RF 28-70 f/2LDid you guys hear Sony has a new 24-70 f/2.8? Fingers crossed Canon will release a 29-43mm f/7.1 in order to compete!
RF 24-70 f/2.8L
Let me know when Sony catches up.
Upvote
0
RF 28-70 f/2LDid you guys hear Sony has a new 24-70 f/2.8? Fingers crossed Canon will release a 29-43mm f/7.1 in order to compete!
There's actually a Samyang AF 14mm F2.8 for RF weighing 523g and can be bought for less than $600, and a manual focus version for less than $350 but weigh more at 800g. Unless, of course, you are referring to only native lenses.It's very telling that I can get 15mm super wide angle on my phone - yet for my RP there is no lens anywhere near that, aside from something that costs £2500+
$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?
Im giving you facts, that's all. In the end the 100-400 does let in more light, comparing it to the 100-500 is misleading, the new lens is slower at all focal lengths above 300mm, its bad enough how low light the 100-400 already is, canon made a mistake here in my view. but that's my view. 7.1 is ridiculously slow and useless for my photography.My understanding that there is enough rounding and fudging (never in the consumers' favor) by makers that I can't be certain of the 5.6 at 400 of the 100-400. Not disputing a tiny difference at that focal length, but being careful not to trust any number as guaranteed.
Im giving you facts, that's all. In the end the 100-400 does let in more light, comparing it to the 100-500 is misleading, the new lens is slower at all focal lengths above 300mm, its bad enough how low light the 100-400 already is, canon made a mistake here in my view. but that's my view. 7.1 is ridiculously slow and useless for my photography.
So you're already shooting at high ISO? It's fairly telling that older camera with Auto ISO set fixed at ISO 400 with a flash attached, while newer cameras fix at ISO 1600. Noise performance has improved significantly.Im giving you facts, that's all. In the end the 100-400 does let in more light, comparing it to the 100-500 is misleading, the new lens is slower at all focal lengths above 300mm, its bad enough how low light the 100-400 already is, canon made a mistake here in my view. but that's my view. 7.1 is ridiculously slow and useless for my photography.
So true. In fact, the EF 100-400 II is actually T6.3 at the long end, so @mpmark should probably just toss it in the bin, if that 1/3-stop is so problematic the lens must be useless.Just wait until you find out about T stops and that your f/2.8 lenses are actually T/3.1... Guess that makes the F/2.8 zooms unusable now too.
There's actually a Samyang AF 14mm F2.8 for RF weighing 523g and can be bought for less than $600, and a manual focus version for less than $350 but weigh more at 800g. Unless, of course, you are referring to only native lenses.
What’s the harm in releasing more lenses?...
I am pretty sure that at least Canon will come up with an RF version of the EF 35mm f/1.4. They are really serious about the new mount, no doubt.Was really hoping that one of the lens would be a 35 mm f1.2.
In fact, for such a wide lens, manual focus is a good option, since such lenses have a huge DoF anyway. I have a Zeiss 18mm with EF mount which I quite frequently used for street shooting.Many forumers at CR buy only 1st party glass, so a lens like the Samyang 14mm RF is a no-go for them and basically does not exist, for their purposes. Personally, I can't afford (fast) 1st party glass, so I'll shoot with the Samyang and adapted-Sigma lenses all day long.
Just wait a bit. I am pretty sure that Sigma and Tamron will come up with RF versions of their 150-600mm f/5-6.3 lenses. Tamron's 150-600mm still opens to f/5.6 @ 400mm, other than Sigma's bit darker zooms, and the G2 is a well made lens for a decent price. Only for fast action, I'd prefer Canon's native lenses, because their AF works better with Canon's cameras.Why are the consumer RF lenses such as the Canon RF 70-400mm f/5.6-7.1 IS USM so slow? I understand they have to make these lenses cheaper, but if they want people to upgrade and move on from EF then they should match the EF apertures. I guess since the RF system can focus at more narrow apertures they can get away with slower and cheaper lenses that are more profitable.
If this was f/5.6 at 300mm or even f/6.3 at 400mm I would consider buying an RF crop body in the future. Since it starts at f/5.6 I doubt it's going to be f/5.6 at 300mm.
I wish they would have made a consumer EF 100-400mm F/4.5 - f/5.6.
The 100-500mm lets in exactly the same amount of light as the 100-400mm II: both have front elements of 71-72mm. If the light is limiting, upping the iso of the 7.1 at 500mm by 2/3 stop over the 5.6 at 400mm at the same shutter speed and downsizing the resulting image by 20% gives the same S/N for a crop image.Im giving you facts, that's all. In the end the 100-400 does let in more light, comparing it to the 100-500 is misleading, the new lens is slower at all focal lengths above 300mm, its bad enough how low light the 100-400 already is, canon made a mistake here in my view. but that's my view. 7.1 is ridiculously slow and useless for my photography.
A 28-70…as if 24-70 wasn’t already the most useless focal length zoom, they went and made it worse!Did you hear Canon has a 28-70mm F2 and a freaking amazing 70-200mm F2.8? They're both one of the reasons why Sony is developing those two lense AGAIN just four and five years after they hit the market. And according to user comments on Sonyalpha rumors, the 70-200mm can't always keep up with 30FPS from the A1 for some reason...
Totally useless. That focal range is referred to as a ‘standard zoom lens’ for no reason at all.A 28-70…as if 24-70 wasn’t already the most useless focal length zoom, they went and made it worse!
Yes, I absolutely hate the range, but somehow a 24-70 stays permanently glued to my second camera body!Totally useless. That focal range is referred to as a ‘standard zoom lens’ for no reason at all.
You're both wrong. On a crop sensor it will be exactly 16mm f/2.8.Craig mentioned the 16mm f2.8 might be for a crop sensor which would be 25mm f2.8.
But a 1.6x crop would make it ~26mm f4.5.
where is the RF repalcement for the EF 100-400L II f4.5-5.6
If this is a 1.6x crop lens on a 1.6x crop sensor camera then it will take a photo whose image is the same ("Equivalent") to a "Full Frame" ~26mm f4.5 lens on a Full Frame sensor camera.You're both wrong. On a crop sensor it will be exactly 16mm f/2.8.