bman212121
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 Re: RF 200-500 F4 Confirmed by CR | |
G Lavaty wrote:
bman212121 wrote:
G Lavaty wrote:
I've got to say, my initial reaction to this is disappointment. 500mm f/4 is by far my most used lens and I had my hopes up for a lighter version of the EF 500mm f/4L IS USM II with better IS and a built-in 1.4x TC. I don't typically need shorter than 500mm so zooming to 200mm doesn't excite me very much and it does add weight, extra cost and makes the lens more susceptible to damage. I'm guessing this zoom will be at least a few thousand more expensive than the RF 100-300. I'm guessing the special TC will be a flip up 1.4x that you can mount on the lens that will probably cost another $1000. At this point I don't think I'm going to be very compelled to run out and buy the RF 200-500 but maybe the silver lining will be that some used EF 500mm f/4 mk2's will show up on the used market, hopefully for a reasonable price so I can pick up a back-up.
It sounds like a 600mm f/4 might be the better solution in your case. You could set up position back a bit farther to make sure the subject fits into frame, and then just crop as needed. I can't imagine there being a big image quality difference if using the 600 bare versus using 500 + 1.4.
The issue I see with what you're suggesting is if you look at the specs of the 500 f/4 vs the EF 600 / III, it's only about 1.5" shorter, and weighs 200g more. Sure they can give it the weight reduction treatment and the shortening treatment, but then trying to add the flip teleconverter is going to add back in all of those savings and will cost more than a bare 500mm lens. So the issue with that is if it's as long or even longer than a 600 f/4, weighs almost as much as a 600 f/4, and closes the price gap to a 600 f/4, what part of that lens makes sense to purchase over having 600 f/4 versus 700 f5.6?
It might seem that way but I've owned all three EF versions of the 600mm f/4 IS and though they are very nice lenses, they aren't really to "lens for me."
Yes, of course if the theoretical RF version of the 500mm f/4 had the built-in TC I'd be thrilled if it was the same weight as the EF mk2, else I'd like the weight/size reduction treatment the 600 got.
Anyway, it seems to be all academic at this point as it looks like we're getting the zoom with add-on TC at what will likely be a considerable price jump.
No, but my question about if they were not the lens for you, what about them was the issue that the 500mm resolved? Given the 600 III weighs less than the 500 does, it's probably not an issue of weight. You purchased them, so it's not really price either. So for physical specs the 1 1/2" is the main difference, which I have seen where others mentioned it's the difference in getting in and out of cars easily. That's likely the biggest thing I can think of, other than having some extra room in framing at the "wide" end.
|
