CANON RF 16MM F/2.8
The question is: will it wobble?
Upvote
0
Probably not. Canon learned from the 15-35L. They will just limit the IBIS through firmware. Wider angles need less stabilization anyhow, so they can probably still eek 4-5 stops of stabilization even while limiting the IBIS to prevent wobble.CANON RF 16MM F/2.8
The question is: will it wobble?
$3k for an f/7.1 lens is objectively bad.
If your uses are exclusively shooting at noon on sunny days, then that’s great, but slow lenses break down as soon as the light drops, even a partly cloudy day at f/7.1 requires a shutter well below 1/1000th. It’s just bad.
Sony gives users 1 stop faster, 100mm extra, for $1k less. Why can’t Canon compete?
200-600 sounds nice in the paper , until I tried to carry it on hiking400mm and 500mm at f/7.1 is just terrible.
Sony has a 200-600 f/6.3 for $2k. And it’s a great lens.
Why can’t Canon at least match Sony?
Le sigh…That would be really nice, but the article mentions non-L several times, so advanced weather sealing is a lot less likely.
Agree. Most of these comments typically come from those who have never used the lens.If you think 500mm f7.1 is just terrible, you must have never taken photos with the RF 100-500 f5.6-7.1L lens.
It is the best & most useful RF lens they've made so far for my purposes.
With that said, it will be nice to see future super tele RF lenses that get closer to 100mm entrance pupils for those with bigger wallets & biceps.
Yeah, but who shoots the 600 at 500? Sounds like you should go to Sony since they are giving you what you want.$3k for an f/7.1 lens is objectively bad.
If your uses are exclusively shooting at noon on sunny days, then that’s great, but slow lenses break down as soon as the light drops, even a partly cloudy day at f/7.1 requires a shutter well below 1/1000th. It’s just bad.
Sony gives users 1 stop faster, 100mm extra, for $1k less. Why can’t Canon compete?
It's great you have choices. It sounds like Sony is where you should be to get what you want since Canon is not doing it for you.400mm and 500mm at f/7.1 is just terrible.
Sony has a 200-600 f/6.3 for $2k. And it’s a great lens.
Why can’t Canon at least match Sony?
I haven’t used the Canon 100-500mm but I did get to use the Sony for an afternoon on the A9II and it’s certainly a nice lens but VERY heavy! An hour of carrying that around and my back was aching. The RF may be slower but it’s also nearly 1kg lighter and smaller too so that’s where the increased price comes in.400mm and 500mm at f/7.1 is just terrible.
Sony has a 200-600 f/6.3 for $2k. And it’s a great lens.
Why can’t Canon at least match Sony?