Agreed, there is really no need for an f/4 24-70 now. The EF version was a bit sharper than the 105, and had the pseudo-macro feature, but doubt they'd do that for RF.My feeling is that the 24-105 f/4L IS is sharp enough that the minor reduction in volume and weight along with the need for a lower price point would not make sales volumes and profit margins high enough to make it a priority. The other lenses on this list fill gaps. A 24-70 f/4L IS would not.
The RF 24-105's distortion is not like the EF's, and it's smaller and lighter (actually only 100g heavier than the EF 24-70).Not interested in the 24-105mm. Don't want the extra distortion at the wide end or the extra weight.
Likewise. I am looking at the F/4 trinity: 14-35mm, 24-70mm, and 70-200.
Not interested in the 24-105mm. Don't want the extra distortion at the wide end or the extra weight. A 24-70 would balance nicely on the R5.
If more people like these posts maybe Canon will notice
Can someone explain to the
What would this lens be best used for and what types of shot will this lens be effective for? Portraits up close? Landscape? Macro of flowers and bugs? Please help. want to learn about lenses and uses and how this in future could be paired with r5 camera.Thanks
- Canon RF 24mm f/1.8 IS STM Macro
Farce?Apart from the superteles and 14-35 f/4L IS and 100 f/2.8 macro, disappointing lineup, especially yet another slow telephoto zoom. No doubt the 100-400 won't even accept TC's or will be another farce like the 100-500.
The 2 lenses that I think are missing or should be there are a RF300/2.8 and an astro lens.
The EF400/600mm were updated leaving the EF300/500m without an update. RF500mm gets love but not the 300mm
An astro lens would be a niche area but Samyang (14mm/2.8, 14mm/2.4) and Sigma 14mm/1.8 have had the space for some time now.
Canon's EF14mm is still selling (not many!) at the same price as the RF50/1.2 and not great for astro.
I believe that the 14/2.4 is better than the 14/2.8 but at double the price. I am content with the images from my f2.8. You can see images using it on my Flickr stream. I'm not sure that I would pay a lot of money for f2.4 vs 2.8 though.I´m missing an affordable wide lens for the RF mount for astro and architecture. Seems like there is only the Samyang so far and all wide options from canon seem to be way to expensive or starting at f/4. Are you happy with your Samyang 14mm 2.8? I heard that it´s not the sharpest, that´s why I´m not sure if it´s the right choice for me. I´m even thinking about getting the Tamron 17-35mm 2.8-4.0 instead and use it with the RF-EF adapter.
If the 135f/1.4 is like the size of the EF 200mm f/2... I have been waiting for nothing.
Give me a new RF135 f/2.... with IBIS it is all I need.
Not sure I follow you.
You want affordable 600+mm lenses but don't like the current small/light/affordable/sharpish RF600/800mm primes.
Assuming that the RF100-400 will not be a "L" lens then it will be cheap and cheerful
The price for the RF100-500mm will drop. I got mine on a 15% off sale. Still expensive but getting closer to a current EF100-400Lii + 1.4 TC + R mount adapter. It is amazing for a 5x zoom.
It seems that you want cheap, fast, long focal length and I can't see that happening anytime soon. Don't forget that you can adapt all the EF lenses from Canon, Sigma and Tamron etc.