Canon doesn't have a non-L 100-400 in EF mount.I think Canon can do a better job with the maximum aperature of their 100-400mm. thier EF Mount one was better!
Canon doesn't have a non-L 100-400 in EF mount.I think Canon can do a better job with the maximum aperature of their 100-400mm. thier EF Mount one was better!
I think he's trying to say that this RF lens won't be an L-grade lens, so it's aimed at a more "budget" audience and it doesn't compare to the EF L lens (which is a fantastic lens, my first L lens ever).im confused
My bet is that this lens is the mirrorless replacement for the EF 70-300 f/4-f/5.6 IS. Canon extended the reach on 100-400L with the 100-500L RF, so why not on the consumer version of the 70-300 (which is a decent lens, BTW).I think he's trying to say that this RF lens won't be an L-grade lens, so it's aimed at a more "budget" audience and it doesn't compare to the EF L lens (which is a fantastic lens, my first L lens ever).
ThanksI think he's trying to say that this RF lens won't be an L-grade lens, so it's aimed at a more "budget" audience and it doesn't compare to the EF L lens (which is a fantastic lens, my first L lens ever).
what do you think the price of that will be?I think he's trying to say that this RF lens won't be an L-grade lens, so it's aimed at a more "budget" audience and it doesn't compare to the EF L lens (which is a fantastic lens, my first L lens ever).
Except, a 2x extender on a 70-200mm f/2.8 lens becomes a 140-400mm f/5.6 lens (not f/3.5!)and also i can just add a 2x extender to my 70-200mm and make it a 140-400mm f3.5
oh geezExcept, a 2x extender on a 70-200mm f/2.8 lens becomes a 140-400mm f/5.6 lens (not f/3.5!)
i.e. 2 stops, or another way of saying/writing it is, a reduction of -2EV![]()
check this outDissapointed that they don't plan an 85mm 1.4. 85mm f2 doesn't seem as sharp and 1.2 is too expensive, loud and large :/
70-700 f2.8.?I will be purchasing the 24mm macro and the 10-24mm once announced. Having 10mm to 200mm on my trinity of lenses along with the 24mm for nice (fairly) wide gimbal shots will complete my RF line up, adding to the 35mm macro, 28-70 f2, 24-70 f2.8 and 70-700 f2.8.
My guess is that it will be either a 14-35 or 15-35 f4, and even if they call it a "14"-35 it might be 14.8 or so in reality rounded down to "14". But since it will be f4 instead of f2.8, then I think that it will be reasonably lighter, thinner and shorter. It will also be "L" quality and native RF so that's really great. I think you would be well advised to wait to get it, but that will (of course) be up to you and how long you are willing to wait for it.Hello out there.
Anybody have thoughts on the Canon RF 14-35mm f/4L IS USM. {Listed on the latest unofficial roadmap.}
Do we think it'll be smaller because f4 and not 2.8? Hope So.
And what about the price?
My questions because I a trying my best to hold out and NOT get the Tamron and then the adapter. I thin that combo would most likely be pretty good, but there is a reason the native RF lenses--so far--image so well.
Thoughts?
Thanks. That's what I needed. I have right now ONLY the 24-70 2.8. And it is FAB. I expect a email note from B&H soon on the shipping of the 50 1.8 and the 70-200 f4. I don't really like going the adapter route. Yes, I can, but don't want to. Sold ALL my @%^&%!! to switch and start on the Canon RF. Just something about how it felt in my hand. Had the Nikon Z7 and it was VERY NICE. But somehow the Canon intrigued me more. I am happy. Sold my Fuji too. (Nice but gotta have full frame.)My guess is that it will be either a 14-35 or 15-35 f4, and even if they call it a "14"-35 it might be 14.8 or so in reality rounded down to "14". But since it will be f4 instead of f2.8, then I think that it will be reasonably lighter and thinner and a little bit shorter. It will also be "L" quality and native RF so that's really great. I think you would be well advised to wait to get it, but that will (of course) be up to you and how long you are willing to wait for it.
I'm glad to be of help. I have the RF 15-35 f2.8L and it's really a beautiful lens. But if they had the 14(15)-35 f4L available at the same time I probably would have bought the f4 instead for a smaller & lighter lens, as (to me) the f2.8 isn't as crucial at such wide angles.Thanks. That's what I needed. I have right now ONLY the 24-70 2.8. And it is FAB. I expect a email note from B&H soon on the shipping of the 50 1.8 and the 70-200 f4. I don't really like going the adapter route. Yes, I can, but don't want to. Sold ALL my @%^&%!! to switch and start on the Canon RF. Just something about how it felt in my hand. Had the Nikon Z7 and it was VERY NICE. But somehow the Canon intrigued me more. I am happy. Sold my Fuji too. (Nice but gotta have full frame.)
THANKS.
My Tamron (I have the A012) is currenty on its way back from Tamron after a firmware update to make it compatible with the R5. I like the Tamron, but it is big an bulbous. The EF 16-35 f/4 is a very good lens and if the RF is better and not too bulky, I will be very interested in acquiring it.Hello out there.
Anybody have thoughts on the Canon RF 14-35mm f/4L IS USM. {Listed on the latest unofficial roadmap.}
Do we think it'll be smaller because f4 and not 2.8? Hope So.
And what about the price?
My questions because I a trying my best to hold out and NOT get the Tamron and then the adapter. I thin that combo would most likely be pretty good, but there is a reason the native RF lenses--so far--image so well.
Thoughts?
This is a interesting response. A different perspective. I am wondering? What is Tamron going to do to make the lens RF ready? That’s pretty interesting. Thanks, MJMy Tamron (I have the A012) is currenty on its way back from Tamron after a firmware update to make it compatible with the R5. I like the Tamron, but it is big an bulbous. The EF 16-35 f/4 is a very good lens and if the RF is better and not too bulky, I will be very interested in acquiring it.