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.
The RF 70-200/2.8 may be shorter when retracted to 70mm, but it won't be lighter than any of the EF 70-200/4 lenses. It will be just as long (plus the extra 24mm for the difference in registration distance) when extended to 200mm. (based on the patent application)
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?
My own personal experience would be that most photojournalists aren't that concerned with a second card slot. On the other hand, many wedding photographers, particularly those who shoot alone without a second shooter, are. In my opinion, shooting a wedding with a camera with two card slots but without another photographer to be in other spots that you can't be is a much bigger risk than shooting a wedding with two photographers who each have cameras with single 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.
In the current environment for high level pro sports shooters, they're pushing (uploading) images to their respective clients (wire services, newspaper/website, etc.) every time there is a gap in the action (TV timeout, end of period, etc.). Those that wait until the end of a game to submit anything have already been scooped and not many are interested in their images, even if they are better than the ones everyone has already published at that point. If they have a bad card they'll know it very quickly. There's little chance they will shoot and then lose an entire event due to a card failure.
I'm also curious as to why you save the raw files to SD and the smaller JPEG-Large files to CF when the 5D Mark III writes faster to the CFslot than to the SD slot when cards at least as fast as the slots are used. Does any of the shooting you do rely on fast frame rates and deeper buffers.
My assumption: 15-35mm 2500 usd
24-70mm 2250 usd
I'm guessing close to $3K for the 15-35mm and $2700-2800 for the 24-70mm. RF lenses so far have been consistently more expensive than their EF counterparts when there is an EF counterpart.
The EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L II debuted at $2,300 without IS in 2012. Although the dollar is stronger against the yen now than in 2012, $2,300 in 2012 was worth $2,576 in 2019 dollars. There's also the looming spectre of proposed import tariffs if they ever go into effect.
If the EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III was $2,200 when introduced in 2016, then an RF 15-35mm f/2.8L IS is going to debut at more than $2,500 three years later.