But it's the transport size and weight what actually matters, no? I don't care if my tiny EOS M transforms into an 1DX in my hand, as long as i can keep it in my pocket when i'm travelling.The 70-200 has a nice hood...which has just made me laugh. In the shop...and in a camera bag, with the hood reversed, this lens will be quite compact. However...in actual use...with the hood on...the lens will be as big and bulky as the EF version.
RF lenses are Viggo's krytonite... and mine too!The DS wasn’t for me either.. I thought it looked less pleasing and with less blur. And it will be a very tough secondhand sale if that should happen.
never thought I’d be even slightly interested in a 70-200 again![]()
Funny you should say that, I was justing looking at the RF 2470 compared to the EF 24-70 mk2 at TDP, and I'm seeing enough corner improvement to be impressed. I used to have the EF 24-70 mk2 and always liked the IQ, so IS, control ring and better IQ, and I'm guessing a better AF. That also seems tempting, been thinking of a wide angle, and think the 15-35 would be to limited for me.RF lenses are Viggo's krytonite... and mine too!
I think I'll rent one and check it out when they are available. Unfortunately boudoir is not in my quiver at this time.I
yeah, it is not for everyone. however I showed the RF 85 DS vs RF 85 sample photo to 10 "non-photographers" and it seems that 85 DS look wins at ratio 9:1 though
However, with one out of ten concluded that the image was photoshopped to further blur the background
I am personally would go for the DS. stopped down, it would act like a normal lens but a bit slower by 1.5 stops approx. That's what, T2.0?
I see an opportunity for Artistic souls here. buduar, nude, portraiture and studio.
My info is from a discussion on Dpreview.com... cant validate its truthiness. However I have also read that it is entirely possible for a lens to focus breath longer than its infinity focal length. Im still not convinced either way!That is not possible and is not true. The calculated FL at mfd is 172mm for the mk II/III. For the new RF I've now calculated FL = 106mm. These were calculated with well known equations.
Yes, I saw that too. The RF 24-70 is a winner compared to the 24-70 II, but the 15-35 is not the clear winner over the 16-35 III. The vignetting is similar the 16-35 III, which has a lot, but for general uses, it will work. The RF wide angle wins with IS and for video (less noisy AF) and it is 1mm wider on the wide end. I see the RF 15-35 as a RF version of the 16-35 that goes to 15mm and has IS. That is enough for me. Now I really need a "pro" R body so that I can sell my 5D4 and some EF glass to recoup my RF expenditures.Funny you should say that, I was justing looking at the RF 2470 compared to the EF 24-70 mk2 at TDP, and I'm seeing enough corner improvement to be impressed. I used to have the EF 24-70 mk2 and always liked the IQ, so IS, control ring and better IQ, and I'm guessing a better AF. That also seems tempting, been thinking of a wide angle, and think the 15-35 would be to limited for me.
Indeed. Every extending-when-zooming lens so far has failed.Last two will cause a failure in the guides of the zoom barrel rather sooner than later.
No, for example the 100-400L extends =)70-200 is extending? Is that the first one, in their L line of whites?
Canon knocks it out of the ballpark again.
Example of how great this is.
Although I generally agree, it also has slightly lower coma and much lower distortion. Might not be relevant for everybody, but at least for distortion the improvement is massive.Yes, I saw that too. The RF 24-70 is a winner compared to the 24-70 II, but the 15-35 is not the clear winner over the 16-35 III. The vignetting is similar the 16-35 III, which has a lot, but for general uses, it will work. The RF wide angle wins with IS and for video (less noisy AF) and it is 1mm wider on the wide end. I see the RF 15-35 as a RF version of the 16-35 that goes to 15mm and has IS.
I can appreciate that people are used to internally zooming 70-200's, as even the 3rd party ones are internal zooming, but I think this is actually a better solution for 90% of photographers.Indeed. Every extending-when-zooming lens so far has failed.
So nearly every zoom lens ever made.
The actual extending shaft has barber pole stripes.But it's got a white lens hood!
Why couldn't they make a white one for the 100-400?
Don't be fooled. One will show up saying the added weight is a benefit... according to the spec sheet.Example of how great this is.
the lens is 37.74 oz vs the 52.21 oz Sony lens.
Huge savings and it is about 50mm shorter as well.
Canon is really making mirrorless smaller and lighter where Sony can not do this it appears.
Again Canon shows the way and leads the pack.
Sorry Sony trolls.
Surely it is. The added inertia is very useful to keep the subject framed while operating a camera with Sony ergonomics.Don't be fooled. One will show up saying the added weight is a benefit... according to the spec sheet.![]()