I have never used an L bracket ..... have not done much landscape imaging via tripod. The super tele lenses of course have the rotating tripod collar.Originally Posted by Kayaker72
I have never used an L bracket ..... have not done much landscape imaging via tripod. The super tele lenses of course have the rotating tripod collar.
I love L-brackets for landscape work... it's so quick to switch from horizontal to vertical. Brant if you're going to get one, I might suggest just going for the non-grip version. You aren't too likely to need to grip when you're using a tripod, I'm thinking. The grip is more for wildlife and BIF when you are shooting rapidly. And in those cases, you're likely using a gimbal anyway. The only disadvantage is that you'd have to remove the L-bracket to put on the grip, but that's not too big a deal in my view.
Jonathan Huyer
www.huyerperspectives.com
The more I mulled it over, the more I came to that conclusion. As much as it is nice to not be messing around with your camera, I'll likely swap out the L-bracket and battery grip when needed as I do not really see needing both at the same time. The L-bracket has lived on my 5DIII and 5DIV. Not only is it very convenient for landscape photography, family portraits, etc, but it does provide an extra level of protection for the camera. So, I am keeping my pre-order for the RRS non-gripped L-bracket. But, honestly, the biggest thing I am waiting for is a clear drop in filter or the second EF-RF adapter with a control ring that I've ordered. The adapter that showed up right away was the EF-RF with the CPL drop in filter, which seems to be ~2 stop ND.
Just picked up R5.
Went to the Grand Canyon with my EF lenses and found I really like the adapter with the cpl.
Have both straight and filter insert adapters.
Shot alot with my 16-35 and 90 t/s.
I habe sooo much ef glass wondering of the RF glass is "worth it" and have to give up the cpl adapter.
Thoughts????
If you see me with a wrench, call 911
Depends on the lens, IMO. My most-used filters are a 10-stop ND and a CPL, and I have those in 77mm and 82mm sizes that work with most lenses. Where the drop-in adapter if really nice is with lenses like my TS-E 17 and EF 11-24, where the front filtering options are a real PITA.
Filters aside, the question of is it ‘worth it’ comes down to the features and cost of the RF versions.
So how long does it take to take 500 frames w/ the electronic shutter and 20 fps? well not that long. Just did a short tour of a popular birding spot and focused on perhaps 8 birds.... 467 frames later..... LOL LOL LOL
If you see me with a wrench, call 911
I've been mulling over exactly the same thing. Overall, my plan is:
- Pick up an RF lens that does something significantly better or new for me, compared to my existing kit.
- Wait 1-2 years as Canon fills out their RF lens lineup just in case something comes out that changes how I might want to construct my kit.
- Eventually make the RF conversion to take advantage of native lenses and the various enhancements that they offer, although, I doubt I will convert everything.
Most RF lenses have offered something over their EF counterparts. Right now, the RF 100-500 is probably most tempting. Lighter, slightly sharper, great balance, and 100 mm extra reach. I've seen some references go by that the AF may be faster too. Thus before my next event where I may focus on wildlife, I'll give that lens and any other wildlife focus lenses a harder look.
But, other than that, the adapters work great, and have the advantage of the drop in filters and being compatible both with my 5DIV and M6II.
The weak part of my kitbis the long end I am on the wait list for the 100-500.
If you see me with a wrench, call 911
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote