I use the 14/1.8 and I like it. Not much coma on my example but it is very limited yes, since its only 14mm.I'll say it again, we need some wide astro love! R5 is sooo good for low light... Canon teased with 14-21 F1.4 and 14-28 F2...
I don't like the Sigma 14mm F1.8, for bad coma and too narrow use case... Canon to the rescue!!!
The RF 24-105, I really should consider. It is a great lens, and when wanting to carry just one lens, this would be extremely desirable.The EF 24-70f4L IS is still pretty compact and affordable even with the adapter. So there is always that to fall back on if they wait a while to put out an RF version. Although the 24-104 F4 L RF lens is pretty small and well reviewed. So we have options, which is good.
AF can probably be turned off for those who don't want it. I'd love to see a 50mm and a 90mm with AF. Portrait subjects just don't have the patience for MF anymore, though there'd still be a little fiddling to get the desired plane of focus...Updates of the EF 16 and 24 TS-E’s are the most interesting for me but don’t understand the relevance of AF in a tilt and shift lens? Less distortion and sharper edges (in the 16mm) would be very welcome however.
I guess that's going to be a "because we can" lens, just a bit more affordable than the nigh-mythical EF 1200mm f/5.6L.The 1200mm f8 is interesting, I wonder what, if anything, it will offer over the 600 f4 and tc? I’d expect it to be a very hard sell given its price which I would estimate to be close to breaking the $20,000 barrier.
I presume you meant the TS-E17. The advantage of AF with tilt lenses is in dynamic situations, I’d love my TS-E50 to have AF for portraits, set the tilt first, then select an AF point then get that point on the eye you want and boom.Updates of the EF 16 and 24 TS-E’s are the most interesting for me but don’t understand the relevance of AF in a tilt and shift lens? Less distortion and sharper edges (in the 16mm) would be very welcome however.