A little anti-climatic after the leaks, but the claim to have better IQ then the EF version for the 50mm is most encouraging.
50mm looks significantly better. MTF charts put up here. However, the 70-200 looks like it it's slightly worse on the telephoto end versus the older EF version. Not something you'd likely notice in a real picture. For my part, I'd take the form factor improvements over the older version, but it does put me on the fence when considering the price point. $1,600 is quite a lot for an f/4. I get the sense the other members here don't think so, which surprises me.
No, I have to agree. The f/4 doesn't save you nearly as much size over the EF version as does the f/2.8 version. If the IQ isn't better, than I'd just as well save money for the already excellent EF version.50mm looks significantly better. MTF charts put up here. However, the 70-200 looks like it it's slightly worse on the telephoto end versus the older EF version. Not something you'd likely notice in a real picture. For my part, I'd take the form factor improvements over the older version, but it does put me on the fence when considering the price point. $1,600 is quite a lot for an f/4. I get the sense the other members here don't think so, which surprises me.
is it just me or are the canon f/1.8 lenses noticeably shorter than the sony equivalents? That 50/1.8 is about the size of my old minolta 50/1.4. I like it!
Yeah, if I can get a 50mm 1.8 for the price of another control ring EF-R adapter... I'll take the lens. As much as I like and still use my 50mm 1.4, that thing is almost useless for autofocus when it's dark and I need the 1.4.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.
Where are you? I am trying to find a price in Canada.$2450 for the RF70-200 here, absolutely RIDICOLUS... The EF MK2 is $1500...
Considering the newer design from scratch, stronger internals (to support extending zoom), 2 nano USM AF drivers and a bit of adjustment for inflation, I think, from a corporate business standpoint, the launch price is fair. In a few months, the price will come down as usual.£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.