What will Canon's next EF lens be?

sportyaccordy wrote:

Ed Rizk wrote:

sportyaccordy wrote:

So the conclusion is, if you shoot stills (and no action) the EOS R is the MILC for you. My question is, who is buying MILCs just to shoot stills?

Me. The advantages are greater than I expected. In low light, the EVF is like a night vision scope with perfect color. The R is not bad for occasional action.

Wouldn't the same apply to a 6D2 with the screen?

No.   The screen is much lower resolution.   You have to hold the camera away from your body to use the screen, making it less stable (more motion blur) and more difficult to shoot with one hand while drinking with the other.

You might as well get a 6D2

That's what I was thinking, until I read about the focus system. I like to take candid shots without flash. That -6 EV focus really is all it's cracked up to be.

I guess this is a key difference with the 6D2. But I'd wager that -6EV is with F/1.2 glass.

F1.8 is pretty close, and it does amazingly well even with F4 lenses.   If I can see it with the naked eye, I can focus on it.

for half the price.

Good lenses are so expensive that the difference in price is more like 10-20%, depending on how many kinds of photography you want to do.

If you're coming from EF you already have lenses, so the lens cost is moot.

But I want more lenses.

I have to replace my 10-22, for property tours, since I gave my 60D system to my granddaughter.   The 17 TSE is a pain to shoot hand held.

I wanted to upgrade my EF 35mm F2 to the new IS version.  For a little more I got F1.8 and .5-1 macro, which is perfect for food.

I like my 24-70 F4 because of the .7-1 macro function, but at outdoor events with people, I always want more reach, so I wanted a 24-105 also.

I'm having fun with all of my "regular" lenses that have good close focus, so I'm thinking about a more advanced dedicated macro lens.

So I would have been looking at three to four new lenses in either case.

And there are plenty of decent priced EF lenses (24/28/35 IS USMs, 24-105 STM/USM L, old 85 1.8, plenty of telephotos, all the Sigma ART glass etc).

And I can use any of them, and will.

So all that really matters is the cost of bodies, where the EOS R is eh. I guess compared to a 5D4 it's a bargain but I'm not convinced that it's 2x as good as the 6D2.

Maybe not, but it's definitely 10-20% better.