Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register ☰
Main Photography Discussion
New Lenses
Page <<first <prev 5 of 5
Nov 3, 2023 12:11:54   #
burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC
 
gwilliams6 wrote:
That $3000 USD price point is for USA. In foreign markets it is a much costlier investment. The size and weight of it is similar to many 70-200mm f2.8 lenses. For how mobile I have to be as a photojournalist for hours at a time on a job, like a news event or wedding, this lens would be too heavy to use for hours in all the same situations I use a 24-105mm f4, or 24-70mm f2.8, just a fact.

A case in point, Sigma came out with an excellent IQ 35mm f1.2 lens in E-mount a few years ago, but it is so large and heavy, I passed up on it. The thought of lugging that around all day wasn't in the cards for me. Superb 35mm f1.4 lenses are a fraction of the size and weight.

This Canon will appeal to some, but isn't for me, sorry. This pro could afford it, if it was a make-or-break need, but it isn't, especially at that $3000 USD price (more in foreign markets) , large size and weight.

Canon has always been able to produce very good lenses, but they dont always fit my needs or budget.

The Canon 200-800mm f6.3-9 lens is a much better price/value/performance lens choice than the 24-105mm f2.8 IMHO.

Cheers and best to you.
That $3000 USD price point is for USA. In foreign ... (show quote)


Great observations, Gerald. I'd use it in the studio on a tripod, for portraits, or in the field, on a tripod, for video. But for extended hand-held work outdoors, or for long event assignments in fluid situations, no. I like light, inconspicuous gear that I can take anywhere. Big and heavy at my age isn't attractive. An employer would have to buy or rent that lens for me to get me to use it.

There are three good reasons why no one has made a 24-105 f/2.8 until now. They are size, weight, and cost. A few years from now, some of these will be on the used market at reasonable prices, after a lot of folks get carpal tunnel syndrome.

When I was in the portrait industry, we had many customers using the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS USM for high school senior environmental portraits. It's a GREAT lens for that, but yes, too heavy. Several customers had to wear wrist braces at all times when using that lens, after developing carpal tunnel syndrome. A few bought the f/4 version of the same zoom to reduce fatigue and injury.

My 35-100mm f/2.8 for Micro 4/3 (same field of view as a full frame 70-200mm) is two and a half pounds lighter. It won't give me the super-shallow depth of field and bokeh of the Canon 70-200, but it's a lot easier to carry. It plus my 12-35mm f/2.8 II together weigh two thirds what the 70-200mm f/2.8 weighs. Life is full of little trade-offs. In my case, I'll take 'em.

Reply
Nov 3, 2023 12:13:42   #
gwilliams6
 
junglejim1949 wrote:
The RF 24-105 2.8 would be a good replacement for 24-70 but a bit pricey.


And the size and weight is being compared to the size and weight of 70-200mm f2.8 lenses.

Cheers

Reply
Nov 3, 2023 12:14:38   #
gwilliams6
 
burkphoto wrote:
Great observations, Gerald. I'd use it in the studio on a tripod, for portraits, or in the field, on a tripod, for video. But for extended hand-held work outdoors, or for long event assignments in fluid situations, no. I like light, inconspicuous gear that I can take anywhere. Big and heavy at my age isn't attractive. An employer would have to buy or rent that lens for me to get me to use it.

There are three good reasons why no one has made a 24-105 f/2.8 until now. They are size, weight, and cost. A few years from now, some of these will be on the used market at reasonable prices, after a lot of folks get carpal tunnel syndrome.

When I was in the portrait industry, we had many customers using the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS USM for high school senior environmental portraits. It's a GREAT lens for that, but yes, too heavy. Several customers had to wear wrist braces at all times when using that lens, after developing carpal tunnel syndrome. A few bought the f/4 version of the same zoom to reduce fatigue and injury.

My 35-100mm f/2.8 for Micro 4/3 (same field of view as a full frame 70-200mm) is two and a half pounds lighter. It won't give me the super-shallow depth of field and bokeh of the Canon 70-200, but it's a lot easier to carry. It plus my 12-35mm f/2.8 II together weigh two thirds what the 70-200mm f/2.8 weighs. Life is full of little trade-offs. In my case, I'll take 'em.
Great observations, Gerald. I'd use it in the stud... (show quote)


Good and pertinent points from you.

"There are three good reasons why no one has made a 24-105 f/2.8 until now. They are size, weight, and cost. A few years from now, some of these will be on the used market at reasonable prices, after a lot of folks get carpal tunnel syndrome. "


Reply
 
 
Nov 3, 2023 12:43:30   #
MountainDave
 
gwilliams6 wrote:
If you have the light. I have been doing this as a pro for 50 years, and the amount of available light and your available apertures and shutter speeds DOES matters.

MountainDave, I teach university students photography and they have to learn the exposure triangle and how that relates to their different subjects in different situations, and with all the limits of their gear. So it is a balance.

Certainly the 200-800mm will sell as Canon is superb at marketing to Canon users. It will remain to be seen if this becomes a groundbreaking lens for other brand users, or folks would rather use prime and zoom lenses of those other brands.

Cheers and best to you.
If you have the light. I have been doing this as a... (show quote)


I forgot to mention another factor. Stabilization. I can shoot the 100-500 handheld down to 1/50 with ease, even 1/30. No good for BIF I know but I can't really shoot BIF in really low light even with my 300 2.8. I'm well aware of the exposure triangle and tradeoffs. My point is that you can now push ISO with far less of a tradeoff than in years past and the latest AF systems can handle long focal lengths and small apertures far better than just a few years ago.

Reply
Nov 3, 2023 12:46:31   #
Zooman 1
 
R cameras only. I have not heard of a RF to EV adaptor.

Reply
Nov 3, 2023 13:27:46   #
Canisdirus
 
Who didn't see this coming?
Canon closed off its mount for a reason...now you see the reasons.
3k for a 24-105 zoom...lol.

Reply
Nov 3, 2023 14:25:05   #
Architect1776 Loc: In my mind
 
burkphoto wrote:
Great observations, Gerald. I'd use it in the studio on a tripod, for portraits, or in the field, on a tripod, for video. But for extended hand-held work outdoors, or for long event assignments in fluid situations, no. I like light, inconspicuous gear that I can take anywhere. Big and heavy at my age isn't attractive. An employer would have to buy or rent that lens for me to get me to use it.

There are three good reasons why no one has made a 24-105 f/2.8 until now. They are size, weight, and cost. A few years from now, some of these will be on the used market at reasonable prices, after a lot of folks get carpal tunnel syndrome.

When I was in the portrait industry, we had many customers using the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS USM for high school senior environmental portraits. It's a GREAT lens for that, but yes, too heavy. Several customers had to wear wrist braces at all times when using that lens, after developing carpal tunnel syndrome. A few bought the f/4 version of the same zoom to reduce fatigue and injury.

My 35-100mm f/2.8 for Micro 4/3 (same field of view as a full frame 70-200mm) is two and a half pounds lighter. It won't give me the super-shallow depth of field and bokeh of the Canon 70-200, but it's a lot easier to carry. It plus my 12-35mm f/2.8 II together weigh two thirds what the 70-200mm f/2.8 weighs. Life is full of little trade-offs. In my case, I'll take 'em.
Great observations, Gerald. I'd use it in the stud... (show quote)


You do know what the 24-105mm f2.8 does?

Reply
 
 
Nov 3, 2023 16:35:13   #
burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC
 
Architect1776 wrote:
You do know what the 24-105mm f2.8 does?


Yes, I read the reviews. It’s great for general work (at the short end), plus portraits at the long end and video throughout its range, with its wide aperture, extended zoom range (over the 24-70), plus IS, manual aperture ring, etc. However, it’s quite heavy. It’s big and expensive. Even if I were 25 again, I’d rather have a lighter zoom at 2/3 the price.

There is a reason for the Classic Trinity of 16-35 (or 14-24), plus 24-70 and 70-200 zooms. Most folks need the 24-70 most often for active events other than sports or wildlife. It’s reasonably stretchy and light.

Reply
Nov 3, 2023 16:52:17   #
SuperflyTNT Loc: Manassas VA
 
burkphoto wrote:
Yes, I read the reviews. It’s great for general work (at the short end), plus portraits at the long end and video throughout its range, with its wide aperture, extended zoom range (over the 24-70), plus IS, manual aperture ring, etc. However, it’s quite heavy. It’s big and expensive. Even if I were 25 again, I’d rather have a lighter zoom at 2/3 the price.

There is a reason for the Classic Trinity of 16-35 (or 14-24), plus 24-70 and 70-200 zooms. Most folks need the 24-70 most often for active events other than sports or wildlife. It’s reasonably stretchy and light.
Yes, I read the reviews. It’s great for general wo... (show quote)


Last year in Scotland I shot 95% of the time with my 12-40mm lens on my OM-1, (24-80mm equivalenc to FF). This year in Italy I had the 12-100mm but I’m guessing it was between 12-40 for 95% of my shots.

Reply
Nov 3, 2023 17:00:10   #
junglejim1949 Loc: Sacramento,CA
 
burkphoto wrote:
Yes, I read the reviews. It’s great for general work (at the short end), plus portraits at the long end and video throughout its range, with its wide aperture, extended zoom range (over the 24-70), plus IS, manual aperture ring, etc. However, it’s quite heavy. It’s big and expensive. Even if I were 25 again, I’d rather have a lighter zoom at 2/3 the price.

There is a reason for the Classic Trinity of 16-35 (or 14-24), plus 24-70 and 70-200 zooms. Most folks need the 24-70 most often for active events other than sports or wildlife. It’s reasonably stretchy and light.
Yes, I read the reviews. It’s great for general wo... (show quote)


agree

Reply
Nov 3, 2023 17:17:47   #
Architect1776 Loc: In my mind
 
burkphoto wrote:
Yes, I read the reviews. It’s great for general work (at the short end), plus portraits at the long end and video throughout its range, with its wide aperture, extended zoom range (over the 24-70), plus IS, manual aperture ring, etc. However, it’s quite heavy. It’s big and expensive. Even if I were 25 again, I’d rather have a lighter zoom at 2/3 the price.

There is a reason for the Classic Trinity of 16-35 (or 14-24), plus 24-70 and 70-200 zooms. Most folks need the 24-70 most often for active events other than sports or wildlife. It’s reasonably stretchy and light.
Yes, I read the reviews. It’s great for general wo... (show quote)


Because they never had 105mm.
Now they do and the reviews are that the extra 35mm make all the difference at events etc.

Reply
 
 
Nov 3, 2023 17:19:25   #
gwilliams6
 
burkphoto wrote:
Yes, I read the reviews. It’s great for general work (at the short end), plus portraits at the long end and video throughout its range, with its wide aperture, extended zoom range (over the 24-70), plus IS, manual aperture ring, etc. However, it’s quite heavy. It’s big and expensive. Even if I were 25 again, I’d rather have a lighter zoom at 2/3 the price.

There is a reason for the Classic Trinity of 16-35 (or 14-24), plus 24-70 and 70-200 zooms. Most folks need the 24-70 most often for active events other than sports or wildlife. It’s reasonably stretchy and light.
Yes, I read the reviews. It’s great for general wo... (show quote)


Exactly, too big, too heavy, too expensive, sorry.

This is partly why Canon doesn't FULLY allow third-party RF lenses without any restrictions or any pre-approvals. If Canon can get you to spend $3000 USD (and more in foreign markets) on this one lens, why would Canon want you to be able to spend that $3000 USD photo budget money elsewhere , when that could actually allow you to buy multiple less expensive third-party RF lenses, LOL.


Reply
Nov 3, 2023 19:55:48   #
burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC
 
gwilliams6 wrote:
Exactly, too big, too heavy, too expensive, sorry.

This is partly why Canon doesn't FULLY allow third-party RF lenses without any restrictions or any pre-approvals. If Canon can get you to spend $3000 USD (and more in foreign markets) on this one lens, why would Canon want you to be able to spend that $3000 USD photo budget money elsewhere , when that could actually allow you to buy multiple less expensive third-party RF lenses, LOL.

Exactly, too big, too heavy, too expensive, sorry.... (show quote)


They do make some great gear, but it isn’t for everyone. With so many other tools out there, we can suit ourselves with whatever works.

Reply
Nov 3, 2023 21:18:50   #
gwilliams6
 
burkphoto wrote:
They do make some great gear, but it isn’t for everyone. With so many other tools out there, we can suit ourselves with whatever works.



I have shot with Canon, Nikon, Leica , Olympus, Fuji, Panasonic, Pentax, Miranda, Minolta, Alpa, Topcon, Yashica, Mamiya, Hasselblad, Bronica, Linhof, Deardorff and Sony. And their OEM and third-party lenses. They all have some great gear that I have made good use of.

Use what works for you and be happy.

Reply
Nov 5, 2023 17:02:26   #
Ghery Loc: Olympia, WA
 
Architect1776 wrote:
They RF lenses are only for R series cameras.
But ALL your EF lenses work just fine on R series cameras.


Thank you. Sounds like I won't be buying these lenses then.

Reply
Page <<first <prev 5 of 5
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main Photography Discussion
Home | Latest Digest | Back to Top | All Sections
Contact us | Privacy policy | Terms of use | DMCA
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.