RF 100-500 f/4.5-7.1L IS USM equivalent with internal zoom coming?
- Thread starter Richard CN
- Start date
There is a visible drop of sharpness in the corners, especially at 70mm. Good for portraits, bad for landscapes.
But I must confess, maybe I shouldn't compare it to same focal-length primes. And I'm also spoiled by the sharpness of 70-200 tele zooms. At 70mm, the 24-70 is, in my opinion, far inferior.
OpticalLimits have once stated that zooms ranging from WA to tele are much more difficult to design than pure WA or tele-zooms.
Upvote
0
Thx for explaining. I wasn't aware about it and the reviews I read when the lens was announced were mostly extremely positive. But it makes sense.
Oh yes, that´s why the 24-105mm F4 is subpar in some situations/ at specific focal lengths. I've recently been shooting with it again. Between 24-35mm the sharpness is inferior in my subjective opinion. Between 70-105mm I´m actually quite happy with the lens although the 70-200mm F4 still performs better.
Upvote
0
Well, the RF 24-70 f/28 deserves its reputation. It is a very good lens. But not in every situation, like landscapes at 70mm.
Same experience with the RF 24-105, a pretty good lens, but never overwhelming. The 28-70 f/2 is excellent, but unfortunately too heavy for hiking. Sony's version (I hate to say it...) is more appropriate. I'm waiting for a similar offer from Canon.
In the meantime, primes are my solution.
Isn't it nice to have such luxury problems?
Upvote
0
Totally agree with the 24-105mm statement.
Oh yes. Imo, Canon has to release a mkii of the 28-70mm F2 because it was a halo lens and compared to Sonys offering it now looks like a Volkswagen compared to a Porsche. I'm pretty sure Canon execs won't be happy about it and they hopefully have plans in their draws or a good reverse-engineering department.
(please don´t take the last seriously). Videographers aren't happy with focus breathing, stills shooters especially with its weight. Can't wait for mkii and if Canon would able to get it under 1kg I'll get one in the long run. (once they show up in the refurbished section about 2 years after its release).Ohhhh yes, and the accompanying phenomenon of "decision nausea" is definitely a luxury problemIn the meantime, primes are my solution.
Isn't it nice to have such luxury problems?
Last edited:
Upvote
0
For those that aren't happy with the RF 28-70 f2L for this reason or that, all I can say is that it is the one lens I take out and use when there is any kind of gathering of people I want to photograph (for fun as I'm not a working pro) and I love the results with blurred backgrounds and flexibility of the 28-70 range. I no longer care about the weight (at all) and people don't care about me walking around with a big lens pointed their way or not. So as of today, right now, it's a great buy for anyone wanting to enjoy it for the wonderful lens it is. In the future with new technology I could see an improvement due to having more moving elements etc enabling even better optical magic. But until that day, I'm really happy every time I take photos with it!Totally agree with the 24-105mm statement.
Oh yes. Imo, Canon has to release a mkii of the 28-70mm F2 because it was a halo lens and compared to Sonys offering it now looks like a Volkswagen compared to a Porsche. I'm pretty sure Canon execs won't be happy about it and they hopefully have plans in their draws or a good reverse-engineering department.
Ohhhh yes, and the accompanying phenomenon of "decision nausea" is definitely a luxury problem
Upvote
0
It is a wonderful lens and I´m glad you're happy with it! I rented it a few times and I love the pictures. Last July, I rented it because my family was in town for my wedding and the week before and after I took beautiful pics with it. But for me, it really is too heavy for traveling and bulky to pack. Therefore, I never pulled the trigger on this lens, but I do rent it for special occasions. If Canon works out a mkii with significantly less weight, I all in! This lens would the one and only on my wishlist! Unless... Canon pops out a 70-150mm F2
Upvote
0
Well, a 70-150 F2 would probably be a pretty big honking lens, but it'd be a wonderful lens.It is a wonderful lens and I´m glad you're happy with it! I rented it a few times and I love the pictures. Last July, I rented it because my family was in town for my wedding and the week before and after I took beautiful pics with it. But for me, it really is too heavy for traveling and bulky to pack. Therefore, I never pulled the trigger on this lens, but I do rent it for special occasions. If Canon works out a mkii with significantly less weight, I all in! This lens would the one and only on my wishlist! Unless... Canon pops out a 70-150mm F2
If I had the choice though, I'd rather they come out with a new high tech 70-135 F2L as it'd be lighter & smaller (than the 70-150 F2) and both would cover the portrait range almost equally as well. I assume it'd be in an extending design to minimize weight & packed size, and I'd be happy if the rear elements went to the back (for max optical magic) so it didn't have room for a TC (but yes, that's just me!)
Upvote
0
I agree, I´d rather take a smaller and lighter lens and "lose" 15mm on it. I just mentioned 70-150mm because there was a rumor and/ or a patent about it, so I went with it. Since 135mm is I guess the longest "portrait" lens (does the EF 200mm count as "portrait lens"?) it would make to have a 70-135mm F2
Upvote
0
I think most(many?) would estimate the "portrait range" as 70 - 135, but I'm sure others would have different ranges for their understanding of a portrait range. Currently, the RF 70-200 f2.8L is my best portrait zoom, in that it covers the 70-135 range with a lot of additional zoom-in available. But I'd much prefer the bigger blur of a F2 zoom through the entire portrait range which would really be beautiful!
Upvote
0
Will be interesting to see what eventually comes from this rumor and all of the recent patents. Originally, I was thinking of the 200-500 mm f4 lens, but I do realize that such a lens for me would likely be use extensively with the 1.4x TC yielding a 280-700 f5.6 zoom. In that regards a 300-700 mm f5-f7.1 lens that would be bit lighter and considerably less costly to make would be very useful. I guess alternatively Canon could make a 200-500 mm f5 lens with a built in 1.4x TC with similar results.
Upvote
0
D
Deleted member 396548
Guest
I own the 100-500mm L. I love it and have full confidence in it in every aspect, including the much debated weather sealing. I use it mostly for birding and outdoor sports and, for my uses and habits, I have no worries. But, I am very interested in the specs of an internal zoom version, should it come to fruition. And I admit my personal preference - not requirement - for internal zoom lenses.
- Price - somewhere around the $3000 USD range
- Image quality meets or exceeds existing 100-500 L
- Full zoom range with TC's... a restriction would likely be a deal breaker for me
- Aperture range... even a small improvement is welcome
- Internal zoom (obvious(?), but it's hard for me to imagine improvements in a MkII that would warrant an upgrade)
- Shortened zoom throw
- 82 or 77mm lens... please... I can't keep track of my filters and adapter rings anymore
- Video capabilities like the "Z" lens??? Curiosities for me at this zoom range
Last edited by a moderator:
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
IMO if Canon keeps the price around $3000 I do not expect an improvement in the aperture range. I would only see them making it an internal zoom and fully compatible with TCs over the entire focal length range. I'm not likely to "upgrade" my current 100-500 mm L lens to such a design. This would be a similar situation to the compact RF 70-200 mm f2.8 lens and the more recent RF 70-200 mm f2.8 Z lens.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
D
Deleted member 396548
Guest
Lol, a dry '25 would give you $3,650. If only I could be so disciplined. But, I'm not worried though... the way rumors go we may have a couple of years to save.
Upvote
0
Haha, good one
In my case though it would be more like 30 $ towards a new lens. Not helping much...
Upvote
0
Similar threads
