Don't forget that when you come onto a forum like this, you are getting the opinion of gear heads for the most part. So they are far more likely to get the latest and greatest, regardless of cost. What makes the Canon system far more appealling than the Sony system is you don't need to get a single RF lens. If you already have EF glass, that's all you need. If you don't have any Canon glass, you have the choice of EF and RF lenses. And the availability of high quality used EF glass is a huge bonus. I have read many comments regarding Sony lenses where photographers had to buy multiple copies until they got one that wasn't de-centered. They are larger than they should be for a mirrorless system because the Sony mount is too narrow - thus many of their lenses have the rear element farther from the mount. I think last week I read a Dustin Abbott review (I think it was Dustin, if not, I hope someone corrects me) where he mentions that he needs to clean his Sony sensor every week. (I have seen many complaints regarding Sony's dust cleaning, as well as their IBIS being below par). Sony makes great sensors. I don't really trust their ability to make a camera that isn't designed more for gear-heads rather than photographers. The A7 II I bought, for example, underexposed by 1 1/2 stops. So I really have no confidence in their ability to make a camera for photographers.
Canon officially announces the RF 50mm f/1.8 STM and the RF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM
- Thread starter Canon Rumors Guy
- Start date
Yeah, I saw a video a few years back of someone using a petal style hood on a lens that rotated while focusing (or possible zooming, it's been a while since I saw it). He thought it looked cool. I'm not sure that's the adjective I would use.
Fair point, I wasn't clear about what I meant about "no equivalent". Perhaps "equivalent" may not even be the correct word to use. What I am referring to is the overall package of size, weight, cost, IQ, etc. Obviously, how important each factor is will depend on the photographer and the conditions under which they usually shoot (eg a smaller and lighter lens is valuable to me, but may not be so valuable to the next person).
For example, regarding the Sony 55/1.8, I am not aware of anything for the RF system which is as light and relatively small (although it is not a tiny lens) with the sort of IQ the Sony has. I guess we will see how the RF 50/1.8 performs, but I am not expecting its IQ to be at the level of the Sony (but of course the Sony is substantialy more expensive). Regarding the Sigma 85/1.4 DN Art, it is much smaller, lighter and cheaper than the Canon RF 85/1.2, but it still seems to deliver excellent IQ (even if not quite at the level of the Canon). I guess the dark horse there may be the Samyang RF 85/1.4 AF, although I understand it functions as EF lens with built in adapter rather than as a native RF lens (to the extent that may matter). The Canon RF 70-200/2.8 is more or less an equivalent of the Tamron 70-180/2.8 (OK, the Canon has a few advantages) but at least where I am the Tamron is not much more than half the price fo the Canon. The Sigma 24-70/2.8 DN gets excellent reviews, is about the same weight as the Canon EF 24-70/2.8 II, but significantly cheaper than the Canon. A lens kit of Sigma 24-70/2.8 DN, Tamron 70-180/2.8, Sigma 35/1.4 Art, Sony 55/1.8 and Sigma 85/1.4 DN on a body with IBIS would seem great to me, and would be substantially cheaper than any broadly similar kit in the Canon RF system (even allowing for the use of EF lenses on an adapter).
Anyway, I really do hope you are right about more third party lenses coming to the RF system. I have been surprised not to see any from Sigma or Tamron already, but maybe your explanation for that is correct. Fingers crossed!
I agree that the abilty to use EF glass on R system bodies is valuable, but of course the EF lenses don't take advantage of the apparent possibilities for smaller and lighter lenses. Compare, for example, an Sigma 85/1.4 Art for EF mount and the Sigma 85/1.4 DN Art for Sony E mount. (If it is true that the narrower Sony mount makes it harder to design smaller and lighter lenses, imagine what should be possible for an RF mount lens!)
Interesting comments about your experience with Sony gear. Whenever I have picked up a Sony a7 series camera, it has always felt fiddly and "gadgety" to me - not like something I'd like to have in my hand while I'm shooting for a while. I definitely prefer the feel of the Canon bodies. However, plenty of people do seem to like the Sony bodies (not everyone, of course), so I have figured I might get used to it if I owned one for a while.
I noted that in Fro's review of the R5, he rated it an excellect camera but nevertheless said he was happy to stick with the Sony system, and one of the factors he mentioned in that regard is the smaller and lighter lenses available for the Sony system.
I will keep shooting with what I have for now, and give it a while to see how things play out for the Canon RF system.
Last edited:
I saw the review and some sample pictures on Canon USA YouTube channel and, I don’t know why, but I was not impressed : either because of the quality of the video, either because of the image quality produced by the lenses.
I hope that someone will share his real world impressions.
I hope that someone will share his real world impressions.
I never used my EF 50mm F1.8 when I finally got the F1.2L model (not sure why I even got it, but it was awesome), now I'm thinking of getting it just for those times where I can stash my now smaller R body in my laptop bag, situations where I would otherwise not have a camera.
so, in germany the f4 gets 200€ cashback, what results in a prive about 1500€. the 2.8 gets winter special price and cashback and makes it about 2100€. thats 600€ for one stop, bigger size and more weight. worth it or get an extra prime 85 1.8/1.4?
Where is the cash back for the RF 70-200mm F4 listed? I couldn't find it on the canon.de homepage, neither in the winter cashback nor in the EOS plus X cash back promotion.
when i use the canon cashback calcullator (german link) https://www.aktions-kalkulator.net/de i added the r6 and the f4.
Thx for the link. That page is more up to date then the canon.de homepage...
Since the cash back for the 70-200mm F4 is EOS plus X only, I can't/ couldn't profit from it since I'm actually very happy with my EOS R despite those internet trolls
I was watching a Tony and Chelsea Northrup review. One was using a Sony, the other the Canon. Both made a comment about having to clean the Sony sensor very often. Then they proceeded to show some pictures and lo and behold, there was one from Sony with a big spec of dust in the picture.
The tulip hoods on the EF 70-200mm series were just for looks. Just out of curiosity one time I put cardstock around the rim of the ET-87 that fits my EF 70-200mm f/2.8 making it as long all of the way around as the longer two fingers of the tulip. There was still no vignetting whatsoever at 70mm on a FF camera.
I've never seen a 70-200/2.8 lens from Canon with an OEM flat tube hood.
All of the 70-200mm f/4 lenses from Canon have a narrower flat tube, but the lens barrels are also slimmer than the barrels of the f/2.8 lenses.
I'd like to have some of what all the "internal zoom" people are smoking... I have never heard *one* complaint about the 24-70 extending. I've never heard one complaint about the 100-400mm extending. I dropped $2500 on the RF 70-200 the week I got the R5 and I've never regretted that for a moment. My EF 70-200 feels like an absolute dinosaur, and once you use the RF glass, you wonder why anyone ever thought having internal zoom was a good idea. I can throw my RF 70-200 attached to the R5 in a *tiny* shoulder bag that wouldn't even fit the EF lens unattached. 70-200 lenses are not "big glass," they're daily workhorses, and there's no reason they should be any bigger than the 24-70.
It's the same thing we deal with in the fire service with people opposing safety improvements like safer helmets "because that's not how we've always done it." If 70-200 lenses were external zoom from the start, not a soul would be asking for someone to make it an internal zoom lens.
While I'm on my soapbox, I'll add that I laugh every time people say that the F/4 version is worse because it doesn't have a tripod ring... Uhh...Is the 24-104 F/4L worse off because it doesn't have a tripod ring? The RF 70-200 F/4 is no bigger than the RF 24-105. It doesn't need a tripod ring
Tripod rings are nice, regardless of the size/weight of the lens, if one needs to flip from landscape to portrait without changing the point of aim with the camera on a tripod. The lens' optical axis doesn't move when using a tripod ring. It often does when using an L-bracket, and we won't even talk about using a ball head at 90° to get to portrait orientation...
It would be nice to be able to do astro with a 14mm, 17mm, or 24mm and be able to rotate the camera in a tripod ring when mounted to an equatorial mount, too.
The thing you have to ask, though, is are those more affordable third party options for Sony E-mount really any better than using comparably priced EF lenses on Canon R cameras? As far as functionality goes, they're not really "adapted' lenses. Every EF lens works just as well on an RF camera as it does on an EF camera. Sometimes better (in terms of AF accuracy).
Last edited:
I've often been tempted by the EF 200mm f/2.8 L II. But I already have an EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II, an EF 135mm f/2 L, and an EF 1.4X III.
I'd still like to know how much the difference in image quality is between the EF 200mm f/2.8 L II and the EF 135mm f/2 L + EF1.4X III (which is pretty dang good).
The 70-200 is just as sharp in the center at 135mm as the prime, but nowhere near as smooth in the OOF areas, and of course is also one stop slower.
Last edited:
Similar threads
- Contains 1 staff post(s)
- Contains 1 staff post(s)
- Contains 1 staff post(s)
- Contains 1 staff post(s)
<-- start Taboola -->