I guess I’m the only one getting tired of announcements, development announcements, etc…. with no new products actually shipping. I would buy the 100mm RF macro if it was available as my next lens.
Upvote
0
Yes, because I'd rather some other optimization be made...either IQ, or overall size/weight, or filter thread size, or some combination thereof. Just like how people buy 24-85 or even 24-70 over 24-105 for a variety of reasons. If I'm shooting the 35mm focal length, I'm either shooting a prime or a zoom that starts at 24mm.I don't get it... You're seriously disappointed that Canon has 5mm extra reach on a UWA 14-xx F4 zoom? Don't really get the reason your thought of train.
He posted that when the thread was erroneously about a 16-35, before CRguy fixed his typo.I don't get it... You're seriously disappointed that Canon has 5mm extra reach on a UWA 14-xx F4 zoom? Don't really get the reason your thought of train.
He was questioning why I wanted the lens to stop at 30 instead of going to 35, which I have now answered above.He posted that when the thread was erroneously about a 16-35, before CRguy fixed his typo.
Your explanation makes no sense to me. I can see preferring a 14-30 over a 16-35, I can’t see choosing a 14-30 over a 14-35 with the same max aperture.He was questioning why I wanted the lens to stop at 30 instead of going to 35, which I have now answered above.
Again, for the same reasons people often prefer 24-85 over 24-105. More range isn't superior if it adds size, weight, makes the filter thread larger, and/or lowers the IQ. Even at 30mm there's crossover with a 24 - 105, in a range where that type of lens is almost always very good. I'd even rather have a 11 - 24 or 12 - 24, if it took filters in the front.Your explanation makes no sense to me. I can see preferring a 14-30 over a 16-35, I can’t see choosing a 14-30 over a 14-35 with the same max aperture.
Given the optical design of UWA zooms, the extra 5mm on the long end is unlikely to do any of those to a meaningful degree.Again, for the same reasons people often prefer 24-85 over 24-105. More range isn't superior if it adds size, weight, makes the filter thread larger, and/or lowers the IQ. Even at 30mm there's crossover with a 24 - 105, in a range where that type of lens is almost always very good. I'd even rather have a 11 - 24 or 12 - 24, if it took filters in the front.
At f/4, it will take front filters.I'm not sure about this lens. The 16-35 F4 is my go to lens for about 90% of my photography.
The extra 2mm on the wide end is sort of nice - but I'm really concerned about the ability to mount filters over the front. It that is not possible, then I'll stick with the 16-35 EF
If they keep the filter thread size at 77mm, that's perfect imho. We - me too - always wish for smaller size/ weight, but as far as I know/ learned, leaving out 5mm of range doesn't necessarily mean it would be smaller from an engineering point of view.Yes, because I'd rather some other optimization be made...either IQ, or overall size/weight, or filter thread size, or some combination thereof.
I do get what you mean now, but I still doubt there'd be a noticeable difference with the 14-35mm in any way.Just like how people buy 24-85 or even 24-70 over 24-105 for a variety of reasons.
That would be a dream! But I don't know of any UWA zoom wider than 14mm that takes regular filters. I doubt that the upcoming RF 10-24mm F4 will have a filter thread.I'd even rather have a 11 - 24 or 12 - 24, if it took filters in the front.
I guess we'll see. Nikon's Z 14 - 30 f/4 is about the same length as Canon's EF 16 - 35 f/4, and most of Canon's RF lenses has been more complex designs that end up bigger than the EF counterparts, not smaller.Given the optical design of UWA zooms, the extra 5mm on the long end is unlikely to do any of those to a meaningful degree.
Yes, we’ll see. But the degree to which Canon has chosen to correct the aberrations at the wide end will be what mainly determines the relative size and weight, rather than the addition of 5mm at the long end.I guess we'll see. Nikon's Z 14 - 30 f/4 is about the same length as Canon's EF 16 - 35 f/4, and most of Canon's RF lenses has been more complex designs that end up bigger than the EF counterparts, not smaller.
I use the longer end for underwater shooting at times... 14mm underwater would be used as often for me unless I was shooting whales and I would probably use my 8-15mm in that case. Tonga would be a very special tip for me - sigh.Your explanation makes no sense to me. I can see preferring a 14-30 over a 16-35, I can’t see choosing a 14-30 over a 14-35 with the same max aperture.
My EF16-35mm/4 is my most used lens overall for landscape/seascape/underwater. Filter thread for landscape/seascape would be an issue for me if not 77mm though. To get a replacement filter setup (6/10 stop ND, 3 stop grad ND, CPL) to handle multiple thread sizes would cost about USD900. I may do this in the future but not in my current budget plansHa, I just wrote out a whole comment to refresh and see 14-35.
This sounds like an excellent lens that will make my life more difficult, since now I could swap my EF lens to get even wider. It's really a question between the 15-35 or the 14-35, of whether I want the wider aperture or wider lens.
Had it been another 16-35, I would have had no real incentive to swap my EF version which has always worked great for me.
I wouldn't migrate from EF->RF if it was still 16-35mm.I guess we'll see. Nikon's Z 14 - 30 f/4 is about the same length as Canon's EF 16 - 35 f/4, and most of Canon's RF lenses has been more complex designs that end up bigger than the EF counterparts, not smaller.
To get a replacement filter setup (6/10 stop ND, 3 stop grad ND, CPL) to handle multiple thread sizes would cost about USD900. I may do this in the future but not in my current budget plans