What EF lens are you talking about? The Z lens will be an L-series lens for FF bodies, I suspect you’re thinking of 15/18-xx EF-S lenses for APS-C bodies.
Upvote
0
A new wide angle Z lens is coming after the RF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM Z
- Thread starter Canon Rumors
- Start date
What EF lens are you talking about? The Z lens will be an L-series lens for FF bodies, I suspect you’re thinking of 15/18-xx EF-S lenses for APS-C bodies.I meant the 18-80mm servo cinema zoom. There was the 70-200mm servo zoom which is why I wondered if Canon is considering it.
Upvote
0
OIC. I guess your username should have been a clue, I wouldn’t consider CN-E lenses to be EF, though they share the mount.
I expect we’ll see something more akin to the EF/RF f/2.8 trinity (with improvements) for the Z lenses.
Upvote
0
Sony and NIkon have had 12-24/2.8 for some time so this would be matching them and adding video features. Maybe Canon could figure out a way to use front filters without specialised systems like RF14-35 with 77mm front thread.
Excluding my 8-15/4 fisheye, I haven't shot past 14mm rectilinear in the past so I haven't come across scenarios that would warrant going to 12 (or 10mm).
I could see how the RF10-20 could be useful for architecture and using keystone correction to avoid needing a TS-E lens but otherwise.... I will rent it later this year and see how useful it is.
Imagine if Canon releases an ultra wide prime without IS or autofocus with controlled coma at a cheap price... that would be "crazy"!
Excluding my 8-15/4 fisheye, I haven't shot past 14mm rectilinear in the past so I haven't come across scenarios that would warrant going to 12 (or 10mm).
I could see how the RF10-20 could be useful for architecture and using keystone correction to avoid needing a TS-E lens but otherwise.... I will rent it later this year and see how useful it is.
Imagine if Canon releases an ultra wide prime without IS or autofocus with controlled coma at a cheap price... that would be "crazy"!
Upvote
0
The best way to use the servo is with the joystick on the camera like the one on a c70. I don' t use the actual buttons on the thing. I have the rocker as well but the wire hangs too low for my tripods. That is probably why the c400 has the cable go right into the camera instead of sticking out too much under the lens.
Upvote
0
i dont see the point. the 15-35 is better for use with people. 24mm is a too distorted for people in normal work
Upvote
0
you already have the 24-35mm covered with the 24-70 or 24-105/2.8. The 12-24 can also cover the zoom point of 15mm, 16mm and 21mm. So going wider can only be a bonus.
Upvote
0
I understand that but it just feels very limited, it's like a lenses you would use just to get a very wide shot for a few seconds and put it away. I couldn't see people in the video world paying $3000 for that. If they just did real estate just get the 10-20 for way cheaper, smaller, and, wider. I use my 15-35 a lot because I shoot in tight spots and for portraits tighter shots, 35mm still gets me a decent look without looking too distorted on FF and S35. I own the 24-70 24-105 and 28-70 as well as a c70 which the the 15-35 stays on lens stays on all the time.
Upvote
0
You already have your perfect lens choice. Canon isn't replaceing that lens but offering more choice and a slightly different alternative.
Upvote
0
Interesting! Well, different strokes for different folks. Obviously no-one's mandating that Canon make one or the other. People can obviously choose one or the other or get both.
I know there's a HUGE difference between 10mm and 14mm, technically speaking. It will be literally twice the area of coverage. Maybe I should get a 10-20 and try it. That said, I don't think I've ever looked at a 14mm shot of mine and said you know, this just isn't as good an image as I'd have gotten if I could have gone wider. Generally I categorize subjects for UWA as near or infinity; if near, a half-step back may make all the difference ("zoom with one's feet"). If infinity, I haven't gotten a lot of subjects where specific details of the background matter so much as simply the impression of "a lot of background."
A couple 14mm shots from Zurich. The truck is one of the two dozen floats in the 1999 edition of the rave music party Street Parade, where 1M visitors come to a city of 350k. Each truck has tens of thousands of watts of sound system. A friend living 10km down the lake said the sound made his cats hide. Back to the subject at hand the photo of the truck bed with dancers and DJ would benefit hugely from more context but I could have gotten that if I had just taken a step or so back--I had the camera on a monopod as high as I could reach and was like a meter from the nearest dancers. Two steps back would have shown the whole truck.
Upvote
0
Absolutely agree! I am looking options to upgrade EF 16-35 f4 - i was planning to take 15-35 but due to heavy vignetting at 2.8 15mm I gave up. I want good lens for both night sky and landscapes.
Upvote
0
Yay for a new trinity setup I’d personally rather see canon complete the F2 trinity with a 70-150mm (more or less at the long end) and a 14-24/28mm (depending on whether the Mkii of the 28-70mm will be wider or not).
I’d personally rather see canon complete the F2 trinity with a 70-150mm (more or less at the long end) and a 14-24/28mm (depending on whether the Mkii of the 28-70mm will be wider or not).
Last edited:
Upvote
0
I do a bit of both and the 24-105 Z is an incredible lens. I was so miffed when the RF 70-200 wasn't an internal zoom. I owned mine for a bit but found it clumsy to use. I kept the f/4L because it's such a good hiking/travel lens due to its size (about the size of a 12oz soda can). I had a 24-105 f/4L, then the 24-70 f/2.8L, and now the 24-105 f/2.8L Z. While the Z is larger and heavier than all of them, it's so incredibly versatile.
Upvote
0
The internal zoom is what attracts me. I had the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L II and really enjoyed that about it. It just looks better to me.
Upvote
0
Sounds like you solved the dilemma I‘m facing right now: I’m constantly underwhelmed with the RF 24-105mm F4 and looking for other options. Glad you’re happy with the 24-105mm F2.8, but I don’t think it’s for me.
RF 24-70mm wouldn’t solve my dilemma either because it’s too heavy for traveling. I love the RF 28-70mm F2 and I’d be willing to pay money for it but it is really, really heavy, not to mention going hiking with such a lens. I might get it one day for family events and such, but for now I need something lightweight.
So in the back of my mind I’m hoping and waiting for a sharp, small and light 24-70mm F4. It could come with a few extra features like a macro function or something.
Upvote
0
I'm also a bit "annoyed" of the small Dustbuster Lenses Canon is doing in Prosumer Segment. It´s nice when it comes to innovations but at some point I would love to see them sticking a bit to Sony or Nikon when it comes to internal zoom lenses... The Sony 200-600mm or Nikon 180-600mm for example. I own the RF 100-500mm which is a nice lens but it sucks when you have a lens guard attached, zoom in an the white part of the lens comes to shine...
Upvote
0
I don't know about "sticking a bit to Sony or Nikon." I just buy what I like. I'm not in competition with Sony or Nikon, Canon is. It's not like I'm on some team and my team has got win.
Upvote
0
