Totally wrong. If it were at all possible mathematically, you'd be 1000% wrong. Fortunately, the worst you can be is 100% wrong, and that's where the idea is sitting on the wrong meter. But that's okay. Facts get made up here all the time. So do conspiracies.I could be wrong. We’ll find out soon. But it’s interesting that the 85mm f/1.2 is the only RF lens that has what looks like a built-in adapter on it.
Enthusiast will be force to buy the current R body now. More money for Canon, more R body on peoples hand. Better for Canon.Just seems odd that Canon are producing pro grade L RF lenses but their next R body will be a prosumer body. It’s not like there are any decent f1.8/f2.8 primes to use with the prosumer body. Canon need to release the pro R body if they want to do these lenses justice.
Everyone keeps ignoring the secondary market. Tons of EF glass for prosumers to match up with a low tier R available significantly cheaper than new versions.Enthusiast will be force to buy the current R body now. More money for Canon, more R body on peoples hand. Better for Canon.
Ok that sounds excellent. So using sensor to front of the lens as a comparison, it looks like:It’ll be 20mm shorter. ‘Lens patents’ are actually optical formula patents, so the patent length includes the distance between the mount and the sensor.
I can...the Sigma is much more capable of properly framing a fast moving subject because of its wider continuous zoom range and it's much lighter and easier to use.LOL. Well if you can't tell the difference then the 200-400 is not for you.
I'm glad you like that lens, I'm sure it's very capable! But saying therefore the 200-400 is 10x too expensive is still silly. Maybe it's overpriced, but there are reasons it costs a lot more.I can...the Sigma is much more capable of properly framing a fast moving subject because of its wider continuous zoom range and it's much lighter and easier to use.
Optical quality is quite good and I don't need the speed. When I do, I shoot with my 70-200/2.8L IS II.
The closest thing to the Sigma in Canon's lineup is the 100-400L II + 1.4x TC. But that severely limits your autofocus capabilities.
Okay, given what it is and what it can do, I think it should be MSRP $4,000, maximum. For my uses, it's not as good as the Sigma 150-600C, and I wouldn't trade 1-for-1.I'm glad you like that lens, I'm sure it's very capable! But saying therefore the 200-400 is 10x too expensive is still silly. Maybe it's overpriced, but there are reasons it costs a lot more.
Yes obviously all mirrorless cameras are essentially like a DSLR in live view. But I'm talking specifically about how close the EOS R is to a 5D4, technologically. Really all they had to do to make the EOS R is take the sensor and interface that already existed for the 5D4's live view mode, and stick it in a new body with an EVF. Dual pixel autofocus has been around for years on the 5D4. It's just getting put to good use in the EOS R.I agree that the R has a few bugs and one could argue that it is a mirror-free mkIV. However, when it really comes down to it all mirrorless cameras are like that. A sensor that could be in a DSLR in a body that has a ton of customizability and some reduction in mass.
As for the expensive lenses introduced at an early stage, IMO they wanted to declare that they were serious about the platform. They have gotten a lot of grief over the past few years of being indifferent to improvement and specifically mirrorless. These halo lenses are statement that they have heard the public and are responding with innovation.
While the 50 1.2 and the 28-70 f2 will not likely sell in large numbers, they are aspirational markers for many to dream about. At the same time they did intro a very good 24-105 and an affordable and versatile 35. I am confident that a lot of new and affordable lenses will be coming.
On the issue of affordability, however, I think that is a relative term as the needs to recoup R&D and the increased expenses of 21st century production will move prices higher.
Sadly we can't cling to the pricing of yore when a 50 1.8 was ~$100 or less.
IS seems to work OK with the EF 85mm f/1.4 L IS.I wish Canon did trade-in offers like Sony & Nikon are doing with their cameras.
I want that RF 85mm f/1.2L, but I really hope Canon implement IBIS because that heavy glass will need it.
Canon always thinks that far ahead.Yeah, a little hard to believe these will all come in 2019. They would of had to be developing some of them over the past two years. Was Canon looking that far ahead?
I currently use a 7D mark II, and my second most-used lens is the Sigma 150-600C. If I were going to change to a full-frame R camera, I'd have to replace that 240mm-960mm equivalent range. I'd probably tolerate something like a 200-800/5-8. My third most-used lens is the 8-15/4L, which could only be replaced by something like a 13-25ish zoom fisheye.
One of the big reasons I changed from full-frame to crop is that the 24-70/2.8ii didn't have IS. Looks like Canon finally got that message, but it's several years too late for me. I was all set to give them over $5k of my money for a 5DIV + 24-70/2.8 IS, but they didn't come out with one. I'm glad they didn't - the 7D Mark ii system saved me a lot of money and I have over 70,000 images on it since I got it.
If you are happy with the image quality and maximum aperture you get at 600mm f/6.3 with the Sigma 150-600mm on an APS-C camera, the high end Canon long glass is not for you.Well, I paid $700 for my Sigma 150-600C, brand new.
I think this rollout was exactly what they wanted to do. Introduce a couple of halo lenses to establish their commitment to the mirrorless platform, and a moderately priced body with enough features to not fall flat. Then introduce a value priced model for the mass market and finally a “pro” model for all the hobbyists to drain their retirement savings on.Yes obviously all mirrorless cameras are essentially like a DSLR in live view. But I'm talking specifically about how close the EOS R is to a 5D4, technologically. Really all they had to do to make the EOS R is take the sensor and interface that already existed for the 5D4's live view mode, and stick it in a new body with an EVF. Dual pixel autofocus has been around for years on the 5D4. It's just getting put to good use in the EOS R.
Granted there are a few improvements related to making the "live view" function of the EOS R into a fully featured way to shoot rather than the side show that it's always been in DSLRs. But really, there isn't a whole lot that the EOS R is that the 5D4 isn't when it's in live view. I'm just saying I don't think the EOS R was that huge of an engineering undertaking, aside from making the new RF mount.
Regardless of how exactly how much the lenses cost, it just seems weird to have Canon coming out with all of these top end, professional lenses when the only camera there is to use them with is... A little less than professional.
I still say that this product rollout is not exactly how Canon wanted it to go. Seems like they're struggling with mirrorless camera tech and didn't want to come out with it quite as early as they were forced to by Nikon. But meanwhile, they know how to make good lenses all day long, so those are coming out in droves.