Totally off topic, but you… look very different from what my mental image has been.
I had the exact same thought
Upvote
0
Totally off topic, but you… look very different from what my mental image has been.
I'm one of those day/night landscape shooters and my solution so far has been two lenses. I too want that filter thread, but no way does that come on a 14-28 f/2. If I buy the R5, the very next thing I buy will likely be the 15-35 f/2.8.I dunno. Filtering UWA is a big deal for me and around 14-15mm the filter ring tends to disappear -- fine for astro but problematic for other groups of shooters. They could pull a Nikkor Z 14-30 f/4 and put a step up frame around the front element and keep a filter ring, I guess, but at f/2 one imagines that lens would be 11-24L big and heavy.
Also, with fast UWA lenses, you tend to have a choice of a front filter ring OR manageable vignetting. The last two 16ish-35 mm f/2.8 lenses Canon produced were hall of fame vignetters presumably because Canon didn't want a more bulbous (and filter problematic) front element.
To me, and perhaps I have this wrong, but UWA + fast usually ends in sadness for one of the various camps of shooters -- daylight landscapers, astro folks and sports folks. Since the front-filtering crowd was supported with the 15-35, perhaps the 14-28 f/2 would just give up on that and go all mega-bulbous and delight the astro folks.
- A
Nah. I sold the EF 135mm to get into the R system. With all I loved about it, the CA is one thing I don't miss. I'll never buy Sigma.$800 or so and you and your lost love could be reunited. Canon refurbs sell out quickly, but they are out there occasionally.
Also, now that mirrorless unlocks the MF assist door, the Sigma 135 f/1.8 Art is supposed to split atoms if you don't mind 3rd party.
- A
The 135L doesn't sell well because:
Only the last bullet point may be true on RF. If they made one -- I'm no champion of wanting this, I'm just saying -- it would either have IS, be faster than f/2 or both.
- It's 24 years old and what was once famously sharp is no longer
- It does not have IS
- It's only a stop faster than a 70-200 2.8
- Canon's 70-200 2.8s are pretty damn legendary
Just consider an exotic tele prime that Canon might offer. Mitakon pulled off a limited run 135 f/1.4 for Sony, Nikon still makes the 105 f/1.4 for F mount, and Canon's 200 f/2L IS (and f/1.8L before it) is pretty damn sweet even if it does cost a mint:
I think there's *a* prime lens in a 100-200 range there in RF's future. Why not the 135?
- A
True, but you may not want to split atoms with a portrait lens. Every skin pore becomes visible.$800 or so and you and your lost love could be reunited. Canon refurbs sell out quickly, but they are out there occasionally.
Also, now that mirrorless unlocks the MF assist door, the Sigma 135 f/1.8 Art is supposed to split atoms if you don't mind 3rd party.
- A
Anyway, I am a big fan of non-IS lenses since IS costs one stop (most of my work is low light).
This is very true about the pores. Thanks to Private By Design's (PBD) reigniting and encouraging my interest in learning PS techniques I have learned how to fix that issue (and a couple of others) with a simple PS action. The man deserves a medal.True, but you may not want to split atoms with a portrait lens. Every skin pore becomes visible.
With that said the 16-35 f/4L IS is an amazing value. It may not be your coma wonder or low light beast but it is a great all rounder wide zoom with negligible vignetting and fantastic color/contrast. I use it with a 100mm filter system and it's a champ. I would hope Canon does something like it for RF one day.I dunno. Filtering UWA is a big deal for me and around 14-15mm the filter ring tends to disappear -- fine for astro but problematic for other groups of shooters. They could pull a Nikkor Z 14-30 f/4 and put a step up frame around the front element and keep a filter ring, I guess, but at f/2 one imagines that lens would be 11-24L big and heavy.
Also, with fast UWA lenses, you tend to have a choice of a front filter ring OR manageable vignetting. The last two 16ish-35 mm f/2.8 lenses Canon produced were hall of fame vignetters presumably because Canon didn't want a more bulbous (and filter problematic) front element.
To me, and perhaps I have this wrong, but UWA + fast usually ends in sadness for one of the various camps of shooters -- daylight landscapers, astro folks and sports folks. Since the front-filtering crowd was supported with the 15-35, perhaps the 14-28 f/2 would just give up on that and go all mega-bulbous and delight the astro folks.
- A
IS costs weight, but it does not cost speed.
We have a lot of 2.8 zooms with IS now, now we also have the EF 85 f/1.4L IS. I think the old rules of 'f/4 gets IS and f/2.8 doesn't' is just that -- old.
I think to IS or not IS is simply a design choice.
- A
With that said, I wonder if Canon would consider building a 14-28 f/2 with a drop in back filter i.e. from the EF/RF drop in filter adapters. That could steal a lot of my money right out of my pocket.
Nah. I sold the EF 135mm to get into the R system. With all I loved about it, the CA is one thing I don't miss. I'll never buy Sigma.
I use a lot of ND grads on my 16-35 f/4L IS now, but for a 14-28 f/2 I'd be willing to bracket! It's the polarization and or 6-10 stop filters I'd be really missing most.If a $3000 EF 11-24L only got a little rear-element notch for a tiny ND, so I'm not sure Canon is going to hook you up here.
And maybe this is picky, but a rear slot can't do ND grads. That's a dealbreaker for me as daylight shooter. But I'm delighted with my EF 16-35 f/4L IS for that -- I wonder if we'll see something similar for RF.
- A
I've been all over with all primes, all zooms, all Canon, some 3rd party, a mix and back again. I have settled on ALL CANON, zooms and primes but if I do ever get a 3rd party lens again it would be a manual focus or used in manual focus most of the time (macro)First party AF for the win. Every time. Agree.
- A
Hello David,8k30 - Full width from a 45 mp sensor. You cannot "crop in" on a 45 mp sensor and get an 8k image*
4k30 - Full width, oversampled from 8k
4k60 - Either line skipping, pixel binning or (most likely) a 1.5x crop (about super 35, will work great with EFS lenses an adaptor!)
4k120 - 2.0 crop
I'm hoping something along those lines comes out in the not too distant future. Still shooting with an old 17-40 that gets the job done, but isn't as good as the 16-35 IS.With that said the 16-35 f/4L IS is an amazing value. It may not be your coma wonder or low light beast but it is a great all rounder wide zoom with negligible vignetting and fantastic color/contrast. I use it with a 100mm filter system and it's a champ. I would hope Canon does something like it for RF one day.
I have an EOS M. But they are not equipped with RF mounts obviously. Canon is going to probably over time slowly semi-replace the M with small compact crop body RF mounted rigs and a line of RF-S (like EF-S) glass.
Canon, please make some AFFORDABLE RF mount prime lenses with FAST apertures.
RF 50mm f/1.4
RF 85mm f/1.4
RF 135mm f/1.4
RF 100mm Macro
I’m sure all the current “L” series lenses you‘ve released are fantastic, but I would need to sell limbs to be able to afford a few lenses as I’m not a working photography professional who earns revenue from my photography.
I also do not want to “adapt” glass. I have invested in an RP body in December, having a good hunch you’d be coming out with a better body and IBIS in 2020 and it looks like my hunch was correct. I now want to invest in RF glass.
Thank you!
Yup, the EOS R wasn't brilliant on launch and still has its weaknesses but after the firmware upgrades, its actually a pretty decent camera.
Just hoping they don't price the EOS R5 out of reach for us mere mortals!
With that said the 16-35 f/4L IS is an amazing value. It may not be your coma wonder or low light beast but it is a great all rounder wide zoom with negligible vignetting and fantastic color/contrast. I use it with a 100mm filter system and it's a champ. I would hope Canon does something like it for RF one day.