Why would anyone care what the uncorrected photo looks like? I really don't understand. Could you show us a corrected 14-35 photo thats worse than a photo by any other lens, especially one for the same price or less? Just show us side by side and everyone will have no choice but to admit you have a point.
What's cheaper than getting an R7 is just using my R5 and cropping :-D In my backpack I always have a 50/1.8 on the R5 and a 16/2.8 floating around. I can crop to 35mm frame and still get 10MP which actually is publishable, though I'm not working professionally any more. Actually I can crop anything up to as small as 50mm frame and still have 4.6MP. In fact I can then crop the 50mm up to 150mm and have 5MP.
Yes, I have the same luxury of having the 16 and an R5 (as well as an EF 24 f/2.8 IS), but I was speaking for those on a tighter budget. The R7 offers most of the features of the R5, albeit cropped, at a much more budget friendly price and the cropped area of the 16 makes a creditable near 24mm equivalent. BTW, even having an R5 (and an M6 II), I may well pick up an R7 for the added portability with the 800mm f/11 relative to the same lens on an R5 with a 1.4 TC.
I can understand having a back-up body, or a lighter-weight/cheaper-to-lose body, so I'm not against the general idea.
If you do the math, the "pixels on the bird" with the R5 and the 1.4 extender is very close to the same as the R7 without the extender. That makes for a smaller, lighter package with very similar IQ at the pixel level (smaller pixels, but a stop brighter). And yes, cropping works well with the R5, but shooting hummingbirds, I find the TC to often be necessary. The attached example is at about 70 ft distance. Any less pixels would be detrimental to the result.
Right, you explained what I meant to be saying, thanks!
Agreed. I hate Canon's policy of blocking third-party AF lens makers, but in theory at least, if they had not slipped their lens schedule it wouldn't be so bad.
If they use the existing design, then they will use the same f-stop as increasing the f-stop will mean changing the design. The EF-M 18-150 has already been ported to the RF-S version with the same design and f-stops.
An RF-s 250-750 that topped out at f/8 would be interesting. The R7 works amazingly well with the 800 f/11, so a 1 stop faster zoom that was still light and compact should be a hot seller.
…would be essentially pointless. At those focal lengths, the image circle diameter is not limiting so there would be nothing gained, an RF lens would be the same size.
Since I'm already wishing for it: I'd take F3.5 - 5.6
Ohhh ups, my mistake. I actually meant a full-frame RF 250-750mm tele-lens. My wording was misleading, I'll edit it asap.
The RF 100-500mm with the 2xTC for when I need more length would be my choice over a 250-750 f/8. That size of zoom would have a 95mm front element and be bulkier and heavier, probably of similar size to the Tamron or Sigma 150-600mm f/6.3.
