Two more lenses coming with the 3 hydrids or soon after
- Thread starter Canon Rumors
- Start date
Suplico a los cielos que el peculiar EF 24-70mm f/4 de Canon llegue para el sistema RF. Para los que nos gusta retratar lo que nos encontramos por la naturaleza, era muy interesante esa amplificación que tenía de 0\'7x. Y con el punto dulce en su parte más angular.
Upvote
0
Hmm...canon could have re-used the old lens optical foruma and replaced the outer casing and bottom end of the lens. Cobbling a EF400mm f2.8 mkIII and shoving a 2xTc on it and trying to trick everyone that this was a new and fresh design is nothing more than a con regardless of how much lighter it is. After all this is a £18K lens in the uk and it's little more than a £13K EF/RF 400mm f2.8 III with a £5K teleconverter.
Shame on you Canon...
The old EF 800mm f5.6 (which is massively shaper than is cobbled RF version) weighs 4500g, the cobbled RF weighs 3140g, sure it's lighter but it's not massively and cerainly not worth the £££ increase and the sevear IQ drop. I intentianally bought a EF 400mm f2.8 II L over the lighter EF/RF 400mm f2.8 because of the mkII's superior IQ...which is less of a difference than between the old EF 800mm f5.6 LIS and this cobbled RF version.
Your latter comment is complety mis-informed....I regularly use a 800mm f5/6 and it's pin sharp. I have friends who regularly use their EF600mm f4 LIs II with a 1.4x TC and that's pin sharp too.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Keep in mind that the EF400 and 600 where announced 10 minutes before the RF system and have features that Canon still claims to be RF exclusive.
I’m not convinced they were designed as purely EF, but Canon released them as EF to get the most return on investment and cynically expected people to buy both the EFIII first and the RF version later when the R5 and R3 came available.
Upvote
0
The latter comment was referring to atmospheric distortion, which is independent of lens sharpness.
Upvote
0
I mean... It's optically better than the 28-70 F2 @ F2.8 but hey... I'm no serious photographer like him
He certainly has very serious RF lenses we don't know about that are better.
www.the-digital-picture.com
Thanks to people like him thinking that it's a crappy lens I was able to pay it 180 new on B&H.
He certainly has very serious RF lenses we don't know about that are better.
Canon RF 28mm F2.8 STM Lens Image Quality
View the image quality delivered by the Canon RF 28mm F2.8 STM Lens using ISO 12233 Resolution Chart lab test results. Compare the image quality of this lens with other lenses.
www.the-digital-picture.com
Thanks to people like him thinking that it's a crappy lens I was able to pay it 180 new on B&H.
Upvote
0
The 28 mm f2.8 pancake lens is an excellent lens and I use it with my R5 mk2. Such a small lens does look bit odd on a R3 body, but in terms of performance for landscapes it a very good lens. An easy lens to place into your pocket in the last minute and inexpensive enough to replace if it is damaged.
Upvote
0
Hi everybody, I'm a long time reader, first time poster, so please be gentle with me
I've fallen in love with some of Sigmas offerings, specifically the 14mm f1.4, the 28-45 f1.8, the 35mm f1.2 and the 105mm f1.4. I'd love to see Canon offer equivalent options, or charge Sigma a licence fee to produce them for the RF mount, but I can't see either happening in a hurry. (Maybe the 35mm f1.2 from Canon is on the board, and there's the 135mm f1.8).
The 200-400 F4 sounds great for a forthcoming trip to the Falklands, hopefully it will be released soon enough that I can rent one for a month or so.
Shane.
I've fallen in love with some of Sigmas offerings, specifically the 14mm f1.4, the 28-45 f1.8, the 35mm f1.2 and the 105mm f1.4. I'd love to see Canon offer equivalent options, or charge Sigma a licence fee to produce them for the RF mount, but I can't see either happening in a hurry. (Maybe the 35mm f1.2 from Canon is on the board, and there's the 135mm f1.8).
The 200-400 F4 sounds great for a forthcoming trip to the Falklands, hopefully it will be released soon enough that I can rent one for a month or so.
Shane.
Upvote
0
Which latter!? The "Z"?? The 24-105 2.8 Z isn't TC compatible.... do we have other Z lenses out currently?!
This confuses me...
@Canon Rumors Guy
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Hi Shane, welcome. We're "quite" friendly here...
Sigma lenses are really strong optically, great build quality these days too. Although they don't tend to be as robust as OEM offerings. They tend to come in quite heavy compared to a like for like comparision to OEM offerings. The Sigma's AF is usally a weak spot compared to OEM offerings as are their Image Stabilisers. However, they are substantially cheaper than Canon offerings. Currently Canon are only allowing 3rd party lens manufaturers to make lenses on the RF format that are either manual focus or RF-s / 1.6x crop format. canon have stated manytimes that they will only allow permit non-competing lens products on the RF mount and will actively pursue cease and desist orders on any lens that directly competes with any of the Canon lens portfolio products.
So I think that these Sigma offerings are highly unlikely to happen for quite a few years. Another lens that I greatly admire and envy is the Tamron 35-150mm f2-2.8....that's a one lens and your are done wedding / portrait kit.
The RF 35mm f1.2 L is a sore subject here for good reasons.
The EF 200-400 is a very versatile lens. It's a great "one Stop shop" appraoch to focal length. It's only issue is that it's quite heavy and combersome compared to say a EF 300mm f2.8 IIL (and a pair of TC's) or a EF 400mm f4 DO II (with an optional 1.4x TC).
Upvote
0
Thanks for marshalling all the diagrams and it explains your point quite well.
Looking at this I'm just sad they didn't make it so you could switch to 400/2.8 so that built-in TC could drop out like this, maybe allowing also a 1.4x to swing into place (I envision a turret with two TC's and an empty tube that prevents internal reflections).
Upvote
0
Similar threads
