I did a cursory look over what EF L lenses that do not have a direct RF L lens equivalent from year 1993-today. These were all in stock in 2018 when RF mount was announced.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
I think you can take the 24-105mm off the list.I did a cursory look over what EF L lenses that do not have a direct RF L lens equivalent from year 1993-today. These were all in stock in 2018 when RF mount was announced.
Maybe he means the MkI version of the lens. Or not, because he also lists the 24-70/2.8 (not MkII) that surely was not in stock anywhere in 2018. He includes EF zoom lenses that have both IS and non-IS versions where the IS version has a direct RF replacement (and the non-IS never will).I think you can take the 24-105mm off the list.
Lol, biting? Sheesh, I didn't even point out that there is no 'direct' RF replacement for the EF 100-400L II (meaning if you did not include that because the 100-500 is the practical replacement, you should have left off the 17-40/4L because the 14-35/4L is the practical replacement). Nor did I point out that you call your list EF L lenses yet include TS-E lenses on it, which are not EF (Electronic Focus) lenses. Not to mention (which is a silly turn of phrase, because of course the context is that of mentioning it), you included the 400/4 DO which is not technically an L lens, either.Clerical error to encourage your signature biting reply.
Indeed. For example, I suspect many would block people who post sexist statements such as you have. Statements like that are best described by analogy to the inability of Sony’s autofocus to track white birds (i.e., stupid AF).If CR had a block instead of an ignore I could imagine lotsa people would use it. lol
This is why I wish there was a block:I'm talking about my pet peeves with crazy people. That's why I wish there was a block.
If I could redo the last 2 decades I'd have wanted to start bird photography in my 60s rather than in my 20s.
There arent attractive looking women bird watchers/photogs. They're all 2x my then age & fugly.
Did you miss the RF 24-50 that was announced alongside and is kitted with the R8? The R8 is a 'consumer' FF camera, I would not expect Canon to pair a constant aperture zoom with it.I really don't understand why they haven't released something small and simple like a 28-75 f/2.8 or a 24-70 f/4 to go with these smaller cameras they've released. The problem with the R8 or the older RP is the lenses you mount on them are either primes or massive zooms. The 24-105 isn't huge, but its still off balance on the rp.
I’m trying to work out what kind of clown buys a R8 then slaps a 24-50 6.3 zoom on it.Did you miss the RF 24-50 that was announced alongside and is kitted with the R8? The R8 is a 'consumer' FF camera, I would not expect Canon to pair a constant aperture zoom with it.
It's small, like the R8. It's light, like the R8. It's relatively inexpensive, like the R8. It covers wide to normal focal lengths, which covers a lot of photographic needs. The max aperture is only less than a stop slower than the kit zooms sold with tens of millions of APS-C DSLRs, and the FF sensor means the IQ will be better than those in lower light.I’m trying to work out what kind of clown buys a R8 then slaps a 24-50 6.3 zoom on it.
You couldn’t even make it up.
Why, why would anyone even consider such a shite option.
Actually I disagree, it’s a cop out by canon. They really do wield that cripple hammer don't they?It's small, like the R8. It's light, like the R8. It's relatively inexpensive, like the R8. It covers wide to normal focal lengths, which covers a lot of photographic needs. The max aperture is only less than a stop slower than the kit zooms sold with tens of millions of APS-C DSLRs, and the FF sensor means the IQ will be better than those in lower light.
I'm trying to work out what kind of clown doesn't get that.
If you don't like it, don't buy it. I don't plan to buy it. But it's a very reasonable lens for the R8, IMO.
Lol. You're welcome to your opinion. Personally, I think choice is a good thing. It's a $200 (kit cost) standard zoom lens for FF. Nothing crippled about it, you're getting what you pay for. If you can't afford 'stupidly expensive' high-quality zooms, you're not alone. Canon is offering a FF camera with a standard zoom for $1700.Actually I disagree, it’s a cop out by canon. They really do wield that cripple hammer don't they?
Hi! Apparently I’m a clown I’m going to leave you in suspense as to what kind.I’m trying to work out what kind of clown buys a R8 then slaps a 24-50 6.3 zoom on it.
You couldn’t even make it up.
Why, why would anyone even consider such a shite option.
Certainly with 24-50 range.I agree -- there must be customers for it, or Canon wouldn't have made it.
And f/4.5-6.3 is only 1/3 stop slower than f/4-5.6.
But I think people on this forum draw the line at f/4 !
I'd prefer an RF24-70 F/4L IS USM, but that doesn't exist.I agree -- there must be customers for it, or Canon wouldn't have made it.
And f/4.5-6.3 is only 1/3 stop slower than f/4-5.6.
But I think people on this forum draw the line at f/4 !