The 10-24f4 L would be perfect for my style of shooting (travel-landscapes). This lens, with the 24-105f4 L are basically all I need. Now all I need to see is an R6 body to complete this possible kit.
Upvote
0
The 10-24f4 L would be perfect for my style of shooting (travel-landscapes). This lens, with the 24-105f4 L are basically all I need. Now all I need to see is an R6 body to complete this possible kit.
This was actually a CR2 in January. Sadly it is likely eclipsed by the 100-500. There goes Canon helping me save my money again...
- Canon RF 50mm f/1.8 MACRO IS STM
Can I ask, why too slow? With the good high ISO's and great low light focus ability of new cameras ir it just the DOF of 5 feet at 100 feet distance that bothers you?not pleased with that 100-500, its just way too slow. I have the 100-400II and I'd rather keep that at this point. I'd rather it be a 200-500 5.6, 100-500 5.6, or 200-600 6.3. The other companies are making it, come on canon!
Well, it depends. The closest EF lens that I have to that is a 17-40L. I primarily use polarizing lenses. I do not use polarized filters on lenses generally wider than around 24 mm because of the uneven effect on blue skies.but only if filterable. Agree?
80% of the year here there is no way too shot f7.1 and 1/1000s without skyhigh ISO... then going into the woods and needing 1/2000s to freeze birds and 7.1 is totally useless...Can I ask, why too slow? With the good high ISO's and great low light focus ability of new cameras ir it just the DOF of 5 feet at 100 feet distance that bothers you?
10-24 / 4 would have to be a very large and heavy lens. with large bulbous front element. not an ideal travelling lens in my view.Well, it depends. The closest EF lens that I have to that is a 17-40L. I primarily use polarizing lenses. I do not use polarized filters on lenses generally wider than around 24 mm because of the uneven effect on blue skies.
Not really, the Sigma 14-24/2.8 mirrorless version is only 795g vs DSLR 14-24/2.8 version 1150g (excluding the mount adapter) which, incidentally is almost what the Canon 11-24/4 weighs as well. With the extra 1mm at the wide end, the size and weight reduction should be a little less than 30%, but still very noticeable, mirrorless system have their benefits maximised for wide-angle lens designs.10-24 / 4 would have to be a very large and heavy lens. with large bulbous front element. not an ideal travelling lens in my view.
I guess we will have to wait and see. Canon has shown some tremendous innovation in lenses lately like the size of the RF 70-200f2.8.10-24 / 4 would have to be a very large and heavy lens. with large bulbous front element. not an ideal travelling lens in my view.
Yes! That's a great idea! (doh - it never occurred to me). The bottom line is that you almost always have unused time now and then, so use it to the maximum benefit possible! I don't think it would affect battery drain much, if at all. Any slight battery difference would be negligible when compared with doubling (or greater) the maximum write speed while still (in delayed background) having a safe second copy so the users don't have anything to complain about!With two equal speed card slots, an option to alternate and write to both together with a further option to cross copy with idle time once the buffers are flushed. That'll give you 200% write speed at the expense of higher peak battery drain and a bit more demand on the processor.
It is Canon's attempt to make a decent size, decent cost telephoto zoom. It will be a best seller. For others, there is the 200-400 f4.not pleased with that 100-500, its just way too slow. I have the 100-400II and I'd rather keep that at this point. I'd rather it be a 200-500 5.6, 100-500 5.6, or 200-600 6.3. The other companies are making it, come on canon!
It is Canon's attempt to make a decent size, decent cost telephoto zoom. It will be a best seller. For others, there is the 200-400 f4.
Can I ask, why too slow? With the good high ISO's and great low light focus ability of new cameras ir it just the DOF of 5 feet at 100 feet distance that bothers you?
agreed but don't forget about the bokeh, you'll have to work more to blow the background out as it limits your options. 5.6 for me is already difficult enough with low light evening shooting, you really lose it quite fast even at 5.6. Now to cope with a 7.1 lens? no thanks.Depends where you live, for me in India that lens is useless in forests of western ghats but on grasslands of Deccan plateau and transition zone of two habitats that lens is more than sufficient.