highdesertmesa wrote:
I was just making the point that R5 + 100-500 is about the same weight and length as the 5DsR + EF 70-200 f4 + 1.4x that you already carry.
The camera weight is doing a lot of work in that statement. ;-)
Jesse Evans wrote:
Is this thread now just about trying to get @gdanmitchell@ to buy a new camera?
Heh. Thanks for the support everyone! ;-)
Not going to happen in the immediate short term. With only a few rare exceptions, I tend toward using a camera as long as it produces excellent results, and I try to avoid giving in to GAS. We're all susceptible to some extent, but I have some rules I've learned that help me avoid being seduced by shiny new stuff.
The real question regarding the comparison — at least in the context of my very real world example of schlepping stuff into the backcountry — is about the overall comparison of some options and their value to me. The camera body element is not relevant for me at this point, as I would not consider a new one until I see what the rumored high MP 5DsR mirrorless replacement body looks like and does.
My ideal system for full frame backcountry photography at this point (which is slightly different from what I'm currently using — details if anyone is interested) using a Canon DSLR and Canon EF lenses is:
- EF 16-35mm f4
- EF 24-70mm f/4
- EF 70-200mm f/4
- 1.4x TC
To try to save weight, I'll sometimes leave the 16-35 at home.
At the current moment, ideal near-equivalent lenses don't all exist in the RF form. We don't yet have:
- 16-35 f/4 equivalent (currently only f/2.8)
- 24-70 f/4 equivalent (currently only f/2.8 or a 24-105 f/4)
- 1.4x TC that works with the RF 70-200mm f/4
So, as should be pretty clear, the system that I need is not yet here for R-series cameras. Since I assume that it may eventually appear, there's no reason to give up on a tried and true solution that currently works quite well for intermediate half measures. (I'm not saying that my situation applies to everyone — just explaining my situation.)
So, even if I were included to buy stuff right now... it isn't really available.
gdanmitchell wrote:
Heh. Thanks for the support everyone! ;-)
Not going to happen in the immediate short term. With only a few rare exceptions, I tend toward using a camera as long as it produces excellent results, and I try to avoid giving in to GAS. We're all susceptible to some extent, but I have some rules I've learned that help me avoid being seduced by shiny new stuff.
The real question regarding the comparison — at least in the context of my very real world example of schlepping stuff into the backcountry — is about the overall comparison of some options and their value to me. The camera body element is not relevant for me at this point, as I would not consider a new one until I see what the rumored high MP 5DsR mirrorless replacement body looks like and does.
My ideal system for full frame backcountry photography at this point (which is slightly different from what I'm currently using — details if anyone is interested) using a Canon DSLR and Canon EF lenses is:
- EF 16-35mm f4
- EF 24-70mm f/4
- EF 70-200mm f/4
- 1.4x TC
To try to save weight, I'll sometimes leave the 16-35 at home.
At the current moment, ideal near-equivalent lenses don't all exist in the RF form. We don't yet have:
- 16-35 f/4 equivalent (currently only f/2.8)
- 24-70 f/4 equivalent (currently only f/2.8 or a 24-105 f/4)
- 1.4x TC that works with the RF 70-200mm f/4
So, as should be pretty clear, the system that I need is not yet here for R-series cameras. Since I assume that it may eventually appear, there's no reason to give up on a tried and true solution that currently works quite well for intermediate half measures. (I'm not saying that my situation applies to everyone — just explaining my situation.)
So, even if I were included to buy stuff right now... it isn't really available.
Makes sense to me. We will get the f/4 RF trinity eventually, but I don't think we'll ever get 1.4x compatibly for the 70-200 f4 since that would require a completely new lens. Canon seems to have gone another direction with both RF 70-200 lenses. But with 90mp on the R5S, cropping may work to replace the TC – or just keep using the EF lenses with the EF adapter when the R5S arrives.
Maybe some 3rd party manufacturer will make a TC that will work with this lens.
highdesertmesa wrote:
We will get the f/4 RF trinity eventually, but I don't think we'll ever get 1.4x compatibly for the 70-200 f4 since that would require a completely new lens. Canon seems to have gone another direction with both RF 70-200 lenses.
bobbytan wrote:
Maybe some 3rd party manufacturer will make a TC that will work with this lens.
It shoud lbe a flat one that works with all of the RF lenses.
I suppose Canon has screwed the 3rd parties with encryption or something making it difficult.
(1.4x left out for both since it doesn't work with the RF 70-200)
----
Guesstimating that the eventual RF 15-35 f/4 and RF 24-70 f/4 might shave off ~300g together, so ~2,670g for the RF system at some point.
I'm seeing the 5ds R being slightly lighter combo:
5ds R - 930g
EF 16-35 f/4L - 615g
EF 24-70 f/4L - 600g
EF 70-200 f/4L IS II - 780g
= 2925g
But you can save some weight by using adapted lenses where it makes sense
R5 - 738g
RF-EF adapter - 110g
EF 16-35 f/4L - 615g
EF 24-70 f/4L - 600g
RF 70-200 f/4L - 695g
This only confirms why I'm in no hurry to leave my 5DsR behind.
The comparison shows that in order to lose 92g (!) I would have to give up the option of using a TC. It also illustrates that there is a potential for actually significant weight reduction in a R system once things ike 1 6-35 f/4 lenses are available.
Switching the weight from the camera body (5DsR) to the lens (f/2.8 wide angle) doesn't seem appealing.
Again, if the current system were not capable of producing outstanding results I might feel differently.
Dan
highdesertmesa wrote:
Just because I'm bored I guess:
- 5DsR
- EF 16-35mm f4
- EF 24-70mm f/4
- EF 70-200mm f/4
I think optically they are pretty similar. The f/2.8 is a little sharper when both are at f/4, but not to any degree that it makes any major difference in real world use. I think you are best off choosing based on the aperture you need.
ajamils wrote:
Other than obvious aperture difference do you think it is worth to spend more to get the 2.8 version for f4 is just as good ?
My RF 70-200 f/4 is on its way and may arrive as early as Saturday. Great timing to be back in stock as I have a trip planned in a couple weeks. I'd say my EF version will soon be up for sale, but my wife steals it all the time, so she may keep it.
My RF 70-200 f/4 came today, and I did a couple quick tests to compare against my (OK... wife's now) EF version. I'm not sure I could tell the two apart at the center in a blind test. The RF wins in the corners, but only ever so slightly. I don't think the typical person would ever notice viewing a photo.
Here's the interesting part. When focusing at 70mm about 100 yards away, the two lenses are nearly identical at the focus distance, even at the edges. However, a closer object in the frame, at about 40-50 yards is MUCH more focused on the RF version, as is grass at 10-20 yards. Both were shot at f/8 (what I'd typically use for landscapes). I'm guessing this greater depth of field is something with the new lens design, but it was an unexpected surprise.
DougVaughn wrote:
My RF 70-200 f/4 came today, and I did a couple quick tests to compare against my (OK... wife's now) EF version. I'm not sure I could tell the two apart at the center in a blind test. The RF wins in the corners, but only ever so slightly. I don't think the typical person would ever notice viewing a photo.
Here's the interesting part. When focusing at 70mm about 100 yards away, the two lenses are nearly identical at the focus distance, even at the edges. However, a closer object in the frame, at about 40-50 yards is MUCH more focused on the RF version, as is grass at 10-20 yards. Both were shot at f/8 (what I'd typically use for landscapes). I'm guessing this greater depth of field is something with the new lens design, but it was an unexpected surprise....Show more →
The EF is so close in performance, it makes no sense to buy the RF version unless you want the collapsing design. The price is far too high for the RF version for an F4
DougVaughn wrote:
My RF 70-200 f/4 came today, and I did a couple quick tests to compare against my (OK... wife's now) EF version. I'm not sure I could tell the two apart at the center in a blind test. The RF wins in the corners, but only ever so slightly. I don't think the typical person would ever notice viewing a photo.
Here's the interesting part. When focusing at 70mm about 100 yards away, the two lenses are nearly identical at the focus distance, even at the edges. However, a closer object in the frame, at about 40-50 yards is MUCH more focused on the RF version, as is grass at 10-20 yards. Both were shot at f/8 (what I'd typically use for landscapes). I'm guessing this greater depth of field is something with the new lens design, but it was an unexpected surprise....Show more →
In reviews it has been noted that the RF 70-200 f/4 has significant focus breathing. For still photography this is not much of an issue so I'm not faulting the lens for this as it may only matter to someone shooting video. This might be what you are seeing when the RF lens is focusing closer it is actually automatically adjusting it's focal length a small amount internally, without the zoom ring turning, to achieve close focusing. This might be enough of a change to be able to see some differences when comparing images from the RF lens to the EF version however I imagine that any differences would be very subtle.
Jim McCann wrote:
I updated the firmware on my RF 70-200 f4 yesterday and Canon says it has done something to correct or minimize this focus breathing.
