looks like on the RF 24-240 there are only two rings, so the control ring doubles as the focus ring and the type of operation is selected by the switch...
Upvote
0
Well that was underwhelming. Where are the non-L IS primes to complement the 35mm? Or at least a 35-105 f4 IS and then they can go back to their usual tactic of ignoring anyone who can't afford L lenses.
I only hope that Sigma and Tamron show some interest in the RF mount for the amateurs, just like they did for EF.
Why would there be a 35-105 f/4 IS lens? There are already many 24-105s around including the EF non L version.
Patience. Your desires may not be at the top of Canon’s priority list, but they can release only so many new lenses each year. Your time will probably come if you can wait.Because it would be (1) useful (2) easier to optimise than the 24-105s with their crappy wide ends and (3) hopefully affordable
There are lots of EF 24-70s and 70-200s and 85s, so why bother with RF versions?
There are no constant-aperture non-L lenses in the Canon catalogue. With its alleged weight and size benefits RF would seem to provide an opportunity to address that with a useful focal range that permits maximisation of IQ within a budget. But instead we get one 35mm prime and a dark superzoom. Cheers, Canon.
And there are lots of EF 24-70s and 70-200s and 85s, so why bother with RF versions?
There are no constant-aperture non-L lenses in the Canon catalogue. With its alleged weight and size benefits RF would seem to provide an opportunity to address that with a useful focal range that permits maximisation of IQ within a budget. But instead we get one 35mm prime and a dark superzoom. Cheers, Canon.
Maybe they should just drop anything non-L and stop pretending.
I appreciate getting a road map from Canon. Helps plan when determining lens purchases from what is available now, or by the end of the year.There’s still nothing on pricing? So all of this amounts to a lens release map with pictures? Sometime in 2019 is all we get? Seriously? Maybe I should grab a 28-70 afterall.
I have a few issues with the 70-200 extending when zooming:
1: Doesn't it suck air (with potential dust) into the lens when extending? The extended lens will have a larger volume than the short lens. So there must be some kind of gaps, which can let in all that air within a fraction of a second. Dust has always been my single worst problem with interchangeable lenses.
2: Extending a lens while zooming normally means that you have a smaller maximum aperture at the long end. I can't think of any exception. So if the 70-200 has f/2.8 at the long end, something like f/2 or even bigger should be possible at the wide end. So the restriction to f/2.8 even at the wide end is artificial. f/2 or even f/1.8 at 70mm would be amazing.
3. An extending lens let's other people see that you zoom closer to your subject. That can have some disadvantages.
If I had the choice I would prefer a lens that does not extend while zooming.
Was just thinking the same!looks like on the RF 24-240 there are only two rings, so the control ring doubles as the focus ring and the type of operation is selected by the switch...
Well, the current 70-200mm lenses are an exception to that because those don't extend when zooming. That makes them longer than they have to be. Unlike this RF version which will very likely vary in length while zooming. So, that doesn't count as mirrorless making lenses shorter...Check out that small 70-200 f/2.8 IS. And now where are all the "geniuses" on this forum who fancy themselves lens engineers... all of whom insisted that there was no way to make telephotos smaller on the mirrorless systems. ... crickets
Because it would be (1) useful (2) easier to optimise than the 24-105s with their crappy wide ends and (3) hopefully affordable
There are lots of EF 24-70s and 70-200s and 85s, so why bother with RF versions?
There are no constant-aperture non-L lenses in the Canon catalogue. With its alleged weight and size benefits RF would seem to provide an opportunity to address that with a useful focal range that permits maximisation of IQ within a budget. But instead we get one 35mm prime and a dark superzoom. Cheers, Canon.
I like the speed of the announcements, but they should deliver them soon and not at the end of the year.
The weight and the prices are missing, so I am not soo excited, because I think there might be a bigger problem.
I also dislike the fact of an outer focus, as the RF 35mm 1.8 IS shows (older announcement). I like the EF 35 2 IS very very much, and also because of the internal focus/durability (no moving parts to the outside. There are plenty of broken 50 1.4 USM, because the tube is broken a little bit...
And because of the already existing RF 35mm 1.8 IS, there might be a RF 35mm 1.4L or lower in the future, but I think there will be no internal focus 35mm f/2 USM equivalent....
The extension on a zoom lens is ok, but please not with focus...
This is a big problem for me, but I also will wait for a EOS RS announcement, which will come in the future I hope...
I also had the old EF 24-105L, and dislike the higher weight of the 24-105L II or also the RF equivalent. Yes yes, if they are sharper thats ok... But if you want to push a smaller and lighter mirrorless system you shouldnt waste the adventage by having too heavy lenses. The announced 70-200 here looks very tiny, maybe its much less then the EF counterpart, which would be amazing. I like the EF 70-200 IS II very much, although the 1700gramm is very heavy in my backpack... (no please no correction in the theoretical weight, nobody transport it without any caps)...
Lenses are expensive because there is so many thick wallet sony user without canon lenses atm .Is anyone else worried that each of these lenses are $1000 more than their EF brothers?
Where did you see pricing?Is anyone else worried that each of these lenses are $1000 more than their EF brothers?
I didn’t , I just went by the pricing of the RF50Where did you see pricing?