09-01-2018, 09:43 AM
(This post was last modified: 09-01-2018, 09:44 AM by JJ_SO.)
Right, and which lenses will you buy? I think, admiring a new development and make the step to change money against material are two different acts. It IS an attractive choice, nothing to say against, but which will make people buy? Which company ever made profit out of the "I will probably buy" or "I would most likely buy it, if it only..." promises we consumers are giving so easily? Let's be honest, we all said that and if we ever fulfilled that, our shelves would carry tons of glass.
It will become interesting what of this speed will actually help making a difference in darkness. Nikon's AF is only rated down to -6 EV, with Canon there's a lowlightfeature down to -6 (which ends at -4 on the Nikon side and will most likely take ages to AF). The Nikon is a good thing for people who already own a couple of Nikon glass, I don't think it will win a single Canon shooter over who is happy with what he or she has. The next good thing is choice - no longer only one FF MILC manufacturer. Who of the new will win customers back who already switched to Sony?
I haven't seen anything not to like at Canon's offer, they were even clever enough to include a filter slot in one of their adapters (for all the UWA's around). I haven't seen the prices, too. But I see one sensor which has to make it with ⅔ of the MP other manufacturers offer. More than enough, yes. Or no?
What might prove interesting is multifunctional bar on the right of viewfinder. Left right only it seems, however I imagine it could be useful...
I am not a mirrorless fan, so not for me yet, besides the monetary aspect.
I'd prefer the Canon over the Nikon and the Nikon over Sony, ergonomicswise.
Well... looks like both Nikon and Canon decided to start their lineups with ridiculous "halo" lenses than nobody would probably be going to buy.
Still, I have to give Canon the credit for choosing a better proposition - the 28-70mm f/2 AF lens is a much more interesting unit than an MF 58mm f/0.95 in my book. If still rather irrelevant, of course.
The 28-70mm f2 is not as ridiculous as it seems... It is not like f2 primes are disliked, and that is what this zoom appears to offer.
Weight: 1430 grams, size: 103.8 × 139.8mm, filter size: 95mm, min. focus distance: 95mm, 19 elements in 13 groups.
The 50mm f1.2 is not nearly as unwieldily as the Nikkor 58mm f0.95, but quite a bit more modern than the EF 50mm f1.2 L USM, so it should be sharper in edges as that lens:
15 elements in 9 groups, 950 grams, 89.8 × 108.0mm, 77mm filter size, and a MFD of 40cm.
The 24-105mm f4 L IS USM is shorter than the Sony counterpart, but a tad heavier:
18 elements in 14 groups, 83.5 × 107.3mm, 700 grams, 77mm filter diameter, MFD 45cm.
And last but not least, the 35mm f1.8 IS STM Macro:
305 grams, 74.4 × 62.8mm, 52mm filter size, 11 elements in 9 groups and a MFD of 17cm (which will mean close to 1:1 macro, the Tokina 35mm has 14cm MFD and the Nikkor 40mm f2.8 an MFD of 16.3cm, so possibly a true 1:1 macro).
I just read that the 24-70mm f/2 has a weight of 1430g. Honestly I don't get it ...
Chief Editor - opticallimits.com
Doing all things Canon, MFT, Sony and Fuji
Don't worry, wedding photographers will...
09-02-2018, 11:47 AM
(This post was last modified: 09-02-2018, 11:48 AM by JJ_SO.)
Wich 24-70/2? You're confusing the 24-105/4 and the 28-70/2 and I DO get it that at this aperture glass has some weight... I just don't get it why you don't get it
50-100/1.8 (Sigma) 1490 grams - and this is only for APS-C. I consider the Canon offer reasonable. Basically it's you who thinks fast glass can be featherweight. And a lot of other people whose only instinct is "mirrorless = weighs less" Same FL, same materials = same weight.
Now please give his a sample of a FF zoom at f/2 with 40 mm range below 1 kg. One is enough...
The Sigma 24-35mm f2 was a "wow, look at that, an f2 zoom" lens, it only goes to 35mm and already weighs 940 grams (albeit that it has a focal length range that could possibly benefit as shorter flages distance design). This Canon more than doubles the range, yet weighs only half more, colour me impressed with that.
But yeah, I bet the price will be more than double that of the Sigma?
... as the range is? I'm certain you could buy three Sigmas for it, (but still won't get the reach of the Canon) The Sigma is not even a 2× (1.45×) zoom it's just three lenses in one and all at f/2 and with very good optical performance, I guess. But then, a 14-24 also is "only" 1.74× and no f/2 around at the moment. I would be massively impressed if Canon managed to make a 24-70/2 - but being massively impressed is one thing - the lens needs to find buyers, and with 1.4 kg that's more likely than with another 0.2 - 0.4 kg. I'm also impressed. Maybe you're used too much µ 4/3, Klaus?