I'm anxiously awaiting this 24-70 release. Through a combination of renting and owning I've tested the EF 24-70 f4, EF 24-70 f2.8, and the RF 24-105 f4 - all on my EOS RP. I found the two f4 lenses to have equal sharpness, but the 2.8 was better than both. And, I was surprised to find I did not miss the IS. I can get an excellent condition used EF 2.8 for about $1300. I know the RF will have IS, but it will probably be heavier and maybe even larger than the EF+adapter. So, to get me to spring for the extra $1K for the RF, it first has to be not huge, and the IQ has to be even better than the EF version. If not, I'll get the EF and put the difference toward the RF 70-200. Looking forward to the release.
But the RF lenses can only be used on the R bodies. So having all Canon glass work like native is very appealing to me at least. Except I’m personally done with EF-lenses.I will wait for the Pro EOS R to come out and descide then, if I will go that path. Definitly will wait for some comparisons with the EF counterparts to descide as well. EF can be attached on so many brands now, that going RF is kind of limiting it again to one ecosystem. At least when it comes to normal focal lengths. For the time beeing my 5dsr and my smartphone will do.
My plan is to rent the RF24-105, RF24-70, RF24-240 and EF70-200 F4 II for a week and see which I like best. I hope it's the 24-240, unless I win a lottery
The rental place is close enough and affordable enough that I am almost completely over my GAS for the f/1.2 primes.
The soon to be closed rumor blog Nokishita just announced that "Canon will announce in the coming days: [...]
- RF24-70mm F2.8 L USM
- RF15-35mm F2.8 L USM
- Lens hood EW-88E
- Lens hood EW-88F"
Plus two cameras ("EOS 90D" / "EOS M6 Mark II")
Agreed that the extra 1mm makes a difference, but I may wait before pulling the trigger on this one (I have the 16-35 IS L) first to see prices go down a bit and also to see what they do in the wider bracket, 12-24 or something like that. I love my 11-24L but it is very heavy, bulky and conspicuous, would the R mount and 12mm at the low end make the resulting lens much lighter and smaller? A manageable RF 12-22 or 12-24 would replace both the EF 11-24 and EF 16-35 IS in my bag. The RF 70-200 is an easier bet, while I like the quality of the 70-200 IS L 4 it is large for its zoom range, so the same zoom range in a smaller format and 2.8 is a no-brainer.
One botched roll would be 36 images, right? One corrupt card, over a thousand.
Is there a reliable survey that does indicate how wedding photographers and photojournalists feel about two card slots?
I tend to agree, on my dual-card 5D3 I put the raw files on the SD card and for the sake of it I write jpg large onto the compact flash, and have never had to use the CF card backup, SD cards are very reliable in my experience. It did not bother me that my 6D (second body) had one card only, now replaced by the RP, also single card. I'll grant to wedding or sports pro photographers that they need the security of dual cards, but for a pro doing location or studio photography tethered is often a better approach. The biggest risk of mirrorless IMHO is damage or dirt to the sensor, not card failure, so dual cameras a safe bet.
My assumption: 15-35mm 2500 usd
24-70mm 2250 usd
the RF 15-35/2.8L & 24-70/2.8L are not exactly long lensesOr it means some bodies will have it, and some won’t.
the RF 15-35/2.8L & 24-70/2.8L are not exactly long lenses. the chances of IBIS has grown dim.This is not necessarily true. IS is reported more effective on longer lenses than IBIS.