Concur on the RF24-105 F4L. I have been more than pleased with how capable this lens actually is, far superior to the older EF version and a bargain price for an L lens, I might add. It has been such a pleasure to use, I opted out of the RF70-200, in favor of purchasing the RF100-500. These two lenses cover most of my day to day shooting.I use the 24-105mm F4 L ISand the 16mm F2.8.
Very capable combination for traveling
Perhaps you need a calculator. 800/5.6 = 143. You should have used the 600/4 as your example, because 600/4 = 150.
In fact, the measured diameter of the 600/4 II front element is around 144mm, because the lens is probably something like 593mm f/4.12. Similar rounding occurs for all lenses (it saves Canon money) and thus the front element of the 800/5.6 would be even smaller than that of the 600/4 (however, I don’t personally have one of the former to measure).
Rounding numbers is appropriate in mathematics, and does not make use of the equals sign incorrect.Perhaps you need a calculator with more than three significant digits.
800mm divided by 5.6 is 142.857142857142857142857142857142857142857142857142857142857142857142857142857142857142857142857142857142857142857142857142857142857142857142857142857142857142857142857142857142857142857142857142857142857142857142857142857142857142857142857142857142857142857142857142857142857142857142857142857142857142857142857142857142857142857142857142857142857142857142857142857142857142857142857142... (with and endlessly repeating 142857) millimeters.
But you'll never admit you're wrong.
Lol. So your justification is that you don’t know the difference between front element diameter and focal length? Or is it that your knowledge of photography is so vast that it has subsumed your knowledge of basic math? Tell me, if I asked you the sum of 3 + 3, would your answer be rounded up to 6.3 or rounded down to 5.6?
I suggested that your attempts to wiggle out of simply admitting you made a mistake would become progressively more pathetic. In that regard, you’ve exceeded expectations.
The 800mm f/5.5 lens is an actual object with a front element diameter that can be physically measured. A front element that you incorrectly stated is 150mm in diameter.I know the difference between lens diameter and focal length perfectly well. I also know the difference between dimensionless abstract numbers and numbers that represent physical measurements of actual objects.
So it's just math that you don't know well at all. Someone who rounds 178.6 mm up to 180 mm and also rounds 142.9 mm up to 150 mm while suggesting that the other alternative is to round 142.9 down to 135 mm does not understand basic math.I know the difference between lens diameter and focal length perfectly well... ...insisting that someone who rounded [143mm] up to 150mm instead of down to 135mm is completely and utterly wrong
The 800mm f/5.5 lens is an actual object with a front element diameter that can be physically measured. A front element that you incorrectly stated is 150mm in diameter.
So it's just math that you don't know well at all. Someone who rounds 178.6 mm up to 180 mm and also rounds 142.9 mm up to 150 mm while suggesting that the other alternative is to round 142.9 down to 135 mm does not understand basic math.
You say you chose to round 800/5.6 up to the ‘nice, round number’ of 150 instead of correctly rounding 143 down to the equally ‘nice, round number’ of 140. Yet you chose not to round 500/2.8 up to the ‘nice, round number’ of 200, but instead rounded it to 180.
Honestly, I'm certain that you do actually understand basic math, meaning your patently asinine argument about choosing to round 143 up to 150 instead of down to 135 is more of your ongoing and pathetic attempt to avoid admitting you simply made a mistake.
You were correct in one regard, when you stated, “I will not admit that I made a mistake…” You’ve shown us that you are unwilling to do so, no matter how much asinine worm-wiggling you need to do in order to avoid that simple act.
Your efforts, while pathetic and making you appear progressively more foolish, are also mildly amusing. So by all means, feel free to keep wiggling.
I made a typographical error. I was wrong, and should have stated 800mm f/5.6.I've never come across any commercially produced lens marketed as an 800mm f/5.5 that could actually be measured. Please enlighten me where I may find such a lens? But I'll go out on a limb and assume you meant the EF 800mm f/5.6 L IS and *incorrectly* referred to it as "The" 800mm f/5.5 lens?
You referred to ‘the 800/5.6’:Where did I refer to a specific 800mm f/5.6 lens? I don't think I did.
Whether or not you were referring to a specific model of 800/5.6 lens by a specific manufacturer is irrelevant, because none of them have a 150mm front element.Do you have any idea how much a lens with an 180mm front element would cost? That's larger than the the 150mm front element of the 800/5.6.
Find me a math textbook where the method for rounding a number involves using commonly marketed 135-format lens focal length values as reference points.Here's a math question for you: which is closer? Rounding 142.9 up to 150 or rounding it down to 135. Because there are no commonly marketed 140mm lenses in the 135 format, that option is out. There are both 150mm and 180mm lenses that have appeared on the 135 format landscape from time to time.