-
Join the MyBroadband community
South Africa’s biggest forum. Discuss, discover, and connect with thousands of members.
-
Question of the Day: How often do you receive spam calls?
In-body image stabilisation
- Thread starter Swa
- Start date
EF?
Of course.
I say that because I need lenses that are compatible with all, or at the very least, most of my cameras mfor redundancy.
Also RF lenses are really pricy and for what? A lighter lens?
And my kid wants to photograph sporting events at school and this 300 f/4 on a 7Dmk2 will be perfect. It's ridiculously light and inexpensive.
EDIT:
I don't know about lighter. I understand the point about price and there have been some good EF gems where it's certainly worth it if you have or can find them. The thing about the RF lenses is that they're mostly redesigned and not just copies of their EF counterparts. Canon also seems to be moving exclusively to USM for their L glass.Of course.
I say that because I need lenses that are compatible with all, or at the very least, most of my cameras mfor redundancy.
Also RF lenses are really pricy and for what? A lighter lens?
And my kid wants to photograph sporting events at school and this 300 f/4 on a 7Dmk2 will be perfect. It's ridiculously light and inexpensive.
EDIT:- this guy get it
I don't entirely agree with his stance. It makes sense when moving directly to Canon mirrorless to only go for RF. Unless you're shooting specialty landscape or wildlife stuff you can almost entirely get by with just a 24-105mm 2.8 and 24–240mm and perhaps throw in a 100-400mm so it's not that expensive any more and prices are bound to come down more now that other manufacturers are finally getting on board.
I also find it funny his first plug is this
"Buy the Canon 50mm 1.8 RF"
Either you misunderstood the situation or the phrase but Canon is actively blocking third party lenses for the RF mount. An August 2023 article from DP Review concludes
Not entire accurate but hopefully they'll regret their decision to not have an open system or someone will find a way around it as there isn't really anything novel about the system.
My point about the lenses is that Canon themselves have made most options redundant with only a few lenses. Most portrait photographers can now get by with a 24-105 2.8 without ever needing another lens replacing R100k+ worth of gear with R50k. That's less expensive than a lot of 3rd party options so it's really bad advice to stay away from RF. The RF-S 15-150 virtually replaces 2 other lenses with a relatively inexpensive kit lens. For your average person there isn't a lot of room for 3rd party any more except for specialty lenses and they'll have 2 or 3 that cover everything.
airborne
Honorary Master
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2007
- Messages
- 28,953
- Reaction score
- 15,210
I don't know what you're calling "super wide range".
Using super wide range zooms is fine for home gamers not so much for professionals.
There are very few zooms that can beat nevermind match prime lenses optically in terms of sharpness and speed. L-series EF lenses are a no brainer considering what they cost relative to an RF lens.
That is not true. Modern zoom lenses can match if not outperform a lot of primes. They also give you more flexibility which can result in better images. Simply the 24-105mm 2.8 replaces 3 or 4 primes. Now show me where you're going to get the same for less than R70k without sacrificing quality to some extent anyway.
4 Myths About Zoom Lenses vs. Prime Lenses — Andrew Goodcamera
In this post, I want to expose 4 myths that lead people to choose prime lenses over zoom lenses. Anyone new to photography might assume that choosing a camera lens with the ability to zoom to several different focal lengths, (a zoom lens), would be better than choosing one with a fixed focal
goodcamera.net
I also think you're missing the point here. It's not that RF lenses are less expensive but that anyone starting out will need less RF lenses than EF lenses with the new options available so it's counter productive to recommend EF lenses over RF. There's also another point, it might be slightly better to go with 3 EF lenses 15-200 mm but it doesn't help if you can only carry one of them where you can cover 24-105 with a single lens.
On the contrary - for someone starting out, EF lenses offer tremendous value for money and they're abundant.
For example - you can get a used EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II for R 17,995.00 vs a new RF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM Lens on sale for R 57,395.00.
I have a 24-105, and it's a workhorse, but it's no substitute for a 70-200 or a 16-35.
airborne
Honorary Master
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2007
- Messages
- 28,953
- Reaction score
- 15,210
I don't know what you're calling "super wide range".
That is not true. Modern zoom lenses can match if not outperform a lot of primes. They also give you more flexibility which can result in better images. Simply the 24-105mm 2.8 replaces 3 or 4 primes. Now show me where you're going to get the same for less than R70k without sacrificing quality to some extent anyway.
4 Myths About Zoom Lenses vs. Prime Lenses — Andrew Goodcamera
In this post, I want to expose 4 myths that lead people to choose prime lenses over zoom lenses. Anyone new to photography might assume that choosing a camera lens with the ability to zoom to several different focal lengths, (a zoom lens), would be better than choosing one with a fixed focal
I also think you're missing the point here. It's not that RF lenses are less expensive but that anyone starting out will need less RF lenses than EF lenses with the new options available so it's counter productive to recommend EF lenses over RF. There's also another point, it might be slightly better to go with 3 EF lenses 15-200 mm but it doesn't help if you can only carry one of them where you can cover 24-105 with a single lens.
No noob, zoom lenses may come
close in some regards but can never beat a prime lens, it is just the basic laws of physics. Many modern zooms are impressive but still a compromise in some form or other. In any case EF lenses of whatever ilk still rival RF lenses so [mention]bwana [/mention] point stands that EF lenses offer outstanding value to shooters with RF bodies.
And add in a 16-35 and 24-70 for say R15k each. That's let's make it R45k. I've seen 24-105 for as little as R66k brand new. You might be able to find something good but you also can't really compare new to used.
Also which 24-105 are you referring to? The 24-105 F2.8 is brand new and you won't find it with EF or any other camera for that matter from what I can tell. Few people like to shoot with the close-quarter 16-24mm range and for those using 70-200 it was mostly to get the 70-105 that 24-70 don't offer.
My point is not that EF lenses don't still offer value. It's rather that recommending EF over RF is counter productive because RF is a whole new game with lenses that didn't exist or are redesigned and better. The RF-S 10-18 for instance is not just a copy of the EF version but redesigned with better characteristics and rather inexpensive. If I'm shooting APS-C which many professionals now are I'd rather go for that IF needed and 24-105 (38-168) F2.8. But I'd rather get 3 good RF lenses that will cover most situations first and then add EF lenses if need be.
It's not just my opinion. You're going by old myth. In most cases where prime beats zoom you have to literally be a pixel peeper which as Bwana states misses the point. But it's not about that, it's about zoom lenses offering more flexibility which leads to better overall pictures. We can put two professionals with exactly the same skill levels and circumstances next to each other, one shooting prime only and the other zoom, and they'll make the same amount of money because nobody can actually pick up on this better quality of yours.
I also don't know what you're calling "super wide range" zooms. The 24-105mm is only 4x which is not wide range. Actually there's no such term and only super zoom from what I've seen. But it's only at longer (100mm plus) distances that zooms really start to show a decrease in quality in any case. You're going to struggle getting a suitable prime above 100mm and would have to carry 3 or 4 lenses as I said which you have to continually swap out leading to dust and other issues that hamper quality.
Again as I said to Bwana it's not that EF does not offer value but that RF is a whole different game with lenses that have been redesigned or that didn't exist. You can't think that it will automatically fit the same scenario better.
Why not? I've bought two used lenses and one body in the last year - unbeatable value.
24-105 f/4 EF and what it doesn't give you on either end is enough to justify the other focal lengths. The 17-40 or 16-35 f/4 are inexpensive, compared to the 16-35 f/2.8, and I picked up my 70-200 f/4 for R5k. I do 95% of my portrait work with a 70-200.
Not that many. I know one and the other photographers tease him relentlessly...
And just think - that 70-200 becomes a very useful 112-320 on a APS-C body - very handy for sports and wildlife.
Just because the RF lenses are great it doesn't mean the EF lenses aren't still great.
Yes but probably with good homework. Your average person will not have the same success and end up buying either more or new. Worth it for a 33% discount?
Fine but that actually justifies what I said about the 24-105 2.8 being your primary lens. There aren't many more situation where you really need F2.8 and most other lenses will satisfy.
Let me guess, nobody can match his pictures
Seriously though many professionals have an APS-C camera in their arsenal which they regularly use and nobody even knows it. There's also a reason it's favoured for wildlife as you're going to struggle getting that 800mm in a good package.
To my point, once you have the portrait stuff sorted it's easy to add a 24-240 and I can even get one for under R14k second hand vs R21k new that can double as an everyday lens. So general RF lenses are not that expensive compared to EF. It's only your new premium L lenses because they're premium but they also offer some advantages and aren't just copies of EF lenses.
I'm not discounting the EF lenses but there seems to be a backlash against RF lenses by some that isn't really justified. Whether you go with EF or RF first it doesn't change that there are some good RF lenses that make a lot of the EF ones redundant and it looks like Canon's approach with RF is to try and replace ranges of traditional lenses.
He is, featured by Canon: https://www.usa.canon.com/learning/...-stories-list/explorers-of-light/sal-cincotta