For Canon users: Canon saves weight, size and costs with slower aperture RF lenses. Does it matter to you? From David Mckeegan: Interesting, missed this one last week. Canon saves...

gwilliams6

From David Mckeegan: Interesting, missed this one last week.

Canon saves weight, size and costs with slower aperture RF lenses. Does it matter to you?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2yuXEIl_t2Q

jeep_daddy Loc: Prescott AZ

Yes, something he doesn't really mention is that Canon is making the L series RF lenses slower but they aren't reducing the price. If anything they are more by about 10%. I'd do as he says and stick with the fast EF lenses that I already own.

gwilliams6

jeep_daddy wrote:

Yes, something he doesn't really mention is that Canon is making the L series RF lenses slower but they aren't reducing the price. If anything they are more by about 10%. I'd do as he says and stick with the fast EF lenses that I already own.

He says these aren't L series lenses, and these prices are less than L series lenses and even less costly than Sigma equivalents.

But it is good if you have EF glass that you love and can use with an adaptor.

Cheers

User ID

gwilliams6 wrote:

He says these aren't L series lenses, and these prices are less than L series lenses and even less costly than Sigma equivalents.

But it is good if you have EF glass that you love and can use with an adaptor.

Cheers

Thing is that Jeep daddy immediately digressed to another subject. I am not disagreeing with his info, but it I must agree that doesn’t address the issue.

BTW, back on topic, too slow is too slow. Your grandmother’s folding Kodak had an f/6.3 lens about 80 years ago.

Myself, I won’t be using such seriously compromised stuff, and I poke fun at the “need for speed glass” worshipping cult. (There’s never been a situation too dark for f:2.0.) The emperor is naked.

Acoarst there’s the school that f:1.2 isn’t about harvesting photons but is all about DoF. LOL at that as well.

I’ll predict that Canon’s faux pas will not compete well against next year’s phones. And the excuse that slower is smaller and lighter doesn’t compete well against last year’s m43 either.

I use some very nice f:4.0 and f:4.5 lenses, but thaz where I draw the line.

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

User ID wrote:

Thing is that Jeep daddy immediately digressed to ... (show quote)

I agree (if I understand you correctly). I don’t own lenses faster than f1.8 or f2 - the DOF wide open below f2 is typically too shallow except for portraits in a studio. By the same token, the only lens I currently have slower than F4 is an f5.6 @ 400mm FF 100-400 zoom (and I’m seriously considering a 300mm f2.8L and using a 1.4x Canon EX when I need something longer)