sebjmatthews Offline Upload & Sell: Off
|
Not all wildlife shooting is about whacking on the longest focal length possible; my most-used wildlife lens is the 300mm f/2.8, bare, while the >400s mostly sit on the shelf.
For sports, having a 70-200 which can use (and produce acceptable results with) at least a 1.4x TC is invaluable. Sometimes you're going to be assigned a position a little further than you'd like, and you don't know that until you're standing there.
Personally, yes, I think the RF f/4 is the most in-need of a redesign. Right out of the gate, I did not like the zoom ring position, it's simply bizarre that they've upped the diameter/filter thread to the same as the f/2.8, and yeah, now Sony have put out something which beats it in every function (as well as in focus breathing), it's hard to justify the f/4.
However, Canon have always let the f/4s lag behind the f/2.8s, and of the people who are not yet convinced by the retractable RF zooms, I think many more would be convinced by a fixed-length f/2.8 than a fixed-length f/4, just like how all the EF f/2.8 zooms have always been refreshed more/sooner than the f/4s. Plus, the main marketing point that Canon have pushed for the EF 70-200 f/4s, and now the RF one, are that they are smaller and lighter than the f/2.8s; the same couldn't be said for a fixed-length version now.
So, I maintain that if we're going to bet on one of the two apertures, it'll be an f/2.8 that gets the second SKU.
|