Now Canon just make a super L zoom lens like 28-300mm would be great for travel. My RF70200mm2.8 is perfect as it is! But a powerzoom for video folks would be great, I just never enjoy the internal zoom 70200mm cause it's way too long!
Upvote
0
The RF 24-105mm f/2.8L IS USM Z won’t be the last RF PowerZoom lens
- Thread starter Canon Rumors Guy
- Start date
Yep, forgot the EF-M lenses. Ideally, they will be repackaged to RF-S
Were there any other EF-S lenses?
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Given my recent astro workshop in western NSW where the workshop guides said that it was the first time that the majority had Sony bodies, I can see a justification for having 2 systems.
With an A7Siii (iv?), (maybe full spectrum modified) plus Sigma 14/1.4 (or Sony 14/1.8) and Sony 20/1.8 would be a good and light combination which is better when using a smaller astro tracker. Seeing the ISO noise performance seemed to be a step different from my R5 even after applying topaz denoise. This is after stacking frames in starry landscape stacker and stitching to large panoramas.
I can't see Canon having something similar for a long time. Definitely food for thought if I really get into it.
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
About the 85, I had the STM, and the optical quality was already good enough for me; but I ended up selling it to get the Sigma for the brightness (and for the AF which wasn't up to my standards, and especially had lot of hunting in backlighting, which I do a lot).
So it's not always a deal of sharpness or optical performances in general; of course I like sharp lenses, low aberrations and distortions, etc, but as a wedding shooter in the end my goal is to take the picture no matter what, so brightness (giving faster shutter and/or lower iso) trumps up quality in the end if I'm shooting in low/bad lighting.
50 f1.4 I'm not even talking about it, it's an old battle for me! :-D
On the aps part (which I don't use anymore, so it's just for pure pleasure of talking about it), yes iso got better, but I don't find this a reason to have dark lenses (either on aps or ff). But the "problem" I see is that Canon has few and dark aps lenses (and always had, excluded the usual suspects 17-55, 22 and 32), while everybody else has lot of choice and lot of brightness. If I'm looking at systems from outside, Canon doesn't look an appealing system for non ff shooters.
Surely Canon has no advantage with third party...or not? No, Canon is not doomed, please everyone don't be childish. Everyone of course is looking from his own perspective. As a non-wealthy professional, I look at usability, ergonomics of bodies, etc, but also to solutions to have a smaller and lighter bag of gear, and to the best price/performance ratio on stuff in general.
24-105 is not breaking the internet, for me; 28-70 did break the internet, because gives me something more valuable then extra 35mm in the long end (because 105 is still short for me to have it as a do-it-all lens for the entire wedding, so I still need second body with 135 or 70-200), it gives me a full stop of extra brightness, which no one else in any other system gives me today. But it's super expensive (no problems on weight/size, as the lens is really special), so it's a no-go. What else is life(or work)-changing for me? The Tamron/Samyang 35-150.
It's coming in the next 12/18 months? Ok, I'll wait. It's coming...not in the next 24 months, and after that..maybe in 36...maybe in 48...maybe never?
Small professional is a niche, for sure; bit it's a niche I feel Canon is not protecting and supporting enough, imho. That means Canon is doomed? No, it's not. But they're clearing deciding, with the policy super expensive vs super cheap (50, 85, 35 in the future) to cut off the middle range pro stuff (or actually, push the pro stuff to a much higher level in terms of performance, yes, but also in terms of price), which is usually what normal pro buys.
So what is the advantage for Canon in third parties? It's not losing a lot of professionals (as people I know who had Canon in dslr days, now they're in Sony, or stayed in Canon but with 70% to 100% of their glass is still EF), that after being blessed in dslr with great glass from Sigma, Tamron and Tokina too, now they see that possibility cut off from them, while seeing those same manufacturers doing wonders for other mounts.
Then, professionals are...2% of current Canon users? Potentially losing them to Sony (or to Nikon...the infamous 35-150 just arrived for Z mount) is not a problem for Canon and for their shareholders?
From a business perspective I understand that, but it's still a choice they're doing; pro's maybe don't bring money directly, but may (may) bring money as indirect advertising; if comes the day when very few professionals (the kind of professional you see at a wedding, or for your family pictures, etc) will have Canon, what people are going to think about Canon, if anybody is using something else? I get asked at least once, maybe twice, per wedding from a random guest "hey cool, I'm into amateur photography, what are you using? Do you have some suggestions?", and now I show a Canon, and advertise it; if I'll show a SoNikon, and many others will, what's the long term deal? I just ask that to Canon management. Because it's maybe just me, but I'll surely trust more the guy I speak directly while seeing him working, then trusting the YT influencer or the marketing phamplet of any manufacturer.
End of rants
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Greenland is special, so I won't allow myself to judge, but in most countries the price of lenses should not be a problem for a professional wedding photographer.About the 85, I had the STM, and the optical quality was already good enough for me; but I ended up selling it to get the Sigma for the brightness (and for the AF which wasn't up to my standards, and especially had lot of hunting in backlighting, which I do a lot).
So it's not always a deal of sharpness or optical performances in general; of course I like sharp lenses, low aberrations and distortions, etc, but as a wedding shooter in the end my goal is to take the picture no matter what, so brightness (giving faster shutter and/or lower iso) trumps up quality in the end if I'm shooting in low/bad lighting.
50 f1.4 I'm not even talking about it, it's an old battle for me! :-D
On the aps part (which I don't use anymore, so it's just for pure pleasure of talking about it), yes iso got better, but I don't find this a reason to have dark lenses (either on aps or ff). But the "problem" I see is that Canon has few and dark aps lenses (and always had, excluded the usual suspects 17-55, 22 and 32), while everybody else has lot of choice and lot of brightness. If I'm looking at systems from outside, Canon doesn't look an appealing system for non ff shooters.
Surely Canon has no advantage with third party...or not? No, Canon is not doomed, please everyone don't be childish. Everyone of course is looking from his own perspective. As a non-wealthy professional, I look at usability, ergonomics of bodies, etc, but also to solutions to have a smaller and lighter bag of gear, and to the best price/performance ratio on stuff in general.
24-105 is not breaking the internet, for me; 28-70 did break the internet, because gives me something more valuable then extra 35mm in the long end (because 105 is still short for me to have it as a do-it-all lens for the entire wedding, so I still need second body with 135 or 70-200), it gives me a full stop of extra brightness, which no one else in any other system gives me today. But it's super expensive (no problems on weight/size, as the lens is really special), so it's a no-go. What else is life(or work)-changing for me? The Tamron/Samyang 35-150.
It's coming in the next 12/18 months? Ok, I'll wait. It's coming...not in the next 24 months, and after that..maybe in 36...maybe in 48...maybe never?
Small professional is a niche, for sure; bit it's a niche I feel Canon is not protecting and supporting enough, imho. That means Canon is doomed? No, it's not. But they're clearing deciding, with the policy super expensive vs super cheap (50, 85, 35 in the future) to cut off the middle range pro stuff (or actually, push the pro stuff to a much higher level in terms of performance, yes, but also in terms of price), which is usually what normal pro buys.
So what is the advantage for Canon in third parties? It's not losing a lot of professionals (as people I know who had Canon in dslr days, now they're in Sony, or stayed in Canon but with 70% to 100% of their glass is still EF), that after being blessed in dslr with great glass from Sigma, Tamron and Tokina too, now they see that possibility cut off from them, while seeing those same manufacturers doing wonders for other mounts.
Then, professionals are...2% of current Canon users? Potentially losing them to Sony (or to Nikon...the infamous 35-150 just arrived for Z mount) is not a problem for Canon and for their shareholders?
From a business perspective I understand that, but it's still a choice they're doing; pro's maybe don't bring money directly, but may (may) bring money as indirect advertising; if comes the day when very few professionals (the kind of professional you see at a wedding, or for your family pictures, etc) will have Canon, what people are going to think about Canon, if anybody is using something else? I get asked at least once, maybe twice, per wedding from a random guest "hey cool, I'm into amateur photography, what are you using? Do you have some suggestions?", and now I show a Canon, and advertise it; if I'll show a SoNikon, and many others will, what's the long term deal? I just ask that to Canon management. Because it's maybe just me, but I'll surely trust more the guy I speak directly while seeing him working, then trusting the YT influencer or the marketing phamplet of any manufacturer.
End of rants
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
What I definitely don't understand reading your posts, is why you're still with Canon.About the 85, I had the STM, and the optical quality was already good enough for me; but I ended up selling it to get the Sigma for the brightness (and for the AF which wasn't up to my standards, and especially had lot of hunting in backlighting, which I do a lot).
So it's not always a deal of sharpness or optical performances in general; of course I like sharp lenses, low aberrations and distortions, etc, but as a wedding shooter in the end my goal is to take the picture no matter what, so brightness (giving faster shutter and/or lower iso) trumps up quality in the end if I'm shooting in low/bad lighting.
50 f1.4 I'm not even talking about it, it's an old battle for me! :-D
On the aps part (which I don't use anymore, so it's just for pure pleasure of talking about it), yes iso got better, but I don't find this a reason to have dark lenses (either on aps or ff). But the "problem" I see is that Canon has few and dark aps lenses (and always had, excluded the usual suspects 17-55, 22 and 32), while everybody else has lot of choice and lot of brightness. If I'm looking at systems from outside, Canon doesn't look an appealing system for non ff shooters.
Surely Canon has no advantage with third party...or not? No, Canon is not doomed, please everyone don't be childish. Everyone of course is looking from his own perspective. As a non-wealthy professional, I look at usability, ergonomics of bodies, etc, but also to solutions to have a smaller and lighter bag of gear, and to the best price/performance ratio on stuff in general.
24-105 is not breaking the internet, for me; 28-70 did break the internet, because gives me something more valuable then extra 35mm in the long end (because 105 is still short for me to have it as a do-it-all lens for the entire wedding, so I still need second body with 135 or 70-200), it gives me a full stop of extra brightness, which no one else in any other system gives me today. But it's super expensive (no problems on weight/size, as the lens is really special), so it's a no-go. What else is life(or work)-changing for me? The Tamron/Samyang 35-150.
It's coming in the next 12/18 months? Ok, I'll wait. It's coming...not in the next 24 months, and after that..maybe in 36...maybe in 48...maybe never?
Small professional is a niche, for sure; bit it's a niche I feel Canon is not protecting and supporting enough, imho. That means Canon is doomed? No, it's not. But they're clearing deciding, with the policy super expensive vs super cheap (50, 85, 35 in the future) to cut off the middle range pro stuff (or actually, push the pro stuff to a much higher level in terms of performance, yes, but also in terms of price), which is usually what normal pro buys.
So what is the advantage for Canon in third parties? It's not losing a lot of professionals (as people I know who had Canon in dslr days, now they're in Sony, or stayed in Canon but with 70% to 100% of their glass is still EF), that after being blessed in dslr with great glass from Sigma, Tamron and Tokina too, now they see that possibility cut off from them, while seeing those same manufacturers doing wonders for other mounts.
Then, professionals are...2% of current Canon users? Potentially losing them to Sony (or to Nikon...the infamous 35-150 just arrived for Z mount) is not a problem for Canon and for their shareholders?
From a business perspective I understand that, but it's still a choice they're doing; pro's maybe don't bring money directly, but may (may) bring money as indirect advertising; if comes the day when very few professionals (the kind of professional you see at a wedding, or for your family pictures, etc) will have Canon, what people are going to think about Canon, if anybody is using something else? I get asked at least once, maybe twice, per wedding from a random guest "hey cool, I'm into amateur photography, what are you using? Do you have some suggestions?", and now I show a Canon, and advertise it; if I'll show a SoNikon, and many others will, what's the long term deal? I just ask that to Canon management. Because it's maybe just me, but I'll surely trust more the guy I speak directly while seeing him working, then trusting the YT influencer or the marketing phamplet of any manufacturer.
End of rants
Why don't you just jump ship in order to benefit from all the advantages Sonikon have to offer?
You could get your Tamron, belong to all the professionals who'll soon turn their back on Canon, and still keep using your EF Sigmas etc... Sorry, but I just do not understand!
Upvote
0
Funny how Canon seems to sell more APS-C cameras than anybody else. By a huge margin. Which says that the way you look at things is irrelevant to anyone but you.
Ahhhh, now I see why you were harping on how much more useful a 35-150 would be for you than a 24-105. Why are you still shooting Canon, if everyone else offers products that better need your needs?
Upvote
0
In a market (eBay, where you can buy across European Union without any extra tax, vat or customs fee between countries) where I could buy an used EF 24-70 f2.8 II L, just serviced by Canon Italy (aperture ensemble was just swapped due to flat cable failure), for just 610€ shipped (lucky shot; its price is usually around 800€), you can very well imagine that the 3.760€ required for the new RF 24-105 are out of reach (and out of sense) for most. See pre-order prices:
Obiettivo Canon RF 24-105mm F2.8 L IS USM Z
Acquista Obiettivo Canon RF 24-105mm F2.8 L IS USM Z online su Canon Italia Store. Scopri le altre fantastiche offerte su tutta la gamma di Obiettivi Zoom. Consegna gratuita su tutti gli ordini a partire da € 30!
store.canon.it
Consider that many small professionals (like me), at least in my country, Italy, have particular tax regulations were you will pay a very low taxation, and invoice without vat (so for B2C my prices are 20% cheaper then a bigger professional/agency), but in return you can't deduct any cost for your business activity.
That means that any purchase is straight out of my pocket, I can't make it a business cost; so that's why 90% of professionals with my tax regulation (not only in photo/video; this is the same for any other business where you need to buy any type of gear/aid, starting from a chair, a desk and a laptop) would almost never buy anything new if they can go on the used market.
And I can tell you that 40/50% of wedding photographer are in the same tax regulation as mine; so yes, price of lenses is a definitive factor for a wedding photographer in my country.
Upvote
0
One more reason to jump ship!View attachment 212774
In a market (eBay, where you can buy across European Union without any extra tax, vat or customs fee between countries) where I could buy an used EF 24-70 f2.8 II L, just serviced by Canon Italy (aperture ensemble was just swapped due to flat cable failure), for just 610€ shipped (lucky shot; its price is usually around 800€), you can very well imagine that the 3.760€ required for the new RF 24-105 are out of reach (and out of sense) for most. See pre-order prices:
Obiettivo Canon RF 24-105mm F2.8 L IS USM Z
Acquista Obiettivo Canon RF 24-105mm F2.8 L IS USM Z online su Canon Italia Store. Scopri le altre fantastiche offerte su tutta la gamma di Obiettivi Zoom. Consegna gratuita su tutti gli ordini a partire da € 30!
Consider that many small professionals (like me), at least in my country, Italy, have particular tax regulations were you will pay a very low taxation, and invoice without vat (so for B2C my prices are 20% cheaper then a bigger professional/agency), but in return you can't deduct any cost for your business activity.
That means that any purchase is straight out of my pocket, I can't make it a business cost; so that's why 90% of professionals with my tax regulation (not only in photo/video; this is the same for any other business where you need to buy any type of gear/aid, starting from a chair, a desk and a laptop) would almost never buy anything new if they can go on the used market.
And I can tell you that 40/50% of wedding photographer are in the same tax regulation as mine; so yes, price of lenses is a definitive factor for a wedding photographer in my country.
If, like you, I felt the urge to criticize almost everything Canon do or produce, I'd have joined the wonderful Sonikon world and bought many also wonderful 3rd party lenses. Why don't you just do yourself a favor ? The Sonikon grass will always be greener...
Upvote
0
You have Greenland in your profile, that's why.View attachment 212774
In a market (eBay, where you can buy across European Union without any extra tax, vat or customs fee between countries) where I could buy an used EF 24-70 f2.8 II L, just serviced by Canon Italy (aperture ensemble was just swapped due to flat cable failure), for just 610€ shipped (lucky shot; its price is usually around 800€), you can very well imagine that the 3.760€ required for the new RF 24-105 are out of reach (and out of sense) for most. See pre-order prices:
Obiettivo Canon RF 24-105mm F2.8 L IS USM Z
Acquista Obiettivo Canon RF 24-105mm F2.8 L IS USM Z online su Canon Italia Store. Scopri le altre fantastiche offerte su tutta la gamma di Obiettivi Zoom. Consegna gratuita su tutti gli ordini a partire da € 30!
Consider that many small professionals (like me), at least in my country, Italy, have particular tax regulations were you will pay a very low taxation, and invoice without vat (so for B2C my prices are 20% cheaper then a bigger professional/agency), but in return you can't deduct any cost for your business activity.
That means that any purchase is straight out of my pocket, I can't make it a business cost; so that's why 90% of professionals with my tax regulation (not only in photo/video; this is the same for any other business where you need to buy any type of gear/aid, starting from a chair, a desk and a laptop) would almost never buy anything new if they can go on the used market.
And I can tell you that 40/50% of wedding photographer are in the same tax regulation as mine; so yes, price of lenses is a definitive factor for a wedding photographer in my country.
I don't know about Italy, but in my country you need 1.5 average monthly salaries for a Canon 50 1.2 L. On the other hand, the normal price for a professional wedding photographer (not a beginner) is 1/3 or 1/2 the average monthly salary. In addition, you don't buy a lens for a year or two.
Upvote
0
I agree that Canon is lacking in RF-S lenses but nothing really competes with the R100, R50, or R10 cameras.
It is a market that the other camera makers seem to be abandoning.
R100 and R50 type users do not typically buy a lot of lenses
Upvote
0
In my experience, people like that who jump ship criticize their new brand and there are people like you who then ask them the same questions you are asking.
We can criticize every brand and find things to be jealous of in every other brand.
You can buy your way out of human nature.
To be fair, I question the Canon users who hate Canon or think Canon is up to some evil plot against them but Walrus does really seem at that level.
Upvote
0
Unless criticism is absolutely justified.
I have owned and still partly own 14 Leica bodies I was and am fully satisfied with, customer service was excellent and even affordable.
Yet, times are sadly changing. Quality of some bodies (mostly electronics, sometimes even materials), no longer justifies the horrendous prices charged by Leica. Examples? Falling off cheap plastic parts or having to wait between 1 and 3 month in France or Germany for a simple repair is hard to justify. And when dissatisfaction follows the expensive repair, well, what shall I say?
Unfortunately, the M has no competitor, otherwise I would certainly check the competitor's offer.
If it weren't for the lenses...they still are superb!
Anyway, I do not understand why some people constantly criticize on forums whatever Canon produce. As the saying goes: "other mothers have beautiful daughters too".
Every company or product deserves some criticism, but changing brands is so easy...
Upvote
0
If you noticed, since I'm here I've always criticized glass strategies; but you never saw me say anything bad about bodies. Never ever.
And that's because bodies quality, ergonomics and functionality are the motives I'm still with Canon; I don't particularly like Nikon, and I have never liked Sony, specially for ergonomics and menu (but I heard menu are getting better), and I also see plenty of reports of a non-standard and fragile hot shoe connection.
I don't want to switch, because Canon bodies are what works best for me; but I do want to have the choice of using different lenses then Canon offers, for various reasons including surely price at first, but also focal lengths choices and availabilities, size& weight, etc.
To be clear, if I'll ever switch (because yes I like Canon bodies, but I value glass more then bodies), and then third party lenses will become available on Canon, I'll most likely get back in a heartbeat; so I just would love to know if this will ever happen, and when, because I see no sense in switch today to then come back in 2 years from now, I don't play with stuff, I work with it.
Switching when you're an amateur, and camera and lenses are just expensive toys to play with in the spare time it's so easy to say and do; when you use something since 24 years, dating back to film days, and you have invested in bodies, lenses, triggers, accessories, in knowledge of the system, in your muscle memory to operate dials, buttons, menu, in how to treat their raw files, etc, switching brand is not something you do on the whim of a sleepless night.
Upvote
0
You sound like just another fool who thinks that when a company comes out with a brand new mount, that every lens you could possibly want is already designed and waiting. It takes years to design, and engineer a new lens. And you and others act as if every 3rd party lens will be the one you want. We still don't know what Canon will do in terms of licensing agreements with 3rd parties. Impatient people will whine and complain and possibly switch. Smart people will wait, keep using the lenses they have, or look into the very wide assortment of EF lenses from Canon and 3rd parties. So you do have the choice of using different lenses then Canon offers. Goodness, you are a pro. Act like a pro.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
- Contains 2 staff post(s)
