Same here!
I never knew anyone who shot with the old EF 35-350/3.5-whatever. That was a huge white L lens, I think several thousand new. Just checking they're being sold in Tokyo for USD350!! Probably not that sharp but still.Same here!
I no longer need OIS on WA zooms or lenses, IBIS is so convincing. Lenses could indeed become lighter and smaller, maybe even a bit less expensive. And, if the saying is true, thanks to a rigid internal lens alignment, optical quality could even benefit.
On the other hand, I'm also convinced that zooms with a more limited range can be optically better. A 28-70 demands less design compromising than a 24-70.
Another reason why I'd never ever buy a Tamron 35-150...
Stepping back may be an option in a city, but not on a steep and narrow mountain path.
Yeah, the R5 and RF lenses literally have resolution to burn for 99% of shots. (Of course I shoot in hopes of getting the 1% that I want as high as quality as possible but of course that's not the norm. And the 50/1.8 is really good enough to use all 45MP from.)
Me, too. Years ago when trying to decide between the EF 24/1.4L II and EF 35/1.4, I set my 24-105/4 to each focal length for a couple of days each and preferred 35mm. From the 24mm shots, I found myself cropping in post anyway. So I bought the EF 35/1.4L. So for me, the 28-70/2 is wide enough (and fast enough).Funny how different tastes can be.
I find 28mm too wide, and prefer 35mm.
For street, I always use a Leica M. Though zooms are also available for it, I far prefer primes. No zoom is as discreet as a Summilux or Summicron. And why should I crop a 24mm picture if I get what I want with a 35mm?
