It might depend on how big she wants to print, assuming she want to print at all.I hear ya. Don’t think high iso noise will bother the average Rebel soccer mom to be honest.
Upvote
0
It might depend on how big she wants to print, assuming she want to print at all.I hear ya. Don’t think high iso noise will bother the average Rebel soccer mom to be honest.
I think it's going to eventually get mounted on a body cheaper than the RP and potential buyers in their local bestbuy will only see the zoom range and think - "hey, 105 is more than 70. I like doing the zooming, so I should get this one."Agree in principal that this appears to be a play for small and light, but WTH didn't they go 24-70 f/7.1 and make something truly small? I won't bellyache about f/7.1, but people need to see this lens and go 'Oh, that's why they did that.' Saving 20mm or so doesn't really scream that out to me.
I get that this will be far less expensive than the L (and that's ultimately why this lens is happening), but I think a yet smaller design might move more units.
- A
You can always get a lens extender. Many macro lenses only go to :5 mag, but extend that to 1:1 with an extender. Otherwise the mechanics get complicated, and more expensive. It’s cheaper to buy an extender if you really need 1:1.Not for macro it isn't. Besides, most macro shooters bring ring lights or flashes. Whenever I shoot macro I'm at f8 - f11. The magnification ratio of this lens is not good though, so it will probably be a cheapo beginner one.
That's a very commendable response, thank you. After a decade of roaming the sidelines of recreation, club, academy and high school soccer, I met a number of very competent women shooting the kids, they knew their equipment they understood the game and my photography improved from knowing them. I hate this kind of sexist generalization.Not going to judge.
Yeah, I've got the RF 24-105 f/4--it's a wonderful lens. But I'm very likely getting the 24-70 f/2.8 for assignment work, and was imagining this new one taking over travel duties in place of the f/4. It still might. It would be a really small load to drag around all day even compared to the f/4, and I've survived that. And the f/2.8 and f/4 overlap in capabilities more than a 2.8 and this one would......Canon will have 4 normal range zooms, and quite a few people will still be unhappy.
Since EF-M can't mount on RF, there is currently no transition pathway to full frame mirrorless from entry level bodies with the same mount (unless you adapt of course). If Canon does indeed plan on creating a full frame body below the RP, this lens might be the right price to create that entry point and transition pathway.
I think it's going to eventually get mounted on a body cheaper than the RP and potential buyers in their local bestbuy will only see the zoom range and think - "hey, 105 is more than 70. I like doing the zooming, so I should get this one."
I agree 24-70 with a 7.1 would have a size argument in its favour, but if you are making a cheapest possible full frame body with a lens packaged, having that lens go up to 105 may convince some buyers to move over rather than choosing something like an a7ii with a packaged 28-70 (as we all know Sony likes to keep selling their old bodies). Other manufacturers don't really seem to have a zoom range like that for ultra cheap, so this could fill a niche.
Sure its bigger but its a 10-1 zoom that weighs 750g (the RF 24-105mm f4L is 700g) and is slightly faster to boot.for that I have a 1000 word demonstration for you. this is taking from our post on the subject over at canonnews and modified just for you
View attachment 188618
Nuff said? The scale is approximate but should be very close. Look at the size of that freaking lens.
/thread.
That's a very commendable response, thank you. After a decade of roaming the sidelines of recreation, club, academy and high school soccer, I met a number of very competent women shooting the kids, they knew their equipment they understood the game and my photography improved from knowing them. I hate this kind of sexist generalization.
The EVF will brighten it up.
I'm thinking a price on this of around 200 USD. I line with 55-250 STM and lenses like that.
You forgot by far the most popular camera: phones. And they're often a lot worse than even this.Love how people are basically claiming that it’s impossible to take photos with an APS-C camera at f/5 or a m43 camera at f/4 max aperture. And that’s before even taking into account the ~7 (!) stops of stabilization you’re apparently going to get with this combined with the new IBIS-equipped bodies!! As long as your subjects aren’t moving, lack of light is not going to be a problem. And if they are, well, push the ISO! That’s what FF sensors are good at.