It's kind of line 24-70/4 IS vs 24-70/2.8. The 2.8 is twice the price, you lose IS, and it's way heavier. I get what you're saying though, for sure. What it comes down to is diminishing returns -- when you keep doubling the price, weight and other factors, is the really big aperture worth it? I'm probably the wrong person to ask for "standard zooms" -- because I own the 24-70/2.8 (Mk1) and when I upgraded, I decided to get the 24-70/4IS, and not really, or at least not just, because of the price tag.Double the cost and no IS is a hefty price to pay for 'one stop' lets hope it's a worth it for better, blur, autofocus, sharpness and all round goodness and at least the system gives the user the choice and you're not force to use the f2 over the cheaper f2.8 we can thank canon for that. Be good to see a comparison with these lenses...
On the other hand, for 70-200, I'm more than happy to pay for the 2.8, and who knows, I'd probably bear the weight and pay for a f/2 even if it lost IS.
I am very confident than Canon will build pretty good f/4 RF lenses, though (and I'm sure I'll buy them...). These are bread and butter lenses for camera stores. I wonder if Canon will make lenses that are even cheaper than that for RF (ie cheaper than f/4L's). There are a lot of FL's in both zooms and primes that I use rarely that I'd probably be happy to buy an RF version of, if a non-L priced one were available.
Upvote
0