steamtrain
Online
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
PicGuy wrote:
I prefer stabilized lenses like the RF 35mm IS because it opens up shooting in many more situations than an unstabilized lens when using a tripod isn't possible or practical. The 32mm is a very good lens but I don't think there is a huge difference between it and the 35mm on a 24mp sensor camera. The center portion of the 35mm IS is quite good which is what an APS-C camera will utilize.
Sooner or later, Canon will open the RF mount to third party lens makers.
When the patents expire, and not one day earlier.
PicGuy wrote
When this happens there will be a hoard of very good RF/RF-S mount lenses available to R APS-C cameras.
I think aps-c won't even make it until that day the patents expire.
PicGuy wrote
Way more than what has been the case for the EF-M mount. The R system is the future
RF, yes. Aps-c, no.
PicGuy wrote
while the M system will fade away with little to know support for it. I see a lot of previously diehard M users switching to the R system now that Canon has four APS-C R cameras available. IMO, the only thing holding back many from moving to the R system is the lack of RF-S lenses.
True.
PicGuy wrote
This will be rectified at some point when third party RF-S lenses are available. When the RF-S 10-18mm lens is out I expect it will entice many more M users to move to the R system.
No 22mm f/2.0 (the RF 24mm = 750 euro and not nearly as compact), no 32mm f/1.4 (sharpest lens on crop, save over 2500 euro L primes), no Sigma 56mm f/1.4, the xx-45mm zoom starting at 18mm in stead of 15mm, the wide angle zoom going up to only 18mm in stead of 22mm....
And at the point you have to replace the 22mm by the RF 24mm and you're replacing your body as well, why not go full frame right away and combine it with the RF 35mm? A used full frame R + 35mm isn't a lot more expensive than an R10 +24mm. Compactness is sacrificed anyway.....
|
