Canon officially announces the RF 50mm f/1.8 STM and the RF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM
- Thread starter Canon Rumors
- Start date
Shockingly many stops of IBIS correction for the 50 mm 1.8. I would have expected them to slim down the image circle as a cost saving measure, but a claim of up to 7 stops isn't that far off from what we've seen them achieve with the L primes.
Upvote
0
D
Deleted member 381342
Guest
£400 more for that RF 70-200 f/4.0 than the latest EF. Thats a wee bit steep for what has traditionally been a very affordable lens you didn't have to think about when hitting the buy button. £1,699.00 needs to drop for to the £1,299.00 to hit that easy buy.
Upvote
0
They finally have affordable primes in the three equivalent focal lengths I use the most on APS-C. 35, 50 and 85. Might just consider a used EOS R a year from now strictly for portraiture. Or a used R6. (Also, any motorheads here? Yamaha R6 and R1 hehe..)
Upvote
0
Quite expensive cuties outside the USA:
Calumet Germany charges respectively Euro 225 (that's OK) and Euro 1755 !!!!
I'll keep my excellent EF 70-200 IS II... and, in case I need compactness, I'm gonna buy a used EF 200 f2,8 II.
Or... wait for the price to decrease.
Calumet Germany charges respectively Euro 225 (that's OK) and Euro 1755 !!!!
I'll keep my excellent EF 70-200 IS II... and, in case I need compactness, I'm gonna buy a used EF 200 f2,8 II.
Or... wait for the price to decrease.
Upvote
0
Quite expensive cuties outside the USA:
Calumet Germany charges respectively Euro 225 (that's OK) and Euro 1755 !!!!
I'll keep my excellent EF 70-200 IS II... and, in case I need compactness, I'm gonna buy a used EF 200 f2,8 II.
Or... wait for the price to decrease.
Canon.nl wants €1830 for the RF70-200 f/4L, so that €1755 is a steal!
Upvote
0
I hope for cashback wen the buy button will be activated for the 70-200. thats a bit to high. it should be cheaper looking at dollar/euro change.
Upvote
0
I have the older EF 4.0 70-200 IS mark i which will have - my expectation - less breathing (co-used for video) due to better ratio of minimum focus distance compared to max. reprod. ratio (EF: 1.2 metres @ 0.21 / RF: 0.6 metres @ 0.28). So I will keep it.
RF 2.8 70-200 has more appeal to me (except price wise).
EDIT: O.k., 12 cm length ("collapsed") is a strong argument if size matters, just read that in the specs ... mmhhhh , very attractive!
If I will acquire an R6 the RF 1.8 50 with the exceptional 7 stops image stabilization (and if it is 4-5 stops in real world) would be a great addition - with EOS RP I better rely on my RF 1.8 35 !
Besides: Great options from Canon for different levels of wallet thickness and photographic skills/needs!
RF 2.8 70-200 has more appeal to me (except price wise).
EDIT: O.k., 12 cm length ("collapsed") is a strong argument if size matters, just read that in the specs ... mmhhhh , very attractive!
If I will acquire an R6 the RF 1.8 50 with the exceptional 7 stops image stabilization (and if it is 4-5 stops in real world) would be a great addition - with EOS RP I better rely on my RF 1.8 35 !
Besides: Great options from Canon for different levels of wallet thickness and photographic skills/needs!
Upvote
0
For portraiture take the R and save money for the lenses!
About R1 yeah definitely the same kind of rocket flagship everyone's expecting
Upvote
0
The RF 50mm F/1.8 was the easiest pre-order decision in my life. I've spent 3x more on a pair of boots than I did the lens...
Really, really looking forward to that tiny size on the R5. The fact that the physical size is the same but the flange distance is smaller makes this a much smaller lens when in use, far more compact having this on a R5 than even a 40mm pancake on a 6D.
The other reality is that this saves me another spot for my EF adapter, during portraits my EF adapter swaps between the 50mm and 24-70, now it'll just be on the 24-70.
Really, really looking forward to that tiny size on the R5. The fact that the physical size is the same but the flange distance is smaller makes this a much smaller lens when in use, far more compact having this on a R5 than even a 40mm pancake on a 6D.
The other reality is that this saves me another spot for my EF adapter, during portraits my EF adapter swaps between the 50mm and 24-70, now it'll just be on the 24-70.
Upvote
0
As the RF 35 mm 1.8 actually is a kit option for the RP, I would not be surprised if the 50 mm 1. 8 becomes one too for the RP or a future entry level model.
Upvote
0
For protection against bright sun rays and acute light sources, longer is better. I've only seen "tulip type" hoods on WA and UWA lenses for which anything longer would actually appear (as vignetting) in the image. Personally, I don't find the hood length problematic. Other long telephoto zooms and primes I have sport even longer hoods. To me, the compact size matters most in transport during which length is not a problem. I just reverse the hood producing a package that is not appreciably longer than the lens without the hood. The Canon L-lens hoods are of such high quality that when reversed they lock in place and just get out of the way.
In use, the hoods are light enough that they don't alter the balance while providing additional protection against bumps and drops. Recently I had a $3600 lens saved from an accidental drop by a long lens hood. The kit fell onto an asphalt walk and, other than a few scraps to the camera and lens hood, there was no damage and not a mark on the lens itself. Hence, I have no complaints about lens-hood length or size.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Similar threads
