Pixelpuffin wrote:
Now it’s 55-210 7.1 or 70-200L 4 (or 2.8)
I truthfully have no real need for a white pro lens… I’m not a pro
Nowhere do they say the RF 70–200mm f/4 IS L is only for pros. In fact most pro work is in fields where the f/2.8 is preferred. This lens is probably mainly intended for landscape and travel. For landscape, the weather sealing and advanced coatings are very desirable. It costs what it costs. (And if you want this lens from Canon or Sony, it is white. Deal with it.)
It’s only since the R came about that canon started cutting corners with 6.3, 7.1, 8, 11 maximum apertures
I’m actually trying to think of any ef glass that was slower than 5.6??
It’s not corner cutting. Only the most expensive Canon DSLRs had the extra hardware needed to actually autofocus at f/8 and narrower. Now that’s technically easier on mirrorless, Canon can make slower lenses. When both were on sale at the same time, the RF 100–500mm f/4.5–7.1 was more expensive than the lens it succeeded, the slightly faster EF 100–400mm f/4.5-5.6 Mk II.
But the meagre offerings for just “normal” folks is served with basically shite…slow, poor optically plastic consumer tat. That relies heavily on built in camera corrections.
It’s pretty dire really.
But it need not have concerned you. With what you’ve spent on so many low-end Canon items you could have easily had a very nice small kit of high-end pieces, Canon or otherwise. Something like an R5 + 85 VCM + 35 VCM.