It would be super useful for those interested in wide angle macro photography. This is the last frontier of macro photography. 24mm is quite a good focal length for this as it allows plenty of background without the working distance being too short. On lenses like the Laowa 17mm macro, at macro distances the subject is almost touching the front element. AF is especially useful for a wide-angle macro as it can be difficult to see the precise plane of focus in the viewfinder. It will probably only be 1:2, but it would be great if it went 1:1. If it did there would be real interest in it. I can't say this will translate into a huge demand, but photographs from such a lens by skilled macro photographers are likely to be popular.Hm, 24mm macro sounds weird for me. Is this a usefull lense? I never heard of anything like that...
They have made an EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM lens, it wasn't very good, but it was in 2004, technology have gone a long way since them.As long as the price is set for us poor people wanting a long lens.
Is it not a DO, and those seemed to be expensive.
They have made an EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM lens, it wasn't very good, but it was in 2004, technology have gone a long way since them.
So yes, in a much smaller and simpler lens it may not cost that much to produce and it may perform well.
So far, they haven't really missed the marks for most RF lenses, and these new lenses weren't very good in practice, they wouldn't release them in the first place.
Yes of course, I just wanted to point out that they can put it in a cheaper lens if they want to.The 400 DO version 2 is amazing. Very sharp but also very expensive.
The Sigma attempt at the full frame 18-35 wound up being their 24-35 Art lens - which is much more of an amazing lens than most people give credit for. That lens is so sharp, the zoom is sharper than even Sigma's own 24mm Art and 35mm Art primes. I owned the primes and sold them when I got the 24-35. This wasn't my intent. I'd picked the zoom up used because it was a stupidly cheap price. Was going to play with it and then flip it.
People tend to complain about the shortness of the zoom range, but there isn't the normal sacrifice in IQ (or in aperture) with this zoom, so it really does replace the primes.
The bad news: they couldn't make it go down to 18 and get the same image quality in full frame, so I'm not expecting them to invent that for RF.
how do you know that? just a guess? other info?The L lenses for 2021 will include an RF24-70mm f4L IS USM and a RF 16-40mm f4L IS USM. These are staples of many landscape photographers & Canon knows it.
not really true though. because all the lenses are the same diameter, you can easily use 55mm step up rings and 55mm lens caps on all EF-M lenses and for most of them, still use the supplied lens hood. and because they are all the same diameter, 55mm caps look pretty good on all of them.Not really--the lens diameter is one thing, but there are nevertheless multiple different thread diameters in the M lineup. Granted fewer than in EF, but it's enough to be annoying.
not really true though. because all the lenses are the same diameter, you can easily use 55mm step up rings and 55mm lens caps on all EF-M lenses and for most of them, still use the supplied lens hood. and because they are all the same diameter, 55mm caps look pretty good on all of them.
We did an article up on the EOS-M and tips and tricks.. that is talked about there. you may be interested in reading it.
I was hoping for a FF RF17-70 (it was a past rumor). That would be very versatile. A 18-45 overlaps a lot with a 15/16-35. I guess its advantage would be much lower price.I suspect they won't release APS-C lenses, and the 18-45 will cover the full image circle for full frame, it might be optimized for APS-C (assuming they release an APS-C R body, which is far from certain) and require some hefty in-camera correction to get it to look reasonable on full frame.