And my answer is........affirmativeAs a camera peasant, I've only ever owned one L lens. Are they worth the extra money generally?
Upvote
0
And my answer is........affirmativeAs a camera peasant, I've only ever owned one L lens. Are they worth the extra money generally?
At AF, yes it is. All other brands are worse at AF mounted on a Canon body.WELL, THAT JUST MAKES THE TAMRON SOUND LIKE AN EVEN BETTER VALUE!
Kidding. But yea, you’re right. I meant to say “So, is the Tamron 33% worse?”
At AF, yes it is. All other brands are worse at AF mounted on a Canon body.
And I did not state any numbers just the fact, AF is worse, worse in what way? Every lens design and copy variation makes that impossible to say. The G2's I have used and owned achieve focus much faster than any of the 6 or 7 Art lenses I have had. However, I have not owned any Siggy Art made in the last 3 years so the AF motors and algorithms might be much better these days. I would love to get my hands on that 40 tank and see what the fuss is all about.I personally wouldn't say the Sigma Art series or the G2 series are "33% worse" or anything even approaching that...
But regardless, if I wanted the best, yes, that would be a Canon L.
the Canon 70-200 2.8L IS III is $1800 whereas the Tamron 70-200 G2 is $1200. That's 2/3rds the price. So, is the Canon 33% better? Noooo... but you won't get a lot of argument that the Canon is at minimum a little better in most categories.
The 100 50mm IS better than the 24-105 4L...at 50mm.Thinks the current 35 1.8 is too expensive, and the $100 50 is better than the 24-105 4L.
Riiight....
The Tamron 24-70 g2 is not 33% worse at AF. Can't comment on the AF of the g1. After calibration hit-rate was comparable to my L lenses, meaning I very rarely had issues (after proper calibration). Haven't noticed any issues at all on my EOS R.At AF, yes it is. All other brands are worse at AF mounted on a Canon body.
The 100 50mm IS better than the 24-105 4L...at 50mm.
So is mine. I don't see your point...And my RF 50 1.2L is better than the $100 50 Non L. Period.
Maybe some patents to protect the existing RF 35/1.8?
The specs say 71.5mm and the EF 40 pancake 2.8 is 68mm so could very well be. Especially when you take the difference between EF to RF flange distance into consideration.Do you think the 40mm might be the pancake that folks are clamouring for?
You can’t patent after you’ve released the product I most of the world. In the US you have a one year grace that no serious company would use (risk of other companies thinking of improvements to your design, and applying for a patent on those improvements before you patent your idea). It’s unlikely that this relates to the existing prime, unless this is an old patent they just uncovered.Maybe some patents to protect the existing RF 35/1.8?
Most will say yes, but a more practical reason is that Canon does not offer lenses like the 24-70 f2.8 in non-L versions.As a camera peasant, I've only ever owned one L lens. Are they worth the extra money generally?
Most will say yes, but a more practical reason is that Canon does not offer lenses like the 24-70 f2.8 in non-L versions.
40mm f/1.8 pancake would be very interesting indeed!A fast pancake might be my first RF lens (If I ever get the R5) since the 40 is pretty much glued to my 5D3.
You can’t patent after you’ve released the product I most of the world. In the US you have a one year grace that no serious company would use (risk of other companies thinking of improvements to your design, and applying for a patent on those improvements before you patent your idea). It’s unlikely that this relates to the existing prime, unless this is an old patent they just uncovered.
So all I can think is maybe it’s a cheaper 35mm? No is or macro? The current lens, while being the cheapest RF lens by far, is still not exactly mass market consumer pricing, and costs as much as an m200 kit with camera and lens.
Sorry I'm no expert at reading optical formulas. Maybe somebody else can chime in? It's a good question.Do you think the 40mm might be the pancake that folks are clamouring for?