I feel like the 50/2 will be in the $250-350 range. A $149 lens doesn't make much sense IMO. I doubt it would be much better than the (IMO awful) EF STM lens. Traditionally 50s are cheaper than 35s so I think this new 50 will split the difference and hopefully be a huge upgrade IQ wise. The 50 STM was one of the worst primes I've ever used. Even old FD primes were better.The RF 50mm f1.8 STM will be all about hitting a low price point as it was with the EF mount version. It’s a fast prime for the masses. The EF version is US$129. The RF will no doubt cost more but it will need to be in the range of US$149 to US$179 to have that mass appeal. At $149 it will quickly become the bestselling mirrorless lens of all time, by far. Canon knows it and that’s an accolade that they will want, not just for ego but for marketing purposes since it will make a significant contribution to their market share in terms of mirrorless lens units sold. Canon marketing has liked to tout the vast number of EF lenses sold in the past (remember seeing the ads and press releases every time they pass a major milestone?) and that will continue with the RF mount. In order to achieve that price point, Canon will omit 1:2 macro. The RF lens may focus a bit closer than the EF version but it won’t be macro. There will no doubt be a separate macro 50mm with IS at some point in the future at a much higher price point.
I’d love to see an rf 70-300L at some point.The RF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS was an incredible surprise, and everytime I use it I'm so astonished that no one had made an extending zoom 70-200 before it. It's a perfect lens, there's absolutely no reason why the 70-200 had to be internal zoom--- you wouldn't want your 24-70 to be internal zoom---and when you realize the 70-200 is basically just another 24-70 now, it truly changes how I use my RF 70-200.
WIth that in mind though, I'm blown away that no one thought to shrink the 70-200 F/4 like this before. That lens in itself was always designed for vacation/travel and would have benefited greatly from external zooming. The EF 70-300 F/4-5.6L IS is a great example of that, and a lot of people would choose that lens for its smaller size, over even the 70-200 F/4L IS.
I'm absolutely sure the RF 70-200mm F/4 is going to sell like hotcakes, even if it's around $1,500. It feels so ridiculous when you see how big the competitor's lenses in this class are in comparison to the Canons. If you're hiking into the woods and want a light, compact telephoto, Canon is really going to look like a sweet deal right now.
You might be right about this.Going by the patent, the nifty fifty will be smaller than the EF version but not quite as small as the 40mm pancake. Looking forward to this.
I think it works the other way too. The systems are getting close. With their new cameras they’re gonna get the ergonomics of the A7Siii so it’s gonna be usable. And over few years there are gonna be just minor differences.Soon the complainers from that other forum for that other brand are going to lose the argument that the other brand beats Canon on # of lenses in the ecosystem. Then, they have nothing. Nothing. Makes me feel all warm and fuzzy on this cold 48 degree day in Dallas, Texas. Yeah, I'm gloating.
Where? There's a filter thread on the inside of the (likely) extending inner barrel, very similar to the EF-M 22 mm, and a hood bayonet on the outside. Plus, all other macro lenses have "macro" written on the side of the barrel or on the front of the lens. This one doesn't.Disagree! The picture shows the typical ring to attach a macro flash.
I'm pretty sure you are talking about the attachment base for the lens hood.In front of the control/focus ring. This part has a smaller diameter and outside the typical profil. The RF 35 has the same and inside a filter thread.
The RF35 has that, and the hood is attached to the filter holder (from what I can tell without having the lens). The EW-52 model designation for the RF35 hood indicates that it has the same diameter as the filter thread (52 mm)In front of the control/focus ring. This part has a smaller diameter and outside the typical profil. The RF 35 has the same and inside a filter thread.
Maybe it can be used for both being useful even without "real" macro. ;-)I'm pretty sure you are talking about the attachment base for the lens hood.
I own the RF 35 and use it a lot. The lens hood is allways screwed in the thread even with a MT 24 attached.The RF35 has that, and the hood is attached to the filter holder (from what I can tell without having the lens). The EW-52 model designation for the RF35 hood indicates that it has the same diameter as the filter thread (52 mm)
I would also rather choose the internal zoom construction of the EF. Its pretty small lens anyway.What's better?
If the F4 follow the design philosophy of 70-200mm f2.8, it has the size of a coke (pepsi) can.
Otherwise I appreciate the internal zoom of the EF, it represent a very rock solid lens.
Compatibility with extenders?