D
Deleted member 381342
Guest
The real question here is will it be a small white or a big black?
Upvote
0
If it accepts teleconverters (which I think is likely based on the patents where the rear element is farther from the mount) it will be white (and bigger than the 28-70/2)The real question here is will it be a small white or a big black?
I think you have the wrong forum dirty bird., sorry couldn't resist....The real question here is will it be a small white or a big black?
The way I see it is, that my preferred focal length for portrait is 135mm. The need for 200mm is caused by 2.8, but if I have 2.0 then 135mm is definitely my choice. It looks more pleasing to me. The need for zoom is justified by run and gun situation, hence the beauty of 70-135 range. I do see what you mean, though.I don't really see much benefit in such a lens. 28-70 f/2, I definitely can because that range includes vastly different focal lengths. But 70-135? There is a difference, but not that big of a difference. 70-200 f/2.8 makes more sense to me.
That’s cool. As a portrait photographer, I do. Especially compared to a 70-200. That’s for my use, though. Everyone has their own preferences. Why 70-135? Because 85, 100, 120, 135mm. For my portraits I find myself almost always at 70mm+.No, I'm talking about comparing 70mm to 135m. I can totally understand buying a 135mm f/2. But I don't see a need for a 70-135 f/2.
Would this replace the need for RF 135mm prime? I can't see a RF 135mm f/2 prime being as popular as the EF version if the RF 70-135mm f/2 comes to market. Would this push the RF 135mm prime to a larger max aperture? f/1.4?
I have just ordered the RF 70- 200 F2.8 , so I will stick to that now , but I have ordered the 28-70 F2 also , so I'll just get a bit closer for portraits , the missus would have a heart attack if I ordered this as wellwow! Would probably be a beast! Not my kind of lens I think (i'll get the 70-200) but for portrait photographers it could be a winner
But half the price and half the weight at 1.4 is very very very optimistic!..For some, the prime would be more attractive at half the cost, half the weight, and probably wider aperture.
I don't really see much benefit in such a lens. 28-70 f/2, I definitely can because that range includes vastly different focal lengths. But 70-135? There is a difference, but not that big of a difference. 70-200 f/2.8 makes more sense to me.
I do too!! Besides photography, it will be an awesome focal length of interviews. Will buy!That’s cool. As a portrait photographer, I do. Especially compared to a 70-200. That’s for my use, though. Everyone has their own preferences. Why 70-135? Because 85, 100, 120, 135mm. For my portraits I find myself almost always at 70mm+.
I predict wide appeal. There are more portrait, event, and wedding photographers than any other genre.It would have somewhat limited appeal, but for sports, it would pair nicely with a 200-400mm lens. 70-135 would be great for some sports.
I've never understood owning a bunch of lenses let alone one like this that is already eclipsed by the focal range of the 70-200 F2.8 which is my favorite portrait lens of all time. I only own 5 lenses 16-35 F4, 24-70 F2.8, 24-105 F4, 50 F1.8, and 70-200 F2.8, and have never been in a situation where I wish I had something else.
I guess I'm just not a purist...I don't care about the difference between an F2.8 lens vs an F2 or a zoom vs a prime. I've never had a client say they wanted more bokeh or the pictures aren't sharp enough. I'm probably Canon's nightmare customer; I talk about gear, window shop their latest products, but never buy anything.
Would this replace the need for RF 135mm prime? I can't see a RF 135mm f/2 prime being as popular as the EF version if the RF 70-135mm f/2 comes to market. Would this push the RF 135mm prime to a larger max aperture? f/1.4?
I predict wide appeal. There are more portrait, event, and wedding photographers than any other genre.
I've never understood owning a bunch of lenses let alone one like this that is already eclipsed by the focal range of the 70-200 F2.8 which is my favorite portrait lens of all time. I only own 5 lenses 16-35 F4, 24-70 F2.8, 24-105 F4, 50 F1.8, and 70-200 F2.8, and have never been in a situation where I wish I had something else.
I guess I'm just not a purist...I don't care about the difference between an F2.8 lens vs an F2 or a zoom vs a prime. I've never had a client say they wanted more bokeh or the pictures aren't sharp enough. I'm probably Canon's nightmare customer; I talk about gear, window shop their latest products, but never buy anything.
True, but I will not be giving up my RF 85mm f/1.2L when I eventually get this zoom. Completely different tool for a different job, in my opinion. I also wouldn’t not get a 135mm RF prime of wider aperture. That said, I could very easily be happy with just the 28-70 and 70-135. I could not say the same if my choice was f/2.8 for my use. F/2 is a very utility sweet spot for me.This is the big question. Would the majority of the people, that can afford $3000-4000 for such a lens, prefer a 70-135mm f/2 or a 135mm f/1.4? I love the flexibility of my 28-70mm f/2, but I still toss on the 35mm f/1.4 at times, and I know a lot of wedding people who would rather have their 50mm f/1.2.
I think for me, accessing f/2 with the zoom would win as it gives you the DOF and low light capabilities, and a lot of flexibility. But, I really also love my EF 200mm f/2, so would probably also really love a 135mm f/1.4.
I agree, but it is untested if such a photographer will give up their beloved primes for such a zoom. Since there are no dual card R models out, not as many top wedding photographers have adopted the platform. But, many like their 50mm prime and its unclear if they would be willing to lose 1-1.5 stops by going to the flexibility of the zoom.
Personally, I love the idea of having one body at 28-70 and a second at 70-135 with an ultra wide and maybe a 200mm in the bag for extremes.
But you do own a bunch of lenses. As far as satisfying clients, I am more concerned with making myself happy.I've never understood owning a bunch of lenses let alone one like this that is already eclipsed by the focal range of the 70-200 F2.8 which is my favorite portrait lens of all time. I only own 5 lenses 16-35 F4, 24-70 F2.8, 24-105 F4, 50 F1.8, and 70-200 F2.8, and have never been in a situation where I wish I had something else.
I guess I'm just not a purist...I don't care about the difference between an F2.8 lens vs an F2 or a zoom vs a prime. I've never had a client say they wanted more bokeh or the pictures aren't sharp enough. I'm probably Canon's nightmare customer; I talk about gear, window shop their latest products, but never buy anything.
Of course I know the benefits...I've just never been in a situation where I was willing to pay $3000 for another stop of light or more bokeh not to mention the loss of focal length on the long end. This situation is more like owning two Philips screw drivers vs 1. Sure that one might not fit all of the screws fully, might even strip out a few, but as long as it gets the screw in and out and the customer is happy then it did it's job. If I need a stop of light I crank the ISO or slow the shutter a little more; both are a lot cheaper than buying this lens.The two benefits of this lens are 1) a full stop of light faster than the 70-200 2.8, and 2) better/softer bokeh rendering. It's not about being a purist or not - that term doesn't mean anything, in my opinion. The lens is just a tool, and it's certainly different enough from the 70-200 2.8 to warrant use, in some situations. No one would tell a plumber there's no reason for him/her to carry a phillips head screwdriver when he/she already has a flathead. This is no different.
Part of that is how much light you usually get. Most of my tasks are either dark, quick moving, or both. F/2 or faster comes in very handy and often f/2.8 is just more noisy than I like.