many, including myself, into L lenses well over a decade ago. Got my first 17-40 in 2006. it was so exotic...

This could make me come back to R. 14-35 F4, RF 35 Macro, 70-200 F4 (RF) would be the ultimate setup. case closed, done, never buy another lens in my lifetime type setup. Need bokeh? 200mm @ F4. Done. Landscape and low light--done. I'm guessing this lens will be $1399 as the Nikon version...

An RP replacement under $700 would definitely have me buy back into the Canon R system. I sold my entire kit some time ago. I would love a full frame M6 basically. No EVF, bigger battery, smaller than RP. But if it's RP-sized and has an EVF, I'll still get it. But I think to get the cost down...

Theoretically, especially for large lenses, I think Canon could take three routes at RF-ing their EF big white lenses: 1) Minor optical tweak to correct for flange distance and new plastic composite casing to modernize the body with RF aesthetics, as well as AF algorithm and/or motor tweak...

Yeah I am not really referring to amount of bokeh, but mostly quality of bokeh. I'm past the thin DOF bandwagon already. I just don't want harsh looking stuff. I understand it's an F4 zoom and it won't be winning any awards, but as long as it's not bad or distracting, I can live with it. My...

Yeah both RF 70-200s don't take TCs. Their rear elements are seated flush with the rear mount. So they physically won't mount. The RF TCs is only good with the 100-500 and the 600/800 F11 lenses. So if you get an RF 70-200 in either 2.8 or F4 variety, you better be ok being limited to those...

Still contemplating the RF 70-200 F4L. The small form factor and white hood are very tempting. I'm hesitant, however, for the following reasons: 1) IQ. I saw a youtube review video online showing this lens to have weak 70mm performance wide open in the corners. 200mm looked good. I want to...

I really want one but I own the EF 70-200 F4 Version 2 already... so this better be good. I'm skeptical for the following reasons: 1) IQ. I saw a youtube review video online showing this lens to have weak 70mm performance wide open in the corners. I want to see more IQ tests. 2) IQ-2. I've...

EOS RP + 70-200 F4L Version II.

Some of my favorite and most grand photos have come from a 70-200 F4. They're so much fun and so versatile and so high quality (only the Canon versions) I own the EF 70-200 F4L V2 (version II) and I'm seriously debating ordering the RF version. I know only I can decide yada yada... but what do...

You'd likely lose inifinity focus even if you could create a 2, 3, 4, 5+mm adapter. You could always just free lense it for fun. I've done all sorts of frankenstein freelensing. I "mounted" my Fuji glass up to the Canon RF flange. Some of Fuji's lenses project so large, that it covers the...

Released Dec 3. It was actually difficult to find. buy it from where you want but Adorama was going to charge me $8 to ship. https://amzn.to/388sP88