it would be "inefficient" as a APS-C lens as the lens is primarily designed to project out to a full frame image circle.Now wouldn't that be a nice focal range for an APSC R Camera
I disagree. Canon's EF-S 18-55 (perhaps the most popular EF-mount kit lens ever produced) is a 3.5-5.6.If it were to be an APS-C lens, I would have expected the lens to be faster than f/3.5-5.6 probably closer to the Sigma 17-70 f/2.8-4...and for that reason I believe this is going to be a FF lens.
Well, the image height in the specifications indicate it's a full frame lens.If it were to be an APS-C lens, I would have expected the lens to be faster than f/3.5-5.6 probably closer to the Sigma 17-70 f/2.8-4...and for that reason I believe this is going to be a FF lens.
Except that the existing monster zoom RF28-70 f/2 does not have IS. And the 15-35 2.8L IS and 24-70 2.8L IS are already big!I know they would prob be huge, but what would peak my interest is a 17-70 2.8 IS and a 24-105 2.8 IS, they would be worth their weight in gold lol.
I caved and bought the 11-22. Thought I would be in love.I’m in. Been desperately wanting a little more than 18-55 for the M for years.
Similar to the way the front elements of the 17-40 and 16-35s contract inside the lens barrel without changing the total length of the lens.oh, I just made a mistake. it isn't an internal zoom lens, it seems to contract a tad bit in the middle focal range, but only a small amount.
With a front protective filter I consider my EF 17-40mm f/4 L a "flare/ghosting monster." It's bad enough in that respect even with no filter.Yea, with a front protective filter I consider my 16-35 an "internal zoom lens".