R7 comfort pack

[axtstern]

My copy of the Sigma RF 10-18 has arrived, which means I retire the Canon Rf 10-18 and have the standard equipment for my individual comfort pack now complete.

I compared it to my comfort pack from 20 years ago and here are the components:

EOS 30D, EF 17-55 2.8, Sigma 50-150 2.8 APO, no name messenger bag, camera strap and 2 batteries.

Weight of all components 3,17 kg or 7 lb

New components:

EOS R7, Sigma 10-18 2.8, Sigma 18-50 2.8, Canon RF 70-200 4.0, Vanguard F27, camera strap, loader plus 2 batteries and a small power bank

Weight of all components 2,95 kg or 6.5 lb

20 years of technological progress give me 33 instead of 8 megapixel, 3 full stops of ISO range, and of cause a way better AF etc… My zoom range increased 8mm downwards and 50mm upwards, adding lens stabilization for the tele but loosing it for wide and midrange. I cary one more lens around but the package is less heavy and less bulky than it was 20 years ago

If you plan for a lightweight trip and are looking for a convenient way to store your equipment, give the Vanguard F27 a try. I’m not as well equipped with bags as Neuro is, but none of the many bags I had really was a good fit for the small RFS lenses. The Vanguard bag can hold the 70-200 2.8 and if I surrender the small equipment it can also take an EF adapter plus an EF 135 2.0



I like the feature that I can open the bag like a bagpack acessing all content or like a messenger bag from top, only accessing the upper part with the camera.

 

[AlanF]

My copy of the Sigma RF 10-18 has arrived, which means I retire the Canon Rf 10-18 and have the standard equipment for my individual comfort pack now complete.

I compared it to my comfort pack from 20 years ago and here are the components:

EOS 30D, EF 17-55 2.8, Sigma 50-150 2.8 APO, no name messenger bag, camera strap and 2 batteries.

Weight of all components 3,17 kg or 7 lb

New components:

EOS R7, Sigma 10-18 2.8, Sigma 18-50 2.8, Canon RF 70-200 4.0, Vanguard F27, camera strap, loader plus 2 batteries and a small power bank

Weight of all components 2,95 kg or 6.5 lb

20 years of technological progress give me 33 instead of 8 megapixel, 3 full stops of ISO range, and of cause a way better AF etc… My zoom range increased 8mm downwards and 50mm upwards, adding lens stabilization for the tele but loosing it for wide and midrange. I cary one more lens around but the package is less heavy and less bulky than it was 20 years ago

If you plan for a lightweight trip and are looking for a convenient way to store your equipment, give the Vanguard F27 a try. I’m not as well equipped with bags as Neuro is, but none of the many bags I had really was a good fit for the small RFS lenses. The Vanguard bag can hold the 70-200 2.8 and if I surrender the small equipment it can also take an EF adapter plus an EF 135 2.0
View attachment 222106View attachment 222107


I like the feature that I can open the bag like a bagpack acessing all content or like a messenger bag from top, only accessing the upper part with the camera.

You have missed out the RF 100-400mm

 

[axtstern]

You have missed out the RF 100-400mm

Well the RF 100-400 and its longer white brother never apealed to me. The cheap one is dark like hell and the white one is a tough price for a lens that starts with darker than I want it to stop at the long end. When I had a need for one I traded my EF 100-400 MK1 for a MK2 and believe this even with the hassle of adapters to be the best choice. Actually when IQ is demanded I carry my old 400L 2.8 (non IS) to the battle but in the situation where easy handling and speed are important then I use the EF 100-400 II L with either the Meike drop in adapter or the Viltrox focal reducer which gives me 400mm at 4,0 on the R7 combining a fast lens with double stabilisation. (All for the cost of 30% compared to the white RF lens)

 

[AlanF]

Well the RF 100-400 and its longer white brother never apealed to me. The cheap one is dark like hell and the white one is a tough price for a lens that starts with darker than I want it to stop at the long end. When I had a need for one I traded my EF 100-400 MK1 for a MK2 and believe this even with the hassle of adapters to be the best choice. Actually when IQ is demanded I carry my old 400L 2.8 (non IS) to the battle but in the situation where easy handling and speed are important then I use the EF 100-400 II L with either the Meike drop in adapter or the Viltrox focal reducer which gives me 400mm at 4,0 on the R7 combining a fast lens with double stabilisation. (All for the cost of 30% compared to the white RF lens)

Putting a 0.7x focal length reducer on a 400mm f/5.6 does not give you a 400mm f/4 (to an approximation). It gives you a 280mm f/4. This is not splitting hairs. If you had a native 280mm f/4 and wanted to get to 400mm, you would need to add a 1.4xTC, which would then give you f/5.6.
The RF 100-400mm f/8 is not as “dark like hell”, it is only 1 stop “darker” than 100-400mm f/5.6, which must presumably must be as dark as “purgatory”. It’s truly remarkable how one stop sells the soul of a lens to hell. And it would take a biblical miracle for a 0.7x focal length reducer to increase the brightness without losing 30% of the reach of a lens. I do confess that one of my definitions of “hell” would be carrying around a 13.4lb/6.1kg 400mm f/2.8 nonIS.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Putting a 0.7x focal length reducer on a 400mm f/5.6 does not give you a 400mm f/4 (to an approximation). It gives you a 280mm f/4.

Perhaps @axtstern has a magic focal length reducer that doesn’t actually reduce focal length but just adds light instead. Why live in reality?

 

[axtstern]

Putting a 0.7x focal length reducer on a 400mm f/5.6 does not give you a 400mm f/4 (to an approximation). It gives you a 280mm f/4. This is not splitting hairs. If you had a native 280mm f/4 and wanted to get to 400mm, you would need to add a 1.4xTC, which would then give you f/5.6.
The RF 100-400mm f/8 is not as “dark like hell”, it is only 1 stop “darker” than 100-400mm f/5.6, which must presumably must be as dark as “purgatory”. It’s truly remarkable how one stop sells the soul of a lens to hell. And it would take a biblical miracle for a 0.7x focal length reducer to increase the brightness without losing 30% of the reach of a lens. I do confess that one of my definitions of “hell” would be carrying around a 13.4lb/6.1kg 400mm f/2.8 nonIS.

Maybe you miss the point here: If I mount a 100-400mm on my R7 I'm happy to be able to zoom, but most of all I want to achieve the visual reach of 400mm and will most often operate the lens at or arround 400mm. However the action might come closer to me and at that moment the 100mm is less wide than I would like it to be. So 100-400 mm is what I need., not 160-to 600+ generated by the crop factor of the R7. The Viltrox helps me to achieve exactly this, reduces the overall image quality (within the limits I accept) but gives me that one F-stop which helps a lot. Compared to the cheap black RF 100-400 that is not one stop but two full F stops.

Your of cause absolutely right, the 400 2.8 is a nightmare to cary thats why it sees very little use these days. I mentioned it only to make the point that I sometimes prefer IQ over any other factor. ( The lens has however an inbuild bonus: where I live you do not have to show a press acreditation when you carry this lens to an event)

Anyway, If you like slow lenses and prefer to have a kind of 600mm reach with them on a crop camera than I'm accepting this as a valid and clever choice for your way of shooting. No need to become a fanboy for a lens that does not apeal to me and is not fit for purpose in my world.

 

[axtstern]

Perhaps @axtstern has a magic focal length reducer that doesn’t actually reduce focal length but just adds light instead. Why live in reality?

Folks please remember, my post started with a proper bag for an R7 amd therefore I attach all the lenses mentioned here onto a R7, the magic of crop factor and the wonderland magic of a focal reducer nulify each other, but for the price of reduced IQ I get alittle more light. What do I misunderstand here?

 

[neuroanatomist]

What do I misunderstand here?

You misunderstand equivalence. That’s okay though, not everybody gets it and magic is more fun anyway.

The best explanation of these concepts I’ve run across is this one: Equivalence.

 

[AlanF]

Anyway, If you like slow lenses and prefer to have a kind of 600mm reach with them on a crop camera than I'm accepting this as a valid and clever choice for your way of shooting. No need to become a fanboy for a lens that does not apeal to me and is not fit for purpose in my world.

Folks please remember, my post started with a proper bag for an R7 amd therefore I attach all the lenses mentioned here onto a R7, the magic of crop factor and the wonderland magic of a focal reducer nulify each other, but for the price of reduced IQ I get alittle more light. What do I misunderstand here?

The thrust of the thread you started was the comfort of the lightness of the R7 with a few appropriate lenses. I simply added a further lightweight RF lens that could be considered and you veered off track by slagging off that lens and praising some heavy alternatives, in contradiction to your original idea. @neuroanatomist has given you a link to explain what you have misunderstood.

By the way, hell, which you describe as dark, is well lit by roaring fires as depicted in some famous art. Such lighting is appealing to photographers which is presumably why some work so hard to be sent there. Here is a vision of Hell by Hieronymus Bosch:

 

[becceric]

The thrust of the thread you started was the comfort of the lightness of the R7 with a few appropriate lenses. I simply added a further lightweight RF lens that could be considered and you veered off track by slagging off that lens and praising some heavy alternatives, in contradiction to your original idea. @neuroanatomist has given you a link to explain what you have misunderstood.

By the way, hell, which you describe as dark, is well lit by roaring fires as depicted in some famous art. Such lighting is appealing to photographers which is presumably why some work so hard to be sent there. Here is a vision of Hell by Hieronymus Bosch:

View attachment 222127

I'm sure there must be a Sony camera somewhere in that image.

 

[SvO2]

Maybe you miss the point here: If I mount a 100-400mm on my R7 I'm happy to be able to zoom, but most of all I want to achieve the visual reach of 400mm and will most often operate the lens at or arround 400mm. However the action might come closer to me and at that moment the 100mm is less wide than I would like it to be. So 100-400 mm is what I need., not 160-to 600+ generated by the crop factor of the R7. The Viltrox helps me to achieve exactly this, reduces the overall image quality (within the limits I accept) but gives me that one F-stop which helps a lot. Compared to the cheap black RF 100-400 that is not one stop but two full F stops.

Your of cause absolutely right, the 400 2.8 is a nightmare to cary thats why it sees very little use these days. I mentioned it only to make the point that I sometimes prefer IQ over any other factor. ( The lens has however an inbuild bonus: where I live you do not have to show a press acreditation when you carry this lens to an event)

Anyway, If you like slow lenses and prefer to have a kind of 600mm reach with them on a crop camera than I'm accepting this as a valid and clever choice for your way of shooting. No need to become a fanboy for a lens that does not apeal to me and is not fit for purpose in my world.

Why not just use a FF body at that point?

 

[justaCanonuser]

I'm sure there must be a Sony camera somewhere in that image.

I recognize a lot of Sony users in Bosch's painting

 

[becceric]

Primarily youtube influencers.

 

[EricN]

Putting a 0.7x focal length reducer on a 400mm f/5.6 does not give you a 400mm f/4 (to an approximation). It gives you a 280mm f/4. This is not splitting hairs. If you had a native 280mm f/4 and wanted to get to 400mm, you would need to add a 1.4xTC, which would then give you f/5.6.
The RF 100-400mm f/8 is not as “dark like hell”, it is only 1 stop “darker” than 100-400mm f/5.6, which must presumably must be as dark as “purgatory”. It’s truly remarkable how one stop sells the soul of a lens to hell. And it would take a biblical miracle for a 0.7x focal length reducer to increase the brightness without losing 30% of the reach of a lens. I do confess that one of my definitions of “hell” would be carrying around a 13.4lb/6.1kg 400mm f/2.8 nonIS.

I can confirm about RF100-400, I bought it two years ago, and for the money, size, and weight, it's great! I regret waiting so long, but that's another story.

 

[AlanF]

I can confirm about RF100-400, I bought it two years ago, and for the money, size, and weight, it's great! I regret waiting so long, but that's another story.

It's one of Canon's bargain lenses.