...and in truth the R isn’t high enough in quality to match these lenses anyway.
I have read this and re-read this. I have absolutely no idea what you think you are saying.
Upvote
0
...and in truth the R isn’t high enough in quality to match these lenses anyway.
I have read this and re-read this. I have absolutely no idea what you think you are saying.Hillarious.
It won’t. They are a vastly different tools. How price of a sub compact cars push down prices of delivery pickup tracks? Different purpose and different audience.The only reason why I really want to see f/2 holy trinity is hope that it will somehow push down prices of f/2.8 holy trinity.
I would say that todays "trinity" are 11-24mm, 24-70mm and 70-200mm or 11-24mm, 24-105mm, 100-400mm
11-24 is too wide for frequent use, and the front element makes it very hard to use filters - a suitable filter holder will be very bulky. 16-35 is more versatile as a part of the trinity.I would say that todays "trinity" are 11-24mm, 24-70mm and 70-200mm or 11-24mm, 24-105mm, 100-400mm
correction: an excellent 24-200 /f2.0 lens Would never leave a body for an event shooter. And I would sell my second body ASAP.I'm rooting for a 24-135L f2 IS. The lens would never leave the body...
It won’t. They are a vastly different tools. How price of a sub compact cars push down prices of delivery pickup tracks? Different purpose and different audience.
4k price ,malaysian made non L could be possible ,but is it excellent ,could be good at least .correction: an excellent 24-200 /f2.0 lens Would never leave a body for an event shooter. And I would sell my second body ASAP.
And I do not mind the size or the price of the lens that will likely be $4000. It will afford me shooting with a single camera for a weight and cost relief.
But...it has to be excellent. Did I say it has to be excellent?
exactly.4k price ,malaysian made non L could be possible ,but is it excellent ,could be good at least .
Or no idea maybe it isnt possible make plastic body for 10cm lenses. maybe if some kind of metal supports. no fluorite lenses no hand polished lenses.
Shouldnt they make first 24-200 f4 ,, f2 sounds ambitious
Yes, please explain how the R is not up to snuff for the RF mount lenses. Very interested in this.Thats ok I wouldn’t expect you would.
Yes, please explain how the R is not up to snuff for the RF mount lenses. Very interested in this.
Translated: "I have nothing. I just said it because I thought it would make me sound smart. Just made it up. Don't really know what I am talking about, at all... so I cannot explain myself. I've never actually seen an R or RF lens. I read reviews and watch YouTube videos. Then I just recycle what I have "learned" through vicarious living as first hand knowledge on internet forums. Somebody asked me what I meant, but even I don't know so I will now accuse the guy asking of being too stupid to understand what I say even if I could possibly explain it to him... even though I can't explain it... because I have no idea what I meant."If you can’t figure it out on your own then me explaining it to you still won’t change the fact that you are not capable of understanding. But don’t freak out I’m sure your winning personality is all you need to succeed at life.
Then I wonder how Canon managed to make the RF 70-200mm f2.8 so tiny![]()
They have had an excellent 70-300mm L IS lens for years, as an example.Because they went with a telescoping lens body rather than the internal zoom design they've been using for so long. I assume they are confident enough in their current wiper seal technology to go ahead with such a design on a workhorse lens like the 70-200 2.8.
Interesting. People have used L lenses for 10s of years on 10s of Canon bodies which are actually inferior to Eos R. Then millions of photographers have been trickedIn truth the R isn’t high enough in quality to match these lenses anyway.
Translated: "I have nothing. I just said it because I thought it would make me sound smart. Just made it up. Don't really know what I am talking about, at all... so I cannot explain myself. I've never actually seen an R or RF lens. I read reviews and watch YouTube videos. Then I just recycle what I have "learned" through vicarious living as first hand knowledge on internet forums. Somebody asked me what I meant, but even I don't know so I will now accuse the guy asking of being too stupid to understand what I say even if I could possibly explain it to him... even though I can't explain it... because I have no idea what I meant."
Interesting. People have used L lenses for 10s of years on 10s of Canon bodies which are actually inferior to Eos R. Then millions of photographers have been tricked![]()
What do you mean by "full potential"? EOS R has the best single AF in Canon history; far better than any DSLR before it. The 30MP sensor is the best sensor Canon has. Its weather sealing is as good as 5D IV. Its ergonomy is great and the body is solid.No of course they weren’t tricked they just didn’t have RF L glass which is far superior to the equivalent EF glass and much larger and heavier in some cases. Trust me if they had brought the new RF L Glass which is a huge investment for most people they would want a body that could use them to their full potential other wise why even buy these new lenses if you didn’t intend to get the most out of them as soon as that is possible? It would just be a waste of money unless you brought them just to brag that you have them.