What's nuts? This thing weights just half a pound more than the Sigma 85mm Art lens.28-70 is 3.15 pounds?
The weight saving idea went out the window.
The lens might need to be that big to be f/2, but it kind of misses the mark for the first go round of releases.
A compact f/2.8 might have been more appropriate.
.. how do you select all those af points without joysick?EOS R specs are out too. Sounds nothing like typical Canon... Well at least so far. look at the AF points it is crazy....
Canon "EOS R" spec sheet released
Canon 'EOS R' spec sheet has been posted on overseas news websites.
Number of effective pixels: 30.3 million pixels (Total number of pixels: 31.7 million pixels)
Image type: JPEG, RAW (14 bit), C-RAW
Dual pixel RAW support
EVF: organic EL, 0.71 times
AF point (when cross key is selected): 5,655 points
Distance measurement range: EV - 6 to 18 (23 ° C at room temperature · ISO 100 with F1.2 lens)
ISO sensitivity: 100 to 40000 (extended ISO: 50, 51200, 102400)
Shutter speed: 1/8000 to 30 seconds, valve
Continuous shooting performance: Up to 8 frames per second (at servo AF: up to 5 frames / sec)
Video: 4K30p, full HD 60p, HD 120p
Rear liquid crystal: 3.15 type 2.1 million dots touch panel
Battery: LP - E 6 N / LP - E 6 (LP - E 6 can not charge the camera USB)
Recording medium: SD / SDHC / SDXC card
Size: 135.8 x 98.3 x 84.4 mm
Weight: 660 g (including battery / memory card) · 580 g (body only)
You save weight on the body, not the lens.Right, so the RF 35/1.8 IS a touch lighter than the EF 35/2 IS, and RF 24-105/4L IS is a bit lighter than the EF 24-105/4L IS II (although a fraction heavier than the EF 24-105/4L IS) ... and the RF 28-70/2L and RF 50 1.2L are fairly heavy lenses. Unsurprising for their specs given they are all FF lenses (and what we've seen other brands), but again it has me questioning whether FF mirrorless really has much of a weight or size advantage over DSLR ... and assuming it doesn't, what the big deal is about FF mirrorless.
I understand mirrorless may offer some other benefits over DSLR, but DSLR offers some benefits of [edit: over] mirrorless too (depending on what features you value, eg I am yet to see an EVF I like as much as an OVF although I realise others prefer EVF).
I will be interested to hear more about the EOS R and the RF lenses as information becomes available, but at this point personally I'm not feeling a likely buyer for the EOS R (at least any time soon).
By using the touch screen as the track pad. It is very easy you just touch on the area you want to focus camera will focus on that area. You can also move the AF focus area by moving you finger on the LCD screen. BTW one cannot select an individual AF point in mirrorless like in a DSLR. That was a surprise for me when I got the EOS M3 and later I found the same is true in Sony a 6300, 6500. A9 & A7r3. you can select the area instead which will obviously have more than one AF point. That's where the Eye AF shines. You do not have to select the eye to focus just press the button camera will detect the eye and focus on it. In my experience eye AF very rarely (like .25% may be) fails on the A7r3. I have not used A9 for portraits much so I would not comment on that... how do you select all those af points without joysick?
Sure, but how much? And at what point does saving weight on the body lead to ergonomic problems / lenses feeling unbalanced on the body?You save weight on the body, not the lens.
The recently announced HD Pentax-D FA★ 50mm f/1.4 SDM AW weighs 910g (950g for the Canon RF 50mm f/1.2) and it's a f/1.4 lens, not f/1.2.Calling BS on the weights of the RF 50mm f/1.2 (and maybe the 28-70 f/2)
The EF 50 1.2 only weighs 580g!
So the 35mm isn’t a true 1:1 macro right? 17cm MFD seems long
The 35mm IS has MFD of 24cm
Indeed, the Canon RF 35 mm f/1.8 Macro IS STM is probably a 1:2 macro lens. The HD Pentax-DA 35mm f/2.8 Macro Limited, which is a 1:1 macro lens, has a minimum focusing distance of 14cm (RF: 17cm).Good question. Perhaps 1:2?
The 28-70/2 is not supposed to be on the EOS R. I am 100% sure there's more to be announced on tuesday.28-70... 3 pounds for a lens that will go on a tiny camera with a skinny grip? How are you expected to grab the camera with one hand? The EF 24-70 -2.8 II is half the weight and it is heavy already. I have the unbalanced problem with the Sony A7r iii and the 24-70 being too heavy for the body and it's only 2 pounds!
Seems strange that there's the same artefact on three lenses and not on the fourth, especially because 2 of those three are pretty sure to have IS and the fourth is pretty sure to not. :>It could be a switch. It could be an artifact.
If it’s a switch, it could be Lens IS on/off. I could be body IS on/off. It could affect how the rings work. It could a lot of things
There is no gain in weight because Canon have never done a 28-70 f/2.0 lens before. It's like switching from the 70-200 f/4 to the 70-200 f/2.8 - gain in capabilities at the cost of higher weight.I know.
But I was hoping to buy that combo for my wife and I think she will be disappointed by the 25% gain in weight.