I'm one of theseI totally agree. But there are some weird people out there with only one camera body, and if that's an EOS R ..
A pair of 24-70mm f/2.8L IS lenses coming in 2019? [CR2]
- Thread starter Canon Rumors Guy
- Start date
The EOS 11-24 with the drop in filter on an R body is probably a better option than a new 11-24mm R lens. This will allow you to put some really great filter on an otherwise filter restricted lens. I'm waiting for a higher MP R body for my EOS 11-24mm, I think it will be a great tool. Also curious what a circular polarizer would do on such a wide lens.
linear versus circular polarizers - I think this will answer your question.
https://luminous-landscape.com/polarizers/
https://luminous-landscape.com/polarizers/
Doesn't really answer the question at all, unfortunately. Metering and focus on a DLSR are done entirely differently to how they're done on a mirrorless camera.
In any SLR the mirror uses a beam splitter which gets screwed up if you put a linear polarizer in front of it.
My understanding is that on a mirrorless camera a linear polarizer makes no difference to a circular polarizer in terms of focusing and metering capabilities - unless there is other internal wizardry that relies on quirks of light polarization which I'm not aware of.
In which case linear polarizing filters, which can produce a much more dramatic effect, can be used!
Now, in either case, I wouldn't want to use either a linear or circular polarizer with the 11-24 or even the 16-35 at the wide end when there is blue sky or it will ruin your shots 100%.
I almost have a feeling that now when they have "a premium" RF mount they will just release for EF whatever they had for it in testing for years just to justify the development they put into it. I even don't need it to have as good IQ as non-IS version. Just to be a solid premium L performer with solid build, AF and IS and I will go for it. Half of my catalog is taken by 24-70 and with style of my shooting I can't be without IS. I may need to go for 24-105 Mk.II for now because my Tamron is already beaten a lot and I'm not going for 3rd party option again for my main lens.
While I'm impressed by EOS R, I'm not an early adopter and I'm not impressed by battery life of MILC systems. Anything I save on weight of the body I will loose on carrying additional batteries. I would much rather stay with DSLR and EF mount for few more years. If Canon releases 24-70/2.8 L IS, I will most probably buy second 5D4 as well because I will be set for many years to come.
While I'm impressed by EOS R, I'm not an early adopter and I'm not impressed by battery life of MILC systems. Anything I save on weight of the body I will loose on carrying additional batteries. I would much rather stay with DSLR and EF mount for few more years. If Canon releases 24-70/2.8 L IS, I will most probably buy second 5D4 as well because I will be set for many years to come.
You may hope but this seems hardly the case. The RF 24-105 may seem smaller and lighter than EF 24-105 4L IS II BUT it has the same size and weight with EF24-105 4L IS (= the first version).
RF 24-105 is noticably smaller and optically overall a bit better than the current EF 24-105 II. The only comparison that makes sense.
But I would have also hoped for a more significant size reduction.
If you read Canon's white paper you will see that neither is better than the other. In some cases it is better and in some worse (it contains MTF charts). There is no clear winner. Try and search it. You will find it. Also the EF24-105 II is no better than the version I for the same reason. You can find this on many sites (TDP, DxoMark, etc). The only real advantage for me is the better IS (5 stops vs 4 stops for the EF 24-105 II and 3 stops for the older 24-105 L). Nothing else. And 5 stop IS seems that it will be the new norm since Canon included it in the new 400 and 600 big white lenses. Which I welcome of course!
Last edited:
Smaller than the II not the I. And to say overall means nothing. You are just biased towards the R system in order to support your arguments. The RF 24-105 is not better than 24-105 II and not smaller than 24-105 I. All 3 have similar IQ. I would only understand if you had a special need for RF 50 1.2 which really is better than the ancient EF.i've read the white paper and was the first one to link it in this forum.
Overall I prefer the (theoretical MTF chart-based) IQ of RF 24-105 over EF Mk. II. And it is smaller.
Trade in later,lol.If Sony's lenses are any guide, they won't be any smaller or lighter.
Projecting a full frame image circle onto a sensor at a wide aperture takes a lot of glass, that's just how it is. It doesn't matter all that much if you move the lens a little closer or further away from the sensor. Opens up a few more possibilities for lens design, but still...
Also... So now this news comes out the day after I finally got fed up with Canon's lack of IBIS and no stabilized 24-70 2.8 and broke down and ordered a Tamron?
Also, are they really going to make both an EF and an RF 24-70 f2.8 IS? That's a really tough choice to make at this stage in the game, with the options for EF cameras much more rounded out than RF.
I mean I assume the RF lens will be the one that is more relevant further into the future, as I think RF cameras will eventually take over. But right now it seems kind of limiting to by an RF only lens if a similar one comes out in EF and can be used on either EF or RF cameras.
Uh yes, lens IS is better than IBIS. A lens without IS does not have lens IS, now does it?
100%i've read the white paper and was the first one to link it in this forum.
Overall I prefer the (theoretical MTF chart-based) IQ of RF 24-105 over EF Mk. II. And it is smaller.
I'll take every bit of size and weight reduction that I can get. I use 16-50mm for 80-90% of my photo/video. In fact my most common kit with the 5D3 was 16-35mm f/2.8L with 50mm f/1.4 and/or 35mm f/2 IS (sold those, except the 35 f/2 IS, looking for replacements now). Next most common is 85mm, then everything else.
I welcome the size and weight reduction in the wide/normal range. Plus: shoot video looking through the viewfinder, see everything through EVF in low light, see settings in EVF while shooting. The biggest disappointments in EOS-R so far are: No IBIS, weak 4K, and incomplete video tools (zebra, audio levels during record etc). Canon will probably get it right eventually, though I wonder why they omit the video tools in a camera that they say is videocentric.
305g for the RF 35 1.8 vs the 335g for the EF 35 2.0 IS.
Yes serious weight reduction. I can see it. And 3.5mm shorter with same diameter. Wow! I can see that too.
And ONE more time: All 3 24-105 L lenses have about the same IQ and the RF 24-105 has EXACTLY the same size with EF 24-105L f/4 IS (version 1) and weighs 30grams more (=practical the same weight).
Yes serious weight reduction. I can see it. And 3.5mm shorter with same diameter. Wow! I can see that too.
And ONE more time: All 3 24-105 L lenses have about the same IQ and the RF 24-105 has EXACTLY the same size with EF 24-105L f/4 IS (version 1) and weighs 30grams more (=practical the same weight).
Last edited:
It is not! There are many nice-to excellent lenses without IS which would benefit from IBIS. However IBIS is really useful only if it is 100% artifact free in all possible handshake cases. I do not know about its latest implementations but we can always google it.
It's not hard to understand at all. What I said was that lens IS is more effective than IBIS, and then you replied that IBIS is better than lens IS when the lens doesn't have IS. That makes no sense because that is a no IS case. Lens IS + IBIS > Lens IS > IBIS > no IS.
If all the R common zooms are IS (16-35/24-70 and naturally all the telephotos already are), then IBIS is less necessary for a lot of cases. The RF 28-70 doesn't have IS, but it's geared toward even shooters and there subject movement dictates shutter speeds much more than IS. At 3+ lb, I can't see many people using the 28-70 as a general purpose lens -- a RF 24-70 f/2.8 IS makes more sense.