OK, I'll believe you but is this documented?That can indeed be true. One example is the Nikon 200-500mm, which is optimised for distances used by reviewers for charts.
Jack
Upvote
0
OK, I'll believe you but is this documented?That can indeed be true. One example is the Nikon 200-500mm, which is optimised for distances used by reviewers for charts.
It was documented in an early review of the Sigma 150-600mm vs Tamron vs Nikon 200-500mm at various distances. Finding it again will take time.OK, I'll believe you but is this documented?
Jack
Thanks.It was documented in an early review of the Sigma 150-600mm vs Tamron vs Nikon 200-500mm at various distances. Finding it again will take time.
Edit.
Ok, it’s in here, go down to the photos of the condor. https://photographylife.com/nikon-200-500mm-vs-tamron-150-600mm-vs-sigma-150-600mm-c
It’s a good review with tips about copy variation.
For those for whom this is handholdable it would be nice to offer a cover for where the foot attaches. Or better still an ultra light cover ring to replace the tripod ring and cover the bearing surface. White vinyl tape anyone?
Canon materials say that the small monopod foot replacement of the tripod foot requires factory service. Four screws. If they made me send it back I’d have the last laugh and remove the whole ring and send that alone. (Yes, warranty worriers, I know the risks).
Simplest solution is to make a little plastic cap to replace the foot. If lens weight savings are $4000 per two pounds then removing a two ounce part adds about $250 in value, right?
I wonder how much of that is because of the weakness of the 2x TC. The bare lens and 1.4x are much closer in the comparison. Perhaps the correction residuals of the III is in the same "direction" as the 2x TC which makes the overall IQ weaker whereas the DO/II are in the opposite "direction" as the 2x TC so that some of the aberrations are cancelling. Perhaps it is time to roll out version IV of the TCs. At the very least they can update the paint color.
Did anyone else notice that the review also states the lens is ONLY compatible with version III of the TC/extenders? I wonder why...
I will take this to mean it is still not a handholdable lens, at least not in the way the 300 is...
I heard they were going to release an at-home conversion kit...I do wonder if Canon will eventually offer a service to convert the the 400 & 600 from an EF mount to a RF mount. They did this before with the FD200mm f/1.8L in the late 80s
Seriously though I just don't get this anti-adapter mania. I guess people just decided that adapters were bad from the experience of adapting Canon glass onto Sony cameras, which is a legitimate stance to have. It has always been a crapshoot to adapt one manufactuer's lens onto another manufacturer's body using a third manufacturer's adapter.
But I've used the RF adapter since it came out and it's flawless. Seriously if you want this lens "converted" to RF, but the adapter on, and tape off the joint between the adapter and lens to seal it up from any possibility of water getting past the seal.
I guess people just decided that adapters were bad from the experience of adapting Canon glass onto Sony cameras, which is a legitimate stance to have.
2-3. We're still talking about a lens that weighs over 6lbs here. Honestly how much difference would there be in the weight of an RF adapter vs a hypothetical lens built with the added length of the RF flange distance built in? The RF adapter is already plastic. But I guess you save the additional metal flanges, so a lens made for RF from the start would be maybe 0.1lb lighter than this lens with the adapter on the back. With a lens that already weighs 6lbs and will probably spend most of its life on a monopod or a tripod, I'm struggling to see how much 0.1lb matters.1. Love the "kit"! But seriously, I haven't seen any "mania", and I'm not sure how you can tell what people "decided." I agree that the adapters do their job flawlessly, but that isn't the issue. Read on and you might understand the thinking.
2. I paid a $4/gram lightness premium for this lens. Adding a 109 gram adapter (125g with control ring) is a $400-500 value hit on the lens. I'm confident that without the extra male and female mounts, fastener, structure, and electrical interfaces, much of that could be saved to add value. Intense effort went into shaving grams from the lens, and the adapter is made for all EF lenses so did not have the same weight-loss motivation. Lightest is a replacement rear housing that simply adds the needed length (this is the 6" long part that supports all the switch panels and has the window). Next is a bolt on that replaces the bayonet mount, presumably with special attention to weight reduction.
3. If a detachable adapter is to be used, then there's no weight benefit unless designed specially using the advanced materials of the IS III, but there is an aesthetic benefit to not having a mismatched color on the setup. For $12,000, one is entitled to a little pride of ownership, and an included one in matching white would be appreciated. It's not as bad as a mismatched body panel on a new luxury car, but...
4. It may be irrational, but most buyers have a dose of emotionalism to their decision making, and Canon has a powerful interest in simple measures that overcome the hesitancy that a percentage of potential customers have to some degree, whether aesthtics, weiught, or a mistaken assuption about quality or utulity. The more lenses Canon can sell, the more motivated they will be to continue to advance the technology and even price marginally more agressively.
5. A second release button is an opportunity for error - a dedicated adapter can avoid this.
6. With less than one adapter per lens, one often can have a hard time finding one when needed. Ask me how I know. At least when it's on the white lens I can tell at a glance!
7. Your comment acknowledges that having another seal to leak is at least a perceived disadvantage.
Oh, that’s is nearly impossible to achieve at this time. I am sorry to rain on your day, Sir!No, you've misidentified the error here.
The error was in adapting the photographer from Canon to Sony, not the glass.
Amazing I get quoted 11 months after!I heard they were going to release an at-home conversion kit...
View attachment 187994View attachment 187995
Seriously though I just don't get this anti-adapter mania. I guess people just decided that adapters were bad from the experience of adapting Canon glass onto Sony cameras, which is a legitimate stance to have. It has always been a crapshoot to adapt one manufactuer's lens onto another manufacturer's body using a third manufacturer's adapter.
But I've used the RF adapter since it came out and it's flawless. Seriously if you want this lens "converted" to RF, but the adapter on, and tape off the joint between the adapter and lens to seal it up from any possibility of water getting past the seal.