Canon officially announces the Canon EOS R6 Mark II, Canon RF 135mm f/1.8L IS USM and Canon Speedlite EL-5
- Thread starter Canon Rumors
- Start date
I have the same lens (Rokinon branded), for the same reason. The first Roki 14/2.8 I bought was not a good copy, I exchanged it and the second was good.
I find that if a narrower FoV works, the RF 28-70/2 is also good for astro (and identical exposure to the 14/2.8 in terms of avoiding star trails).
Upvote
0
That’s your choice. I think it’s a logical one if you cannot afford the RF lenses Canon offers. Many of them are excellent, and if your only reason for not buying them is principle, that seems rather silly.
Upvote
0
I hear you, but just like some people like SUV`s and Trucks, other love Mustangs and muscle cars, i love to have options to choose what i want, not be limited in my choices on just this here one brand. Because there are better options, there are also worse and then there are options Canon will never offer and someone else will, because they want to fill the gap and might be just what i need.
Upvote
0
Depends on what you shoot. I shoot a lot of kids and animals and it just makes a clacking sound and then racks and misses when someone jumps forward. It’s very good, by all means, but I would love to catch some of the stuff I could with my old 1dx2 and 200 f2…
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Between native RF lenses and the vast selection of EF-mount lenses (Canon and 3rd party) that can be easily adapted to an R body, I find it difficult to believe you can’t find lenses to meet your needs. But perhaps you also choose to avoid using the adapter out of principle.
The reality is that even with just the RF lenses, Canon meets the majority of buyers’ needs. To borrow your analogy, there are SUVs and trucks, sedans and station wagons, and even a couple of sports coupes in the RF lineup. You’re avoiding it on principle because they don’t have a hybrid semi-trailer and a convertible, despite them having stated many more models will be launched soon.
Personally, the R3 meets my needs for a body. Where an RF lens offers benefits to me over the EF counterpart, I switched. Where an RF lens offered something unique that I wanted (e.g., 28-70/2), I bought it. My existing EF-mount lenses (Canon and 3rd party) that I saw no point in replacing (e.g. 100L macro, 600/4 II) or for which there’s no RF version (TS-E 17/24, MP-E 65) work perfectly well with the adapter. In fact, lenses like the 11-24/4L and TS-E 17 work even better with the adapter, because I can easily drop the vND or CPL filters into the adapter instead of the huge front filters needed for those lenses.
Not sure why anyone would let ‘principles’ like yours get in the way of their photography.
Upvote
0
Sure sure. But, kind sir there were a lot of missed shots and the IQ here is not that great.
Upvote
0
We don’t have VAT in the US, but there are no taxes included in the US $2499 MSRP. This is the second time you’ve posted that lie.
There are also no blanket tax exemptions for companies. Many states do allow exemptions for R&D uses. So if I buy a test tube or a spectrophotometer for my company there’s no tax and I pay just the retail price, but if I buy a pen or a printer for my company it is subject to sales/use tax on top of the MSRP.
Try to get your fact straight, or at least read the posts in the thread since this was already discussed and your first erroneous post was refuted.
Upvote
0
In the US each state has its own tax added at time of buying an item and some don’t states have sales tax. So in California 9.25% sales tax(in LA ) would be $2,730.15 whereas in North Slope Alaska 3% it would be $2,573.97 and a few state like Oregon where there is no sales tax it would be $2499.
Upvote
0
Really? Are you serious?
I've counted a minimum of 31 Canon RF lenses, focal lengths from 14mm to 1200mm, UK prices from £209 to £19,099, plus 2 tele-extenders.
On top of that there are at least 20 specialised manual Laowa lenses in RF mount, plus 2 from Kipon and 2 from Samyang/Rokinon.
... and if that isn't enough, there are literally hundreds of lenses in EF mount that are fully compatible via the EF-RF adaptors and will work absolutely perfectly.
Upvote
0
There is no alternative for the rf 50mm 1,8 which offers better AF or a wider aperture - except for the 50 1,2.
I would not consider that a small upgrade. Neither is there a 32 / 56mm 1.4 for APS-C.
NO 50 1.4 or comparable....
Upvote
0
I find that adapted lenses argument is being brought so much that its being carbon copy without any second thought. I know its not you personaly, but its ultimate "but" excuse for not letting 3rd party lenses into RF market. No .. EF lenses are not up to par with most modern lenses, on Emount, Z mount even, so why would i want adapted lenses on RF mount? I want options, to get what i believe is better lens for my needs. I dont own 85mm Canon lens, mostly because on EF mount its subpar compared to almost everything. On RF there are no options other then overpriced lens that i would never ever ever pay for, but there are options by other manufacturers that are almost up there to Canon RF offering, with nicer price tag, but more importantly .. different glass characteristics i actually prefer. So ... to conclude ... EF bad, RF expensive and offers almost nothing at the moment i would consider great for my needs and 3rd party makes Canon prices more competitive when i want to get Canon lenses.
Upvote
0
For me the show AF is more problematic than if it were 1,2 1,4 1,8 or 2.
No matter how dark, I want an instant autofocus
Upvote
0
Wait, so... third party lenses are great, but EF lenses are terrible? Really? You're entitled to dislike the current offerings but it doesn't sound like you have a realistic understanding of what's available, nor what is likely to be. And ultimately, why not just go with another brand if it's so much better on the other side of the fence?
Upvote
0
