From your keyboard to Long Beach Harbor’s eyes.
From your keyboard to Long Beach Harbor’s eyes.
28-70 f/2 for events, indoors, portraits....24-105 f/4 for travel/landscapes.
Seems like a pretty amazing combination.....
I hope it will be...I'll find out on Friday.Originally Posted by Kayaker72
I hope it will be...I'll find out on Friday.
It's reasonably large, but not as unwieldy as I anticipated. A lot like the EF 11-24/4 in terms of weight, a bit beefier but it will handle well on the R3. Looking forward to actually using it!
Years ago I carried all primes because they were sharper than the zooms. With these lenses the only advantage of the prime IMO now is that they are faster. They really have become more of a "specialty" lens.
I did a few comparisons of the RF 24-70mm and the EF 24-70mm L II last night. I would say the IS does matter. The IQ seems to be just a better but not enough that most people would notice and really is not a factor. The specs on the RF 24-70 are misleading, the lens is actually bigger by volume than the EF 24-70. It is fat all the way through, most likely to allow for the IS system. It gives you the feeling that you are carrying a bigger lens.
I took shots at 1/80 at 70mm to get a comparison. In retrospect I should have probably shot slower to get a real comparison for the IS. The EF was the best of the group shot. But hand held with multiple shots the RF did better. You can see if you can tell which is which:
9C0A0619-2 by hdnitehawk01, on Flickr
9C0A0622-2 by hdnitehawk01, on Flickr
Which is which is tough. But I do think the first image (0619) is sharper.
Also interesting, if the settings were the same, but the first image is also brighter.
Now...please excuse me, I am suddenly in the mood for hot chocolate and whipped cream.....
Strange I noticed the brightness to right away. All were taken the exact same spot and lighting just minutes apart. I had it in AV mode with Auto ISO. The camera choose different settings on each lens, one is ISO 1600 and the other is ISO 2000. 0619 is the RF lens. The difference in sharpness is my shaking and unsteady hand and IS.Which is which is tough. But I do think the first image (0619) is sharper.
Also interesting, if the settings were the same, but the first image is also brighter.
Now...please excuse me, I am suddenly in the mood for hot chocolate and whipped cream.....
For us non Pro's my personal opinion on all the RF lenses is they are not worth the upgrade cost if you live on a tight budget. You are a paying a substantial amount for the upgrade to get a very small fraction of improvement, if any.
Eventually the rationale of having native glass for my camera bodies, not using adapters, etc, will win me over. But I am still happy with my EF glass waiting for something like an RF 50-135 f/2; 200-500 f/4, 14-20 f/2, 100 f/1.4 or smaller and lighter weight compared to what I have.
Barring the 50-135 f/2 type of lens, I expect the 70-200 f/2.8 to end up in my bag. If it has better bokeh than my 70-200 f/2.8 II IS, great. But, it'll primarily be about size/weight/native glass.
The older I get the more appealing the size-weight thing becomes.
With the 70-200mm versions I have had I have never remember saying I liked it for its wonderful bokeh. I could always do a quick test of sample pics of the two if any one was really interested in seeing it.
IMO size is the reason to buy it.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote