This is the Canon RF lens roadmap
- Thread starter Canon Rumors
- Start date
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).
Upvote
0
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).
Upvote
0
after buying the rf 35mm f/1.8 macro i want same thing with weather proof(maybe in 1.4?)! btw why dont they add small macro like this 0.5X in most lenses , does it add much cost/weight? are there downsides?
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Except, 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
Upvote
0
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
Upvote
0
check this out
LK SAMYANG
A New Perspective LK SAMYANG. Provides detailed information and support for LK SAMYANG lenses. You can also view magazine content and sample photos.
www.samyanglens.com
its the same price as the 85mm f2 so why not
Last edited:
Upvote
0
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?
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?
Upvote
0
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.
Upvote
0
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.
Upvote
0
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.
I see the RF 70-200 f4 is expected around mid December (wow!). I have the RF 70-200 f2.8L and that's the one lens I would have chosen the f2.8 version over the f4 as I think the wider aperture is often very useful for portrait shots, as I like it for that as well as landscape shots. If I wanted it mainly (or only) for landscapes or travel where I was fine with the f4 blur then I would definitely get the f4.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
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.
Upvote
0
Not directed at me--I know. But most likely because the f4 version should be smaller, lighter. And the 2.8 vs the f4 is not the end of end all.
Notice that with the notable exception of the world below HIS belt, bigger is not always better.
Notice that with the notable exception of the world below HIS belt, bigger is not always better.
Upvote
0
A good question. One other reply suggested it was an issue of compactness but the 24-105 isn't a huge lens. (Yes there are smaller lenses out there, but this one doesn't seem THAT grotesquely huge.) So now that you ask, I'm curious about this myself.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
