Here is the Canon RF 16mm f/2.8 STM
- Thread starter Canon Rumors
- Start date
According to the cache on the Amazon product page, "RF100-400mm F5.6-8 IS USM" has a minimum shooting distance of 88cm at 200mm, a maximum shooting magnification of 0.41x at 400mm, and an image stabilization effect of 6 steps (R5 / R6) / 5.5. Stage (R / RP), teleconverter RF1.4x / RF2x compatible, seems to be nano USM.
Upvote
0
Nice ! Are you able to share the same info for the 16mm?
Teleconverter compatibility is a pleasant surprise! I wonder if it's for the full range or just a subset, like the 100-500.
Upvote
0
Aussie shooter
https://brettguyphotography.picfair.com/
That doesn't give me too much confidence that it will make a good astro/aurora lens. Hopefully I am wrong though and it is sharp enough with decent comma control
Upvote
0
Wow, the 100-400 looks very tempting to me! Especially the 0.41 max magnification, and nano usm. Teleconverter compatibility is also big plus. Price is not bad either, just hoping IQ to be good enough. And I think it is. It is slow, as expected, but this keeps the size/price/weight down.
The 16mm 2.8 also looks tempting, even I'm not so interested shooting ultrawide. This lens seems the kind of throw-it-in-the-bag-and-forget-it, as others have mentioned. Exciting times. And just yesterday I ordered Sigma 56mm 1.4 for my M100.... hard times for my wallet!
Upvote
0
Wow, Canon is really staking their claim with RF lenses. That 100-400 is going to be a very, very nice lens for enthusiasts who don't want to spend even $1400 on a used 100-400 F/4.5-5.6L.
I didn't see the exact length specs, but I imagine this isn't much bigger than the existing 70-300.
So many incredible options for entry level full frame, which is an incredible way to get people hooked on a system.
I didn't see the exact length specs, but I imagine this isn't much bigger than the existing 70-300.
So many incredible options for entry level full frame, which is an incredible way to get people hooked on a system.
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
Thank you for sharing! Again, assuming IQ is fine, the 100-400 is most attractive at this price point given that it has IS and USM instead of STM. I guess there would be limitations to shooting moving birds, but it should work well in good lighting conditions - I hope.
Upvote
0
My biggest fear is still that those lenses will have a heavy distortion that is secretly corrected by the software. I still hate the idea. It is like autotuning a singer that can't sing very well. The result will sound great, but it still is fake somehow.
As I am aiming for a low resolution body anyway, I do not expect any problems with sharpness. It might not look perfect on a future 80 megapixel body, but it should be sharp enough to serve a resolution of 20 or 24 megapixels.
As I am aiming for a low resolution body anyway, I do not expect any problems with sharpness. It might not look perfect on a future 80 megapixel body, but it should be sharp enough to serve a resolution of 20 or 24 megapixels.
Upvote
0
I think so too, after reading through The Digital Picture Bryan’s review of RF 14-35, I’m really disappointed with the distortion
Upvote
0
Similar threads
