no. 24 vs 28 makes more difference in real life than f/2.0 vs f/2.8 in most use cases.
Playing words won't help you:
1. The innovation is in how fast this normal zoom lens, not in how wide it is.
2. You've ignored 3 of the four examples.
Upvote
0
no. 24 vs 28 makes more difference in real life than f/2.0 vs f/2.8 in most use cases.
Unfortunately, I can see a lot of people showed excited about RF lenses. They did not realize the prices that they cannot afford it. Canon tries to increase the cost for the RF lenses. The RF lenses were all junk and worthless because it limited to mirrorless Canon R camera bodies.
Canon will abandon EF lenses and hope that they can find a way to terminate it as much as like they did in 1987/1989 against world most reliable lenses as known as FD and FDn included older lenses, R and FL.
These lenses are reliable, long-life constructed. Also, it is repairable easy. Canon decided to cease replacement parts available for FD and FDn as well as against tanks like constructed Canon A and F series camera bodies. That is why they ceased it due lack of profitability.
Be smart, DO NOT BUY RF lenses and R camera series until Canon announce that they will put EF lenses and EF based cameras as primary in the market. Canon must restore replacement parts for FD and FDn plus Canon F-1 and A-1 with full support! Why? They have not dead but very popular nowadays. Many Sony mirrorless users used Canon FD and FDn lenses. I will not be surprised by users use these lenses for Nikon Z and Canon R.
The difference was no autofocus and stabilizer features on FD or FDn lenses. Everything is manual control and more fun to use it. It is same as Carl Zeiss ZF lenses for EOS camera bodies as 100% manual setting. My 45 years old Canon F-1 with FD and FDn lenses included accessories such as motor drive, Servo EE finder, Booster T finder, and an external battery pack are all 100% functional. Only that I always wish to have digital back available for this camera as much as like Hasselblad. Unfortunately, Canon abandoned and ran away from it to work with EF based EOS system. I also have 44 years old Canon A-1 is still working flawlessly.
I'm sure that Canon is considering this in their boardroom this very moment!Canon must restore replacement parts for FD and FDn plus Canon F-1 and A-1 with full support! Why? They have not dead but very popular nowadays. Many Sony mirrorless users used Canon FD and FDn lenses. I will not be surprised by users use these lenses for Nikon Z and Canon R.
Playing words won't help you:
1. The innovation is in how fast this normal zoom lens, not in how wide it is.
.
That's exactly my thoughts also.yes. i understand that. Real question for me is "what for"? Extreme lenses have extremely limited applications and serve extremely small market niches. Canon is showing off the optical design potential of the new mount. And a few people will buy (or rent) them. Even fewer will be able to create truly "innovative images" with them that would not have been possible with "lesser", slower lenses, eg with a more irdinary 24-70/2.8 or 14/2.8. that's fine.
But, myself and the vast majority of the (potential) market are much more interested in "decent, compact and affordable lenses". Not only for APS-C (EF-M) but also for FF image circle (RF). Instead of currently 2 systems (crop and FF) i want to have only one in the near future: mirrorfree, as compact size as possible, "affordable", FF image circle. and i know many others who are looking for exactly the same.
i therefore expect the current Canon (and Nikon) "lens designers' R and Z honeymoon" to end soon and business priorities taking over again: launch of "lesser", workhorse RF lenses that make more sense for vast majority of customers and for Canon's balance sheet.
size/weight/portability of gear is very important to me, but i also want "full frame goodness". A smaller, less expensive "R50" body (same relation to EOS R as M50 vs M5 in terms of capability, size and pricing) along with a few compact, good and affordable non-L f/4.0 zooms and f/1.8-2.8 primes will serve me fine. eg RF 12-24/4, 24-85/4, 50-150/4.0 and 24/2.0, 35/1.8 (launched already), 50/1.8, 85/2.0, 135/2.8.
i don't need imaging gear to show off. i want unspectacular, inconspicuous, compact and light equipment for my non-professional, but enthusiastic use, that allows me to capture and create images within the limits of my equally unspectacular creativity, wallet and imaging situations.
so - f/2.0, f/1.8, f/1.4 zooms all fine and well, but "not needed here".
Canon invented the 24-70 f2.8...but they started the revolution with the legendary 28-70 f2.8 L. So I can't help but wonder if Can have deliberately made a 28-70 f2.0L with a view to make a 24-70 f2.0L later on. I also wonder if it's the first in a new range of f2 zooms. Canon trail blazed with their F4 range a few years back.I agree. The 24-70 f/2 isn't absurd at all. The price is reasonable too, if one considers the EF 200mm f/2L is $5600. I know, apples and oranges, but still a bargain. *If* I ever get an R the 24-70 f/2 would be the first lens I'd buy. Personally, I would love a 24-70 f/1.4... I don't care how heavy. 4 lbs. would be just fine with me. Same with a 70-200 (5.5-6.5 lbs?). I'd only have to have two lenses, nothing more.
This is very likely. At the same time usually people shoot at the ends of the zoom (not saying that this is right, merely stating a fact) and whoever gets those zooms most probably checks first for the widest angle part. Altough with proper IQ (sharpness, lack of coma) this lens would shine for astrophotography the cost would be ebormous and the Sigma 14mm f/1.8 would be a fantastic closest match alternative for much much less. I got it for astrophotography and I didnt't regret it
I do not think he did. He commented on the one example I corrected you. You did not like the correction but they were stating the truth just like your 3 examples.Playing words won't help you:
1. The innovation is in how fast this normal zoom lens, not in how wide it is.
2. You've ignored 3 of the four examples.
yes. i understand that.
Real question for me is "what for"?
Even fewer will be able to create truly "innovative images" with them that would not have been possible with "lesser", slower lenses, eg with a more irdinary 24-70/2.8 or 14/2.8. that's fine.
But, myself and the vast majority of the (potential) market are much more interested in "decent, compact and affordable lenses".
i therefore expect the current Canon (and Nikon) "lens designers' R and Z honeymoon" to end soon and business priorities taking over again: launch of "lesser", workhorse RF lenses that make more sense for vast majority of customers and for Canon's balance sheet.
I do not think he did. He commented on the one example I corrected you. You did not like the correction but they were stating the truth just like your 3 examples.
By the way I already own the first 2 (11-24, Ts-e 17) ... examples!
To tell the truth I do not know what this means - English is not my native language - and to tell the truth I do not really care. This is a photography forum. What I see is that you spend much more effort to say anything but acknowledge your mistake and the fact that some may care more about the 24 to 28mm difference rather than the f/2.0 to f/2.8 one.In Hebrew there's a phrase that describes this situation - "he made a claim about wheat, and was answered his claim about barley is right".
Have not used a 20 F1.4 for almost 10 hours now.....For those forum surfers who are saying this would be a great lens for them, how many of you currently have a full frame lens wider than 35mm that has an f/1.4 aperature or wider. If you are not shooting one now, it’s unlikely you will buy this lens. Nice to dream, but reality is a different kettle of fish.
I have a baggie of ear plugs in my camera bag24 f/1.4, first generation, from when I photographed bands in rather dimly lit clubs. I don't do that any more after realizing how much hearing I had lost.
To tell the truth I do not know what this means - English is not my native language - and to tell the truth I do not really care. This is a photography forum. What I see is that you spend much more effort to say anything but acknowledge your mistake and the fact that some may care more about the 24 to 28mm difference rather than the f/2.0 to f/2.8 one.
Have not used a 20 F1.4 for almost 10 hours now.....
If you shoot at night, wide FAST! lenses are a must......
So you agree Canon makes innovative lenses in practice (that was the point, remember?), but choose to argue something else? Wonderful.
2. If Canon made just an ordinary 24-70mm f/2.8, you would have said Canon isn't innovative.
1.) "innovative" or more "art for art's sake"?
2.) But my main point is rather: "Canon got priorities wrong" by launching super exotic, extreme niche glass FIRST, without even a suitable hi-end/hi-rez camera available yet for those lenses. It would have been smarter to first launch lenses in line with the positioning of EOS R ("6D class" camera). Fancy "pink unicorn lenses" would have still early enough later on, along with fancy, hi-end camera bodies.
it depends. Had Canon launched an RF 24-70/2.8 with IS (!) that is either
* significantly smaller/lighter than EF 24-70 Mk. II and/or
* significantly higher IQ and/or
* significantly less expensive ...
I would have said: "yes, USEFUL innovation, most potential customers will love that, not only a very few."
New lenses are fun and gorgeous, but:
These new lenses are very expensive...
In days of high ISO sensors, these very large and bright lenses still come in useful, but a modern camera with ISO up to 50000 would make the shot too (yeah, with a bit higher noise) that you otherwise would not have got 10 years ago.
What I want to say is: Lenses are nerdy and great but still very expensive when such apertures are featured and these apertures are not that much needed anymore as they were back in the day. I would also want to see a move forward on the camera body side .
I like the EOS R, but as an enthusiast the costs go through the ceiling, although yeah, I can still use my EF glass