Images and specifications for the upcoming RF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM, RF 85mm f/1.2L USM DS & DM-E100
- Thread starter Canon Rumors Guy
- Start date
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.
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.
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!
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.
Indeed. Every extending-when-zooming lens so far has failed.
So nearly every zoom lens ever made.
Canon knocks it out of the ballpark again.
Crushing the competition.
Fast versatile 70-200 f2.8.
Smaller and easy to transport in your bag, no wasted materials.
Like using a carbine length vs a rifle length without giving up any of the power of the rifle.
Canon innovates and does listen.
I really like the look of the bokeh of the DS, much more so than the very traditional 'regular' 85. The loss of 1.5 stops seems excessive but when you are using 1.2 it isn't as bad as say a 2.8 or f4 aperture, that f1.2 is effectively a T2.0, still not bad.
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.
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.
And, at least for me, 15 mm at f/2.8 with low coma makes my 15 mm Irix lens redundant, meaning that I can use one lens for all wide-angle requirements. Let's just hope that the zoom mechanism doesn't deteriorate too much over the years as otherwise the lens might change focal length when pointed upwards at 15 mm during long exposures...
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.
I have the Tamron 70-200 G2 and while it is a great lens it is freaking heavy and I often choose not to bring it with me when I go on non job related trips because it's just not worth the energy it takes to lug it around.
Don't be fooled. One will show up saying the added weight is a benefit... according to the spec sheet.
I recently got an old Nikon lens, a 70-210mm 4.0 - That thing zooms internally, but extends when focusing So for those complaining, it could be worse: You could have the length of an internal zoom with the vulnerability of a extending design.
So for those complaining, it could be worse: You could have the length of an internal zoom with the vulnerability of a extending design.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.