You don't know how to discuss nicely, do you? No, you don't.What a load of rubbish.
Upvote
0
You don't know how to discuss nicely, do you? No, you don't.What a load of rubbish.
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
Agree. Sony has the very sharp 20mm f:1,8. A beautiful lens! Sony also have the 24mm f:1,4. In January/February they will announce a 16mm f:1,8. And Canon? Nothing! They don't even have any plans for 2021. Dissappointing.... Maybe I have to switch to Sony?It's a little disappointing to me that they aren't planning on releasing a 24 1.4 any time soon...this would be the perfect lens in RF mount!
You're always free to switch to Sony if you want to. Canon does not as many RF lenses as Sony because of their later start, but they do have many more EF lenses which are compatible for R mount use if you want to use them. I do expect Canon to come out with many more RF lenses and eventually they will have a much more complete line of RF lenses which you would probably be quite happy with.Agree. Sony has the very sharp 20mm f:1,8. A beautiful lens! Sony also have the 24mm f:1,4. In January/February they will announce a 16mm f:1,8. And Canon? Nothing! They don't even have any plans for 2021. Dissappointing.... Maybe I have to switch to Sony?
85 f2 sharp as 135 f2Dissapointed 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 :/
Absolutely agree on the 14-35 (I want one). If it is as good as the EF 16-35 f/4L, it will be a huge seller. The 100-400 may well be the replacement for the EF 70-300 (non L). Kind of the same trick they did with the 100-500L. 400 at f/7.1 should still work with a 58mm filter.Most anticipated of this list for me would be the 14-35 f4 IS.
Biggest question in my mind is price and color of the 100-400 with the 7.1 at the long end, I think it's reasonable to debate whether or not that'll be a "L" lens. Either way though I'd hope to see a modest price tag.
The EF 85 f/1.4 is also VERY good, so I would agree that and RF version would be down the priority list. Let's see, how many years did the EF line NOT have an 85 f/1.4? .The EF version is relatively new and probably not a priority while there are so many other lenses to release first.
Let's see----. It took 30 years to get an 85 f/1.4 in the EF line. It is new and VERY good, so maybe not too much of a rush (at least not until Sigma gets in the game). OTOH, they could just port it to RF and be done.Dissapointed 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 :/
As a Canon shooter with a camera that has an RF mount, I really do not care at all what Sony is doing at 16, 20, or 24mm. I think you should switch.Agree. Sony has the very sharp 20mm f:1,8. A beautiful lens! Sony also have the 24mm f:1,4. In January/February they will announce a 16mm f:1,8. And Canon? Nothing! They don't even have any plans for 2021. Dissappointing.... Maybe I have to switch to Sony?
RF 18-45? Is it something like Panasonic's 20-60 for L mount? I find those slower zooms to be attractive on the wide end but only useful in good light on the longer end.
If you can pay for that hefty price tagI 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 would love a 14-21/1.4 for Astro and for other landscapes.
Alot of people were probably waiting for the 50mm 1.8 as is is the most affordable of them all
Too big a gap between their regular primes and their monster brick primes.
What is so wrong about making a simple 50 f/1.4 IS USM? Or 24 f/2, or 85 f/1.4 IS? How about a nice light 200mm f/2.8 IS that can take teleconverters.
The L lenses are great, but pricey and more importantly, they are heavy.
And the only step down is to f/1.8 STM lenses, made larger than necessary by half-implementation of a pseudo macro.
I think Canon can do a better job with the maximum aperature of their 100-400mm. thier EF Mount one was better!