I don’t find my 600mm f/4 prime to be ‘pretty much pointless’.The sense I got was that you thought f/4 primes were pretty much pointless. So I shared your reaction at someone perceiving you to be jumping on 4.0 zooms.
Upvote
0
I don’t find my 600mm f/4 prime to be ‘pretty much pointless’.The sense I got was that you thought f/4 primes were pretty much pointless. So I shared your reaction at someone perceiving you to be jumping on 4.0 zooms.
I don’t find my 600mm f/4 prime to be ‘pretty much pointless’.
That’s why there’s a drop-in slot and a CPL, and a holder for other 52mm filters.That 600mm f/4 must be a royal pain to buy (front) filters for!
That’s why there’s a drop-in slot and a CPL, and a holder for other 52mm filters.
Same here. I thought it was pretty clear he was referring to prime lenses at smaller apertures than f2.8 and was thinking of it in relation to the wide angle lenses mentioned in this thread. This is a good example of why people should not shoot first and aim later. To be fair he was responding to someone who mentioned an f4 "trinity." For many of us older photographers this would be referencing a wide angle, a normal and a short telephoto – all primes.I didn't say it was...I said I thought HE said 4.0 primes were. (He probably wasn't thinking of the really long primes.) In the interest of full disclosure, however, I was inclined to agree with him, but I was thinking of short primes (e.g., 85mm, 50, 35, and so forth), just as he likely was...
When was there an f/4 trinity of primes? In the Canon lineup, I had to go back to the Serenar lenses around 1950 to find short telephoto primes (100-135mm) that were f/4, and even then their 35/50/85mm counterparts were at least f/3.5 and usually faster.To be fair he was responding to someone who mentioned an f4 "trinity." For many of us older photographers this would be referencing a wide angle, a normal and a short telephoto – all primes.
Definitely!!Just from looking at the page on B&H it's not threaded up front.
Come to think of it, that makes my statement even more true. It really would be a royal pain...
Why is it I get the impression that even the non-L RF lenses will also be stellar lenses?
I'm in love with the R. I can hardly believe how good it is for the price. I'd like to get the 80 mega pixel camera when it comes out, but that would also mean spending thousands to upgrade my 6 year old computer that already has trouble with 30 mega pixel files. That, and somebody would have to die for me to collect my inheritance. I'm in no hurry for that. Dad will probably outlive me. He still runs marathons at 76. Tough old Marine.Canon is definitely putting a lot of effort into what they've long known how to do...lenses. As near as I can tell from all the third and fourth hand things I've been seeing, they're rapidly catching up on the sensor side of things. The next bunch of R body releases will fill in the other half of a truly awesome system. Then at their leisure they can add longer and shorter lenses--the range of R lenses runs, I believe from 24 to 240 right now.
I'd love to see the M series get one tenth this much love...but it appears third parties will be filling in the gap.
Reactions to the EF 24 f2.8, 28 F2.8 and 35 f2.0 have been mixed since they came out in 2012, and I don't think Canon has ever sold that many of them. Some people are content to make do with a zoom, which isn't that hard to do, the 16-35 f4 being what it is. Other people want moderately priced,smallish, high quality primes. Canon may have decided that the way to make a little money selling moderately priced, smallish, high quality primes is to spend a larger amount of money developing and building them.
Why do you think that only the zoom will be coming? Why bother to patent all of those lenses, which are perfect for the less expensive R series bodies if Canon isn’t going to produce them? It seems that these are the lenses people have been complaining aren’t here.
Why do you think that only the zoom will be coming? Why bother to patent all of those lenses, which are perfect for the less expensive R series bodies if Canon isn’t going to produce them? It seems that these are the lenses people have been complaining aren’t here.
Reactions to the EF 24 f2.8, 28 F2.8 and 35 f2.0 have been mixed since they came out in 2012.
Don't think so!I've always suspected that the exchange rate had something to do with the initial pricing.
Don't think so!
I believe Canon was thinking that renewing and adding IS to the lenses would make the people rush on them and tried to milk the market.
And when that didn't happen they had to accept that the value to the market was lower.
I live in Germany. The Yen was just about 20 % lower (better said higher, as the scale is the other way around) to the Euro in 2012 than today.Those lenses were announced in 2012 during the height of the yen.
Canon Japan exports to Canon USA, so currency exchange plays a huge factor.