Another possibility to consider – the EF MkIII was a stellar lens, and the RF version needed to be differentiated. The MkII was stellar, and I saw no need to get the MkIII. How do you make an already excellent lens different if there's little room to make it better? Make it lighter and much smaller.
I built out an ef-m kit for this very purpose. M5, 11-22 ef-m, 28 macro, 55-200 ef-m. Granted, it wasn't as good as my 5DsR kit (11-24 f/4l + 100 f/2.8L macro + 100-400 ii), but as I got older I couldn't handle the weight and size anymore. I switched to the R5, 14-35 f/4l, etc., and while I really like the image quality, I went back up in weight and as you know in backcountry camping, every ounce counts. I ultimately decided to buy the M6 ii and a Laowa 9mm (I needed something wider) to round it out and I am extremely pleased with the combo. I am a bit disappointed that things are going RF and it looks like the EF-M line is being abandoned. Regardless, my cameras and lenses still work and that kit will probably continue to be my backcountry kit for years to come. Now, if only they could make a RF to EF-M adapter I would love to see that!
In practice a bit of dust won’t make any difference to image quality, although it may affect resale value. Theoretically, extending lenses allow greater ingress of dust or moisture, but there seems to be no hard evidence that this is the case.
I would encourage you to read the Lensrentals.com tear down of the RF 70-200. It is very robustly built as is the 100-500.
If there is more room and weight budget in your bag (from carrying a smaller lens like the RF 70-200) you can choose to have a lighter kit or bring a prime that can do something your other lenses can't. Point is, you get a choice!
I think you have a good point here. Dust rarely if ever has a noticeable negative effect on quality of images...even on MFT tests. It's the resale value of "perceived" flaws that will probably be the worst drawback. Again, I would point people to Lensrentals.com that has an excellent article about a fly being stuck in a lens and it had an undetectable impact on the quality of images!
I get the TC incompatibility as a reason, even though it doesn’t matter to me. What’s the issue with an extending zoom? Most of them are…
As you noted, probably just personal preference. I admit it would be nice if my EF version fit in my bag better. But I also have memories of lugging around other zoom lenses that would creep when hanging from my shoulder. For the ones that had it, the lens lock was often stubborn, and just kind of a hassle. The internal zoom just feels better and more solid for me.
Sonys f4 is 8 years old lens from a time when canon had no idea what mirrorless was
Piecemeal is how I'm going about it too. I just broke up my EF trinity and replaced my EF 24-70mm with the RF. The 16-35mm is the next one, but I'm not sure what to replace it with. I think it is one of my least used lens, but I still want an UWA. I'm really curious what the quality of the RF 16mm is going to be, but already wish there was an L version.
Lol. The EOS M came out before that, which is probably why Sony went to FF MILC – the 800 pound Canon gorilla entered the APS-C MILC market, and Sony was afraid they lose too much market share. That fear was justified, although it took ~5 years before Canon took the lead in APS-C MILCs. Canon is only in their third year of FF MILCs. I wonder where Sony can run to next?Sonys f4 is 8 years old lens from a time when canon had no idea what mirrorless was
In the dim and distant past, I bought in the 1990s a Canon EOS IX APS-C which was bundled with a 24-85mm zoom that was considered remarkable at the time. Separately, the lens was expensive but bundled it was cheap. It had awful lens creep.
I've thought about that a lot too. It still would have been nice if they could have shaved a smaller amount of weight, length, and had a native mount.
Yup, deal with this on a weekly basis. I shoot my R5 and rf 70-200 in a sling carry, and it just extends out as I walk or wait for the next bit of action. It's not like I don't like the lens, but I still don't understand how the tradeoffs were deemed worth it for a "professional" lens, because the decisions seem the opposite.
I am extremely pleased with my “downgrade” from the RF 15-35 to the 14-35. I find the wider look, the higher magnification for wide angle close up, and the lighter weight have all come together to make this one of my favorite lenses that I bring everywhere, whereas the 15-35mm was heavier so it stayed home on longer hikes.
