I just read the patent and the distortion on wide side seems really, really bad - I mean, like 20%+ bad.
And all 3 variations are, not surprising, almost equally bad.
And all 3 variations are, not surprising, almost equally bad.
Upvote
0
Because the 28-70mm F2.8 is a heavy lump, and this new lens seems to be designed to be lighter and more compact, making it a better option for travelling. Also it’s quite possible that the new lens will be a lot cheaper, if it lacks OIS.Am I missing something here?
Why would you need an RF 28-70mm f/2.8L when the RF 24-70mm f/2.8L IS is already available?
I’m fine with the off numbers. If you have a constraint like a 77mm filter size it will drive odd numbers because you can’t force everyone. Forcing the design to give exact numbers can sub optimize things you care about.I hate that Canon always rounds to the disbenefit of the photographer. It is a 29-68 f/2.9. If they really wanted, they could easily achieve the exact numbers. Just curve a few lenses a little differently or make them slightly bigger. That is done by computers anyway.
Because the 28-70mm F2.8 is a heavy lump, and this new lens seems to be designed to be lighter and more compact, making it a better option for travelling. Also it’s quite possible that the new lens will be a lot cheaper, if it lacks OIS.
Personally I think the 24-70mm or 24-105mm options are both better choices for a “walkabout” lens.
This one's lighter/more compact and appears to be more distortion
I think you didn’t pay attention to what I wrote.
This lens is the 28-70mm F2.8 and I question it’s point when the 24-70mm F2.8 is already available.
The same reason there is an EF 24-70 f/4, if there exists an EF 24-105 f/4 already ?Am I missing something here?
Why would you need an RF 28-70mm f/2.8L when the RF 24-70mm f/2.8L IS is already available?
A non-L version definitely has a point.
I think you didn’t pay attention to what I wrote.
This lens is the 28-70mm F2.8 and I question it’s point when the 24-70mm F2.8 is already available.
Then you would get the 28-70 f/2Since the cameras have built in IB no need for it in the lens, I’ll take the wider aperture every time. Unless your on a first generation R body of course.
Even if it’s an L lens, it will be significantly cheaper, as it doesn’t have IBIS and the focal length range is shorter. Lighter, more compact, cheaper.A non-L version definitely has a point.
So do I, but that's the way of the world.I hate that Canon always rounds to the disbenefit of the photographer. It is a 29-68 f/2.9. If they really wanted, they could easily achieve the exact numbers. Just curve a few lenses a little differently or make them slightly bigger. That is done by computers anyway.
Sound like another "fix-it-in-post" mirrorless camera lens that needs in-camera corrections to correct distortion, which is cheaper for Canon than doing it with optics, as is the case with the RF 24-200mm and Rf 14-35 f/4.I just read the patent and the distortion on wide side seems really, really bad - I mean, like 20%+ bad.
And all 3 variations are, not surprising, almost equally bad.
On emount A LOT of people where fine with 28mm at the wide end which is why the Tamron sold so many copies. In fact a G2 version is coming very soon to make it even better. Different people have different needs and remember that Canon themselves have the RF 28-70mm f2 out already. An f2.8 version will be cheaper, lighter, more compact and will be an excellent addition for lots of Canon shooters.If you have used 24mm you won't settle for 28.