Two previously rumoured lenses have appeared in a recent patent
- Thread starter Canon Rumors Guy
- Start date
Let's start a "Pro-Canon Whining" post!
Pro-Canon Whining
A substantial number of people want a new 50 f/1.4, but they can't agree on price levels / specs. Probably never going to happen. Everyone and their mother knows @roby17269 has unhealthy desires for a 35 f/1.2, but the rumor now is f/1.4 with is = unhappy Roby Some people have posted about 50...
www.canonrumors.com
Upvote
0
I WAS a Wedding photographer and I can see the benefits of both.
For me, I already have a fine EF 70-200/2.8 LIS II that's well proven and paid of it's self over and over. It was never a main go to lens of mine, I far prefer the EF 135L. The RF version is a lot easier to store in a lens bag and it's a fair bit lighter. However, optically, there is no discernable diffrence in the end photos. Because I already have a EF mkII, the side grade to the RF version offers me a bit of lightness and ease of portablility. That's a little bit of benefit for a £2700 side grade! AS I've said before, the loss of teleconverter use realy reduces the verstatiliy of the RF version compared to the EF version. The whole point of the TC is that I don't have to take yet another lens with me. If you find that you need to take an addional 100-500L with you then it points to the fact that Canon have taken the TC option away and upsold you another (expensive) lens.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
That's most likely due to copy variation then the differences between the EF mkII/III and RF versions. Have you seen the MFT charts...there's not a lot of difference.
Likewise between the EF 24-70mm f2.8 mkII and the RF 24-70mm f2.8 LIS. Optically...pretty much the same.
Upvote
0
Yes, I have seen them – there's actually a meaningful difference as far as MTF charts go. The contrast (black lines) is similar, the resolution (blue lines) is higher with the RF version once you get away from the center of the image. That's consistent with comparing both lenses on the same (R-series) camera.
The differences are there, but alone not worth upgrading, IMO. For me, the smaller size and lighter weight are the significant differences.
Upvote
0
Yep, that all makes sense. And for me, the image quality (being approximately the same as the EF version) of the RF version isn't the selling point - the weight reduction is. I have twice owned the EF 70-200/2.8 and twice sold it - just too heavy and awkward for my shooting style.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
