Well to be honest, I did drop a 24-70 in Botswana fine sand. Result: wrecked AF motor. And my 100-400 has a lot of dust behind the front element. So maybe this design is more prone to problems. Curious to see how this will play out.
Upvote
0
LOL good one. But hope? more like delusional fans. Like the ones that thought canon would not make a new mount for mirrorlessSometimes hope overpowers common sense.
I dont see the incentive to buy any lenses that are already similarly available on the EF mount until a new body comes out. This is pretty much investing into a new system minus a few accessories. We need to be sure the future is bright before we start dropping tens of $1000s on lenses again. I like the R because it is convenient but I need to feel like the R system is a necessity.
I've never considered them to be better or worse than another yet different tools for different scenes and bags. You can gather more light with one and save money and weight with the other and that's just for starters.I've never once considered F/4 to be as good as F/2.8.Slightly sharper on occassion. But also a lot dimmer. YMMV when it comes to the 2.8 lens though. Every lens has it's sweet spot insofar as distance is concerned.
The placement of the RF zoom ring and 'other ring' (which I believe might be a control ring, which can be 'switchable' between focus or other functions) - is similar to my 70-300mm L. I have no problem with the placement of that - in fact I find my 70-300mm L very ergonomic on both my 7D and 80D, as well as on FF bodies I have used it with. I also find I am adjustable to use the 70-200mm L lenses which have the zoom and focus rings in the other sequence (zoom closer to the body).
What, and have them melt like chocolate pretzels in the sun?Now if only they would offer it in black... what a handsome trinity that would be.
I actually came here to say that too. If it takes up less space in my bag, I'm very happy to see it expand and retract.I personally am very okay with the lens zooming externally as long as I can fit a real 70-200 2.8 in a small bag. The ergonomics of this lens look amazing.
Looks rather awkward from what I see. Hopefully I'll never need to go from infinity to MFD anytime soon.Another thing I notice - the amount of zoom twisting needed to get from 70 to 200 on the RF version seems significantly longer than on the EF version...one of the latter’s strengths in my opinion. Not sure how I feel about that.
My whole statement was about buying these lenses if you already have a version of them or access to the cheaper EF versions. Also I dont know how many bought into the R system as their first ILC.Whenever that happens you can buy ONLY the body. You don't need to factor the cost of RF lenses in at all. Every single EF and EF-S lens you already own will work fine on it. There's nothing that says you have to spend thousands of dollars on lenses even if you buy an EOS-R body.
My whole statement was about buying these lenses if you already have a version of them or access to the cheaper EF versions. Also I dont know how many bought into the R system as their first ILC.
If I had the money...(just bought the 24-105)Mfd of 0.7m is definitely one! Portability another.