People have been using CP filters and others in both positions for decades without unacceptable compromise. I'm not speaking about a perfect match, but a workable alternative that allows the option of defaulting to the normal background of the rf 85mm 1.2L.Those both mostly contribute to vignetting.
Eh... I kinda disagree.A little off topic, but with a projected cost of $2,699 for the RF 70-200 f/2.8L I'd imagine the rumored RF 70-135mm f/2L to be upwards of $3,500+. OUCH! It'll be a bitter pill, but I'll just have to swallow it.
I think the logic applies in the opposite direction:Eh... I kinda disagree.
We only have 1 example to compare it to, and that is the 28-70 f2 vs the 24-70 f2.8 IS. The difference in price between those two is surprisingly small. So if you apply the same logic that is what I think we should expect for the 70-135. It would be a different story of it was 70-200 f2. So you lose a bit of range and you gain some speed.
The 28-70 is 500 more than the 24-70. So I would say that the 70-135 would be 1k or less compared to the 70-200.Also take into account sales and price drops over the course of the first year...
I'm guessing you meant ISO 800 not 600.1. f/2 vs f/2.8 is more expensive. It also is twice as fast as f/2.8. In other words, the difference between having to shoot at ISO 1600 @ f/2.8 vs ISO 600 at f/2. I don't think a $700 price difference (28-70@ $2,999 vs 24-70 @ $2,299 USD) is small. At least not in my world.
NO, I don't think $5k. I do think up to $3,500. Of course, less would be fantastic.1. f/2 vs f/2.8 is more expensive. It also is twice as fast as f/2.8. In other words, the difference between having to shoot at ISO 1600 @ f/2.8 vs ISO 600 at f/2. I don't think a $700 price difference (28-70@ $2,999 vs 24-70 @ $2,299 USD) is small. At least not in my world.
2. An RF 70-135mm f/2L is a portrait lens that would be a dream for me. Maybe others. I cannot envision any scenario where this lens would be less money than a 70-200 f/2.8L. It would be great if true, but I highly doubt it. I wouldn't complain.
Definitely didn’t say that the 70-135 would be cheaper. But u don’t think it will be more expensive as some suggest. Like 5k it so would be ridiculous (IMHO). Think it will follow a similar trend as the 28-70. Though a 700 dollar difference isn’t trivial, for an extra stop of light... sounds about right no?
3. The 28-70 loses range and gains speed also. Higher price and a completely different character than a 24-70. I absolutely loved my EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II, but the 28-70 outclasses it in every way in my opinion. Especially in bokeh and speed. My 24-70 was razor sharp.
This is exactly the point right? Something difference than the many many similar lenses out there. Kinda why I like canon. Sony didn’t bring about the MILC revolution, but basically just did the same ol same ol in terms of lenses. In the end it is those lenses and how they render that truly make the image. So I see it as canon bringing something special to the tavle
4. I also loved my EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II, however the bokeh was always a little too busy with too many hard edges. f/2 would fix a lot of that going by what the bokeh of my former 135mm f/2 looked like. So all these things make the lens more desirable to me. So I think the price will be upwards of $3,500.
Maybe but some how I don’t see it being much more than that. I would estimate it to be at 3500 (hopefully, and hopefully lower than that)
I had a look at the 28-70 yesterday for the first time and I did not expect it to be that big, it made the 85 look like EF 50 L, lol.28-70 is huge, heavy and does not have IS. Of course it will be fantastic for portrait shooters. I got RF24-70 f/2.8L IS and I didn't regret it since I wanted it with IS and my current R does not have IBIS! My target is low light interiors. And, I do not want an even bigger than that normal zoom lens.