No one is going to release any AF third party glass for RF anytime soon. Not shocked since canon is keeping it closed for now. Venus Optics apparently is also making a 200mm f2 in EF mount I guess It might be a way around the RF blockade.
The MTF is better than the EF 200 f/2L IS. I wouldn't hold the fact that the lens has the Sports moniker against it. It should be fantastic for anything.
Dpedraza wrote:
No one is going to release any AF third party glass for RF anytime soon. Not shocked since canon is keeping it closed for now. Venus Optics apparently is also making a 200mm f2 in EF mount I guess It might be a way around the RF blockade.
You mean high end FF glass for RF. Something that would compete 1:1 with Canon's L series. We are getting some AF APS-C glass...
EF mount would seem to be a logical solution for bypassing the RF blockade and I would have liked to have seen Sigma use this approach with the 300-600. I doubt at least for that lens, that it would have significantly increase its size, yet it would have broadened the potential customer base for such a niche lens. The optical diagram for the 200/2 suggests it's mirrorless optimized (based on the rear element) but without physically seeing the back of the lens, difficult to know how close the rear element is to the mount. Apparently it's not TC compatible? If not, that would be somewhat disappointing for not having at least a 280/2.8 option.
---------------------------------------------
BrianP wrote:
The MTF is better than the EF 200 f/2L IS. I wouldn't hold the fact that the lens has the Sports moniker against it. It should be fantastic for anything.
Well, there's only 17 years between the two.
Isn't there also rumor of a Sigma 135/1.4? Such fast lenses certainly have an appeal. Realistically though, I'd be hard pressed to find a logical use for either (of course this is subjective). But I wouldn't mind seeing a 100/1.4 from Canon. It seems like a portrait focal length that (to me) makes more sense.
I have the 135/1.8 and use it for portraits, but the working distance feels a tad on the long side. At least for my preferences. I used to use the 200/1.8 with extension tubes (because it had very poor MFD) for tight candid driver headshots at motor sports events and loved it for that application. But if I'm going to haul that kind of lens around, I'd want some TC flexibility. And nowadays I think the 100-300 is an excellent alternative. Granted, the Sigma 200/2 is 1/3 the price of the 100-300. Would be interesting to see Sigma revise their old 120-300 with modern performance. Of course such a lens wouldn't be available in RF mount... If they were to make a 200-500/4, however, I'd be tempted to grab a non-Canon body just for it.
rscheffler wrote:
Well, there's only 17 years between the two.
I didn't mean to diminish the EF 200 f/2L IS. I own it! It is a fantastic lens, and at the top of my all time favorite. I just didn't want the perception that the Sigma is a "sports lens" so it isn't as good be out there. The Sigma is a top tier lens by any standard.
rschefler wrote:
Isn't there also rumor of a Sigma 135/1.4? Such fast lenses certainly have an appeal. Realistically though, I'd be hard pressed to find a logical use for either (of course this is subjective). But I wouldn't mind seeing a 100/1.4 from Canon. It seems like a portrait focal length that (to me) makes more sense.
I have seen the same rumor and would welcome the 135 f/1.4 as well. I am a huge fan of lenses like this, and I do shoot with them fairly often. I tend to think I am in the minority, but this is ok. I am happy that they are making lenses like this that can appeal to people like me. It is also nice to see something other than a 24-70 f/2.8, 70-200 f/2.8 or 35 f/1.4 prime...all great lenses, but they are running out of places to make them realistically better. Lenses like the 200 f/2 or 135 f/1.4 do distinguish themselves from the crowd.
