If the 200-400mm f/4 is overpriced by a factor of 10, then it should be sold at about $1000 or £ or € in you opinion, which would be cheaper than the 100-400mm?
Well, I paid $700 for my Sigma 150-600C, brand new.
Upvote
0
If the 200-400mm f/4 is overpriced by a factor of 10, then it should be sold at about $1000 or £ or € in you opinion, which would be cheaper than the 100-400mm?
If they've really had serious luck with DO lenses I suppose it's possible, I dunno what the picture quality is. I think most people are saying it because it's highly unlikely that the 24-240 doesn't and the pictures included make it look like there is a gap around the end of the lens. Although the business end of it does look different than the 24-105 which does extend. The 24-105 has a definitive gap between the part that extend and the part that doesn't. Comparing this 70-200 with the 100-400 the end looks more similar than the 24-105. I guess we'll find out soon.What are the chances that this 70-200 could be so small and have no telescoping barrel?
Not a rhetorical question - I honestly have no idea
Agreed, I can’t see why it’s better all the way at the end unless the lens is 2.5 inch shorter..
I already do that with my 11-24. Works a treat on my R with adapter. IQ is better than the TS-E.
That makes two of us.Hmmm interesting thought. There is also the shorter flange distance. Essentially an RF lens starts out closer to the back of the camera, and hence ergonomically closer to your eye. I would be interested to see a photo of this lens mounted on an R next to the EF version mounted on a 5D4, and see where the two zoom rings land
I don't think you need to rush out. But it's nice to be able to choose whether you want a shorter one or a more dust proof one.That 70-200 looks tiny for a 2.8 - Please tell me it is not a telescoping design!
Or rather if it is, then I'll rush out and get the EF mk3 version...
I think the release of this level of pro glass prior to getting a pro camera reconfirms our collective suspicions that there was supposed to have been a pro body released prior to this point in time. This doesn't doom Canon, but it is interesting from an intent-versus-performance perspective.
In retrospect, this tells me that:
A) The slowness with L lens releases over the past couple of years was not Canon de-emphasizing the photography market, but rather refocusing it without us knowing then about the new mount
B) They intended to have a high resolution camera out, but something is holding it up
C) They knew about B early enough that they were able to cobble together the 5D4 sensor + mirrorless design to make the R, which indicates to me that the problem they faced in development was known at least 18 months ago
D) The pro model isn't necessarily coming out very soon, as the above behavior would be most logical if it weren't. Also, if there is a technical hurdle, those aren't controllable in terms of time (versus production, logistical, supply, etc.)
Better weather sealing and drop in filters via the adapter? All I can think of.Makes the "nothing" update of the ef 70-200mm f/2.8L IS to version III even harder to understand.
Maybe backported RF autofocus protocol as well (they have a patent for that).Better weather sealing and drop in filters via the adapter? All I can think of.
Makes the "nothing" update of the ef 70-200mm f/2.8L IS to version III even harder to understand.
Politics and profit.
Also, I could speculate that releasing a "new" EF 70-200 right before launching the RF gave them permission to try out this new compact design. It's a bit gutsy, some people will complain that they shouldn't have to use an adapter to have their preferred 70-200 size/geometry/layout/exact shade of white/etc, but I see it as having more diverse options. If you really love the existing 70-200 ergonomics on DSLR, you can stick with DSLR, or get an adapter which will place the RF lens roughly in the same position as it would be on a DSLR (while adding optional functionality). Meanwhile, the RF version seems tailored toward the as-small-as-you-can-make-it-please crowd.
Oh god, it better not be DO! I actually have the 70-300 DO and it's... not great. I'd take telescoping any day over DO, as long as the IQ is up to Canon's existing 70-200's.It has a red ring, so I guess it’s not DO. Also noticed the 15-35 will use screw in front filters.