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 ..
Upvote
0
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 ..
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.For most people, myself for example, a series of zoom lenses: 11-24mm, 24-105mm, 100-400mm covers a full range, That might appeal enough to convert to the R series.
linear versus circular polarizers - I think this will answer your question.
https://luminous-landscape.com/polarizers/
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).I hope the RF zooms are substantially smaller and lighter than the EF versions.
I'd rather have an RF 16-35 f/4L than an f/2.8L purely based on size and weight.
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).
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!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.
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.
They would be massive.F2.8L Zoom lenses are just reinventing the wheels and boring.
How about 100-200mm F2 or 135-200mm F2?
Lens IS is not better than IBIS, especially when the lens doesn't have IS, and Canon continues to release lenses without IS. I suspect that Canon is still working on IBIS but have not got it right yet.
IBIS can compensate for rotation, keeping the horizon stable for instance. Lens IS cannot do that.
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.
Uh yes, lens IS is better than IBIS. A lens without IS does not have lens IS, now does it?
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.IBIS gives IS to every lens. Is it really that hard to understand?
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.IBIS gives IS to every lens. Is it really that hard to understand?
Bring an RF 24-70 2.8 IS, add a card slot and I'm IN!