Previous versions of AmbientMike's message #16034573 « Is Viltrox Getting Sued? (No more RF-EF Adapters/Speedboosters/Lenses) »
AmbientMike Offline [X]
Re: Is Viltrox Getting Sued? (No more RF-EF Adapters/Speedboosters/Lenses)
jwolfe wrote:
For the record, the Canon 100-500 is 1530g vs the Nikon 500 pf which is 1463 g. Real world prices are about the same if you’re buying used.
The Nikon 200-500 is $1400. The Sony 200-600 is $1900. Both can be had significantly cheaper used. Canon has ZERO to compete with these.
jwolfe wrote:
Well yeah I will argue that. I’ve shot the 100-500, the Sony 200-600 and the 500mm pf side by side and there’s no contest. The Nikon blows them all away. I can crop way tighter due to sharpness.
But you’re skirting the issue, and being a fanboy. There’s NO inexpensive long lens option in RF mount. Nikon has the 200-500 and will soon have their own 200-600. Sony has the 200-600 which is every bit as sharp as the Canon and $1,000 less expensive. And that’s just looking at birding lenses.
You can argue all you want that the 100-500 is a great lens, but in reality it’s average at best. And massively overpriced for what it offers.
AmbientMike wrote:
jwolfe wrote:
Sure if you’re talking the latest EF glass it works great. But again this is about people who don’t have $6,000 to spend on a lens. If you try and shoot a 500mm f4 IS mark I on an R5 the experience is not positive. Nikon does not have this limitation. But that’s beside the point.
The point of the thread is Canon is shooting themselves in the foot by not allowing options for photographers that can’t afford a $2800 100-500. There’s tons of canon shooters using Tamron 150-600’s who want to upgrade to mirrorless with the R7. But it’s either the 100-500 or nothing. I don’t count the 100-400 since it isn’t long enough.
Personally I can afford whatever I want and still won’t shoot Canon now. The 100-500 is a compromised design, and there are no other lightweight alternatives. Despite them having great bodies.
See where I’m coming from?
garyvot wrote: jwolfe wrote:
Well if you are shooting sports or birds it makes old glass useless. It robs all the advantage of shooting mirrorless if you can’t shoot full FPS.
"Old glass" being the operative term here. As I said, 39 lenses do not have this limitation, including all of the current and recent production lenses used by birders and sports photographers. Tons of photographers used the EOS R5 and R6 with adapted lenses with great success at the 2020 Tokyo Olympics.
Moreover, this issue doesn't really affect the EOS R3, since it can be used without compromise in electronic shutter mode. Presumably, the same will apply to future replacements for the R5 and R6 if they have stacked sensors.
I can't speak to what you've been told, but there is no shortage of testimonials on the net that says stuff works:
You want to shoot the bigger heavier, more expensive 500pf instead of 100-500, and are fixated on the 100 500 price, in spite of the fact that it is about the same as current 70-200/2.8's. BTW the 200-600 is good sized, definitely not light. I think 100 500 wins, there
You're probably going to say how much sharper the prime is, but Steve Perry did a test and the difference in the center vs 300pf+1.4 & 200-500 was pretty negligible. And even Leica made teles and didn't bother in the corners, since they generally don't matter much on the photos taken on teles.
If you don't go older 300/2.8, for instance, sure 200-600 similar priced. But 5.6-6.3 is a pretty big limitation. Older Nikon 300/2.8's can be really cheap, but I'd guess they're screw drive and that's probably a pretty big limitation.
Not according to B&H site. 100-500 is lighter at 1365g. Yours is heavier and doesn't even zoom!!! For the same price!!!
To use your logic again (which, for any Nikon users not posting dubious anti Canon claims on the Canon board, I don't necessarily think this, but here goes) : the 500pf is such a ripoff!! Look at Steve Perry's comparison. I can get the same sharpness in the center of 200-500!!! For a fraction of the price!!! Why would anyone buy that stupid 500mm lens.
Or: Sony is such ripoff. I cam get 150-600 C, having more range, for less than half the 200-600!! What a ripoff the 200 600 is. And my EF body is under $1k used.
Sep 02, 2022 at 03:38 PM
Previous versions of AmbientMike's message #16034573 « Is Viltrox Getting Sued? (No more RF-EF Adapters/Speedboosters/Lenses) »
