The design also specifies 8 different apertures from f1.8 to f1.13, so assumptions that it would be huge may not be correct.
f/1.8 viable? example 4? example 5?
Upvote
0
The design also specifies 8 different apertures from f1.8 to f1.13, so assumptions that it would be huge may not be correct.
No weddings for me. Only Rambo photographers can handle Bridezilla. Weddings scare me. I'll be trying it out this weekend, and I have a nude shoot/boudoir shoot Tuesday and then a swimsuit shoot on the 17th. It is, though, one heavy beast and filters are going to be expensive.did you used it on a +10 hours wedding? Is an awesome lens, thats no doubt about it!
Yes!Canon is nuts. They should focus on practical lenses and not on hefty, expensive bulks of glass...
They can easily do both.Canon is nuts. They should focus on practical lenses and not on hefty, expensive bulks of glass...
Indeed, my 'work' lenses include the TS-E17, MP-E65, ef8-15
This is why I have an answer when some people ask why I 'still' use Canon cameras ;-)
Indeed, mostly on the internet ;-)I bet not one person outside of the Internet has asked you that ! ;-)
My wife, a half Chinese half European woman weighing barely more than 50 kg, carries a Sigma 500mm f/4.5 lens + other lenses (including a 300mm f/4 lens) and a camera on our birding trips for hours with no problems. She even shoots this 4 kg tele-camera-combo hand-held, often she doesn't take any mono- or tripod with her. People are always amazed when they see that petite woman using this big lens like a compact camera. She has the opposite of bodybuilder arms btw, she uses a holding technique that she learned in ballet dancing.It's also a huge difference if you just have to carry your gear to a photography spot where you can set up a tripod to put the large lens on, or if you actually have to carry it around your neck or shoulder for 12+ hours as you might be doing on a wedding or other event. ... I know from experience as an untrained man weighing less than 70 kg that when photographing mobile events such as parades, or hiking and carrying a 5D4 with a set of 16-35, 24-70 and 70-200 f/2.8 for 8 or more hours really isn't very comfortable, even though those lenses are far from being the heaviest.
Do you also cover classic tilt-shift bellow lenses? Novoflex e.g. still makes such bellows that are adaptable to 35mm cameras. I sometimes seriously consider getting such a flexible solution for tilt-shift and extreme macro.My biggest problem at the moment is that I'm writing a book about using tilt/shift lenses ...
Cool. I would like to know how that technique works.... She has the opposite of bodybuilder arms btw, she uses a holding technique that she learned in ballet dancing.
If she can do ballet, then she is way stronger and tougher than most of us guysMy wife, a half Chinese half European woman weighing barely more than 50 kg, carries a Sigma 500mm f/4.5 lens + other lenses (including a 300mm f/4 lens) and a camera on our birding trips for hours with no problems. She even shoots this 4 kg tele-camera-combo hand-held, often she doesn't take any mono- or tripod with her. People are always amazed when they see that petite woman using this big lens like a compact camera. She has the opposite of bodybuilder arms btw, she uses a holding technique that she learned in ballet dancing.
True! But then Sigma's big green $25,000 monster comes to mind. Rumor has it that it is sometimes bundled with a wheelbarrow or dolly. Chuck Norris, though, carts it around like an old 50mm Takumar. He doesn't need the wheelbarrow and when he holds it, it turns into an f/1.Combining my two fastest available primes into a zoom with an even faster aperture into one lens? I can’t wrap my head around how that can be done without needing a wheelbarrow.
Nah! I love big, fast, heavy glass. Canon knows this and makes them just for me.Canon is nuts. They should focus on practical lenses and not on hefty, expensive bulks of glass...
or a 35f 1.8 IS macro, but that is too big for people, and it isn't an L.Yes!
I’d like to see them come out with a 24-105 F4, or a 24-240......
True! But then Sigma's big green $25,000 monster comes to mind. Rumor has it that it is sometimes bundled with a wheelbarrow or dolly. Chuck Norris, though, carts it around like an old 50mm Takumar. He doesn't need the wheelbarrow and when he holds it, it turns into an f/1.
Chuck Norris decided to bottle and sell his urine as an energy drink. We know this beverage as Red Bull.Well I can assure you that the stories you hear with this man if nothing else, has been watered down.
It turns into a 645 lens, 1,200mm-3,000mm f/0.7, which he doesn't cart - gravity doesn't mess with Chuck Norris' photo equipment. This is how the Hubble telescope was put into orbit - it was gifted to Chuck Norris, and immediately floated out of the atmosphere.
Canon has demonstrated that they want the R system buyers to demand lenses that can do things that the EF lenses can't. A person can pop a 50mm f/1.8 on their R via adapter, so look for them to keep making lots of lenses that do something extra and fewer that compete with EF lenses. Realistically, I'd buy a EF 70-200 for $1500 over a RF 70-200 for $2500 that was basically the same thing. There needs to be a reason to spend that extra money.OK Canon, we know you have and are capable of making super lenses. So will you ever make a 50mm Rf f1.8 or f2 lens...a lens that could actually be somewhat affordable for the non-professional?
Sorry for the very delayed reply. She says it's the same technique that allows dancers to keep their arms wide open for a long time without getting tired. You need to move your shoulders down in a certain way, then they work a bit like a sort of ratched...Cool. I would like to know how that technique works.
Using my FF+100-400 during the day isn't that hard, but everything that could make life easier...
Unfortunately, I bought the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II for $2,499 at the time it was released. I only say unfortunately because I was too silly to wait a while. It is a great lens. What I don't like about the RF version (I don't have it) is that it isn't an internal zoom like the EF. It doesn't make much difference, I guess, but internal zoom is really cool in my opinion.Canon has demonstrated that they want the R system buyers to demand lenses that can do things that the EF lenses can't. A person can pop a 50mm f/1.8 on their R via adapter, so look for them to keep making lots of lenses that do something extra and fewer that compete with EF lenses. Realistically, I'd buy a EF 70-200 for $1500 over a RF 70-200 for $2500 that was basically the same thing. There needs to be a reason to spend that extra money.