There are 4 wide-angle L prime lenses coming in the next 12 months [CR2]
- Thread starter Canon Rumors Guy
- Start date
I owned both the 100-400L and the 70-300L. After getting the 600/4L II, I sold the 100-400 but kept the 70-300L as a more portable option when needed. I did not use it very much, though, so I eventually sold it. I don't think I'd buy a replacement in RF mount unless it comes in at the size weight of the 24-105/4 somehow. I do have the 100-500L, which is a stellar lens both optically and when used for that purpose.
"Ajax Peak Stars" (Telluride, CO)
EOS R3, RF 100-500mm f/4.5-7.1L IS USM @ 151mm, 3.2 s, f/8, ISO 12800
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
If you don't have any experience with the lens you really shouldn't make definitive statements. Is it the sharpest lens in the lineup - no of course no. Do you need to shoot at f/8 - no, of course not, at least not in my experience.
It's funny how people dwell on sharpness when a lot of the final result of your image's sharpness depends on what you have as the sharpness setting in your camera, and then how you post-process. With a good post-processing program the lens's sharpness is almost immaterial, in my opinion.
Upvote
0
Probably has already been mentioned, but the middle ground is EF "L" lenses. You might even say buying them used is bordering on inexpensive for some of the EF L lenses. So for those who want sharp lenses with high build quality, you have an enormous amount of lenses available.
Upvote
0
Adapting IS a good option. Specifically to EF adapter, it retains 100% of the lens' original performance, adds a few extra tricks on top all without you having to break the bank, and the slight difference in weight and bulk is negligible. I don't see that being the case on Nikon nor Sony adapters.
Canon will flesh out the entire RF line-up in due time.
Besides, a lot of the best films and photos today are shot with those adapted older, heavier, and optically weaker lenses in a 'dead mount'. Go look at the Canon FD aspherical lenses that sell for the price of a modern day big white as prime examples.
Upvote
0
I'd have to disagree there.
If your starting point is a perfectly focused, movement-free image, taken with an "average" lens, and then you carefully process the RAW with Topaz DeNoise AI (as I do) you can certainly get a very sharp and detailed end result.
But, if your starting point is an image taken with a high-end L optic (or similar from Nikon, Sony, Sigma) it will look even better, and won't suffer from the slightly "digital, plasticky" look that comes from sharpening an image that is softer to start with. For example, I can certainly tell the difference between sharpened images taken with my RF 800mm F11, and those taken with my RF 100-500mm L.
Upvote
0
Yes, and I've recommended exactly that approach to others here in past threads. But, I think most people would prefer a native RF lens rather than have to use an adaptor, and it's also worth getting RF versions because they are almost invariably sharper, and have significantly better stabilisation.
Upvote
0
Possibly they may just have a large supply of STM motors to use up, or may be tied into a long contract with whoever manufactures those motors. Another possibility is that some lens (mostly older) designs may just work better with STM, due to weight/momentum of lens elements, distance of focus-throw, torque requirements, or some mechanical restrictions that we don't know about. I'd imagine that Canon have very good reasons, either technical or business-related, for choosing STM in certain circumstances.
Upvote
0
Are you talking about this lens? It wasn't an FD.
CANON 50mm f/0.95 - Canon Camera Museum
Here, you can find out about Canon's S Lenses > 50-85mm > CANON 50mm f/0.95.
global.canon
Upvote
0
Similar threads
