Aussie shooter
https://brettguyphotography.picfair.com/
Will be watch ing this very closely. I need a wide FF lens for Aurora photography but cannot justify the 3.5k price tag of the 15-35. This could be perfect.
Upvote
0
F/6.3 is 1/3rd of a stop faster than f/7.1. Not 1 stop. Their 200-600mm f/5.6-6.3 is also much heavier than Canon's RF 100-500mm.$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?
100% agree. I hope it’s sturdy/weather-sealed, too, if possible.Hoping the 16mm/2.8 is a full frame lens with low coma and sharp wide open as this would be a great astro lens to take hiking. If so, I'd get one.
The RF100-500mm is expensive but also more recent that the Sony 200-600mm. That said, I got mine at 20% off local recommended retail price on sale which was nice.$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?
Is that Canon or the global supply chain issues? Office chairs I had ordered are delayed weeks because the manufacturer can’t get the metal needed for them. A bed we ordered was supposed to have been delivered already, but that was pushed to August.I just want Canon to deliver some 100-500 lenses to stores before they start releasing any more lenses. Heck, you can't even get a 24-105 f4 lens right now.
Could mean the R3 announcement will also be soon if these are announced together.If these are to be "announced soon" does that mean the R3 announcement is still a ways away?
What’s the harm in releasing more lenses? Canon's supply chain issues are caused by a global pandemic's effect on raw materials, labor, and shipping, not because the company is producing too many models of RF lenses.I just want Canon to deliver some 100-500 lenses to stores before they start releasing any more lenses. Heck, you can't even get a 24-105 f4 lens right now.
I'm guessing the new lens will cost about 50% of the 100-500's price for about 85-90% of the performance. Pricing is always so irrational when chasing higher increments in quality. Like the cost of a big white prime vs. the cost of the excellent 100-500. Are the big whites really 4-5x better?For the tele will be interesting, how well it performs alongside the 100-500 in IQ per price ratio .
That would be really nice, but the article mentions non-L several times, so advanced weather sealing is a lot less likely.100% agree. I hope it’s sturdy/weather-sealed, too, if possible.
Let's hope, you are right.I'm guessing the new lens will cost about 50% of the 100-500's price for about 85-90% of the performance.
The prices are really painful, true.Pricing is always so irrational when chasing higher increments in quality. ...
The RF 100-500 4.5-7.1 replaces the EF 100-400 mm 4.5-5.6 II in the sense that it offers comparable or slightly better IQ with a bit more reach and covering all the focal lengths of the EF version. It also is lighter and fully compatible with IBIS. If that isn't a replacement, what is?but where is the RF repalcement for the EF 100-400L II f4.5-5.6. Maybe put that on the road map to given people confidence you haven't entirely lost the plot.