Reading mode: Light Dark

Why all the fast zooms ...

Status
Not open for further replies.
Go to last post
J

jwilliams

Veteran Member
Messages
6,246
Solutions
6
Reaction score
8,248
Location
US
Didn't Canon get the memo that modern cameras have great high ISO. f2.8 zooms were a necessity in the film era, but much less so now.

I've owned almost every f4 L zoom and found them to be plenty capable, smaller and lighter. If I need more I'll put a prime on the camera.

I am sure there are those who want the f2.8 zooms and even the f2 zoom, but what is available to mount them on are consumer grade cameras. It seems Canon is targeting the mass market with the bodies and Pros with the lenses. Makes no sense.

Yes there is one f4 zoom. Seems like a nice lens optically, but still a bit large for what it is. On an RP it is way too big and with an R it is not exactly a small handy pairing. Hold a Z6/7 with the 24-70 and you feel they were made to go together. Not so much with Canon. Yes the Canon has more reach and is a fine lens, but a smaller more compact one would have been a better starting point.

I've shot Canon for about 40 ears, but like many I've been scratching my head at their moves for the last several years. Glad I mostly skipped the dead end M system (sigh of relief). Now that it seems they finally got the message on mirrorless, they are making camera bodies that aren't close to being competitive with Nikon or Sony and lenses that while having very good absolute IQ capability are beyond the reach of most and aren't even a good fit for the bodies.

Color me puzzled. Very puzzled.

Anyone else think the same?

--
Jonathan
 
Last edited:
jwilliams said:
Didn't Canon get the memo that modern cameras have great high ISO. f2.8 zooms were a necessity in the film era, but much less so now.

I've owned almost every f4 L zoom and found them to be plenty capable, smaller and lighter. If I need more I'll put a prime on the camera.

I am sure there are those who want the f2.8 zooms and even the f2 zoom, but what is available to mount them on are consumer grade cameras. It seems Canon is targeting the mass market with the bodies and Pros with the lenses. Makes no sense.

Yes there is one f4 zoom. Seems like a nice lens optically, but still a bit large for what it is. On an RP it is way too big and with an R it is not exactly a small handy pairing. Hold a Z6/7 with the 24-70 and you feel they were made to go together. Not so much with Canon. Yes the Canon has more reach and is a fine lens, but a smaller more compact one would have been a better starting point.

I've shot Canon for about 40 ears, but like many I've been scratching my head at their moves for the last several years. Glad I mostly skipped the dead end M system (sigh of relief). Now that it seems they finally got the message on mirrorless, they are making camera bodies that aren't close to being competitive with Nikon or Sony and lenses that while having very good absolute IQ capability are beyond the reach of most and aren't even a good fit for the bodies.

Color me puzzled. Very puzzled.

Anyone else think the same?
Click to expand...
 
jwilliams said:
Didn't Canon get the memo that modern cameras have great high ISO. f2.8 zooms were a necessity in the film era, but much less so now.

I've owned almost every f4 L zoom and found them to be plenty capable, smaller and lighter. If I need more I'll put a prime on the camera.

I am sure there are those who want the f2.8 zooms and even the f2 zoom, but what is available to mount them on are consumer grade cameras. It seems Canon is targeting the mass market with the bodies and Pros with the lenses. Makes no sense.

Yes there is one f4 zoom. Seems like a nice lens optically, but still a bit large for what it is. On an RP it is way too big and with an R it is not exactly a small handy pairing. Hold a Z6/7 with the 24-70 and you feel they were made to go together. Not so much with Canon. Yes the Canon has more reach and is a fine lens, but a smaller more compact one would have been a better starting point.

I've shot Canon for about 40 ears, but like many I've been scratching my head at their moves for the last several years. Glad I mostly skipped the dead end M system (sigh of relief). Now that it seems they finally got the message on mirrorless, they are making camera bodies that aren't close to being competitive with Nikon or Sony and lenses that while having very good absolute IQ capability are beyond the reach of most and aren't even a good fit for the bodies.

Color me puzzled. Very puzzled.

Anyone else think the same?
Click to expand...
A fast 24-70 is a mainstay for wedding photographers. It´s of no use for hobbyists.

What we certainly don´t need is a huge and ultra expensive 2.0 zoom.

I have bought a cheap used Sony A7 Mark I a couple of months ago and am thinking about a used A7rII, this being the cheapest Sony A7 body to have AF with adapted Canon lenses. But anyway, even the Mark I is very impressive, small (but not too small), light, tremendous DR in high contrast situations (I love shooting against the sun and the A7 files are incredible in post processing). I use it mostly with Canon´s 2.8/16-35 II, with MF.

I really would like to get something from Canon, but the RF is just not an alternative to a (slightly used) A7rII, price being about equal.
 
Nope... not puzzled at all. Canon tactics is always a little puzzling I suppose but in the end they usually nail what they are going for.

The camera market is shrinking. It may very well be that in the next decade of so the biggest base of users will be the people on forums like DPR and pros. So did you consider that the latter is their intended market? But the end of the year canon will have the holy trinity out. And from the way things are going, and the rumors out there, canon will have a pro body probably in the beginning of 2020. Once that is out they will have a complete pro line up ready to go.

That 28-70 f2.... paired with a pro canon body with IBIS, will be a wedding photog’s wet dream.

End of the day there are people like you that want small and light. But then there are others who would appreciate the high end glass.

And then there is the marketing aspect of things. Currently they don’t have a body to differentiate the RF mount from the FE system. The lenses do this for them. Nikon on the other hand doesn’t have anything that really differentiates them now do they? Not even when it comes to lenses.

A lot, and I mean pretty much every single reviewer I have seen review the 28-70 f2 and the 50 f1.2 conclude that they would own an R just to use those lenses. So it may be a “consumer” camera but it sure is better than the A7 and the A7II which not to long ago Sony fans were aggressive arguing that they are “pro”.

As for the 24-105... for what it is? Can you show me a 24-105 f4 that is smaller than it? Cause if I go but the FE version the RF is about where one would expect it to be... but 250 cheaper.

The R is no sports camera, but for other genres it is great. From portraits to landscape etc. And last but not least, those already on canon will be able to adapt their current glass well. So in a way canon wants targeting adopters, but more like current users, and those who would pick up the RF and a bunch of 2nd hand EF glass which can be had for significantly cheaper than Sony or Nikon glass. I picked up a 100 L macro and a 50 stm, and 85 second hand for €700.
 
Last edited:
You can use pretty much all the existing EF lens on the R/RP. Why would you want redundant lenses that will do the exact same thing?

The new RF 50 1.2 is freaking amazing, the reason that I bought into the R system. I'd rather that Canon focuses on lens that were inadequate in the EF line up or create newer more exciting lens.

They'll eventually backfill their lens lineup with all the F1.8 primes and F4 zooms. I just hope they keep innovating with the lenses.
 
lawny13 said:
Nope... not puzzled at all. Canon tactics is always a little puzzling I suppose but in the end they usually nail what they are going for.

The camera market is shrinking. It may very well be that in the next decade of so the biggest base of users will be the people on forums like DPR and pros. So did you consider that the latter is their intended market? But the end of the year canon will have the holy trinity out. And from the way things are going, and the rumors out there, canon will have a pro body probably in the beginning of 2020. Once that is out they will have a complete pro line up ready to go.

That 28-70 f2.... paired with a pro canon body with IBIS, will be a wedding photog’s wet dream.

End of the day there are people like you that want small and light. But then there are others who would appreciate the high end glass.

And then there is the marketing aspect of things. Currently they don’t have a body to differentiate the RF mount from the FE system. The lenses do this for them. Nikon on the other hand doesn’t have anything that really differentiates them now do they? Not even when it comes to lenses.

A lot, and I mean pretty much every single reviewer I have seen review the 28-70 f2 and the 50 f1.2 conclude that they would own an R just to use those lenses. So it may be a “consumer” camera but it sure is better than the A7 and the A7II which not to long ago Sony fans were aggressive arguing that they are “pro”.

As for the 24-105... for what it is? Can you show me a 24-105 f4 that is smaller than it? Cause if I go but the FE version the RF is about where one would expect it to be... but 250 cheaper.

The R is no sports camera, but for other genres it is great. From portraits to landscape etc. And last but not least, those already on canon will be able to adapt their current glass well. So in a way canon wants targeting adopters, but more like current users, and those who would pick up the RF and a bunch of 2nd hand EF glass which can be had for significantly cheaper than Sony or Nikon glass. I picked up a 100 L macro and a 50 stm, and 85 second hand for €700.
Click to expand...
So they have abandoned the consumer mirrorless FF market. That is the summation of what you wrote above.
 
Wald61 said:
jwilliams said:
Didn't Canon get the memo that modern cameras have great high ISO. f2.8 zooms were a necessity in the film era, but much less so now.

I've owned almost every f4 L zoom and found them to be plenty capable, smaller and lighter. If I need more I'll put a prime on the camera.

I am sure there are those who want the f2.8 zooms and even the f2 zoom, but what is available to mount them on are consumer grade cameras. It seems Canon is targeting the mass market with the bodies and Pros with the lenses. Makes no sense.

Yes there is one f4 zoom. Seems like a nice lens optically, but still a bit large for what it is. On an RP it is way too big and with an R it is not exactly a small handy pairing. Hold a Z6/7 with the 24-70 and you feel they were made to go together. Not so much with Canon. Yes the Canon has more reach and is a fine lens, but a smaller more compact one would have been a better starting point.

I've shot Canon for about 40 ears, but like many I've been scratching my head at their moves for the last several years. Glad I mostly skipped the dead end M system (sigh of relief). Now that it seems they finally got the message on mirrorless, they are making camera bodies that aren't close to being competitive with Nikon or Sony and lenses that while having very good absolute IQ capability are beyond the reach of most and aren't even a good fit for the bodies.

Color me puzzled. Very puzzled.

Anyone else think the same?
Click to expand...
A fast 24-70 is a mainstay for wedding photographers. It´s of no use for hobbyists.

What we certainly don´t need is a huge and ultra expensive 2.0 zoom.

I have bought a cheap used Sony A7 Mark I a couple of months ago and am thinking about a used A7rII, this being the cheapest Sony A7 body to have AF with adapted Canon lenses. But anyway, even the Mark I is very impressive, small (but not too small), light, tremendous DR in high contrast situations (I love shooting against the sun and the A7 files are incredible in post processing). I use it mostly with Canon´s 2.8/16-35 II, with MF.

I really would like to get something from Canon, but the RF is just not an alternative to a (slightly used) A7rII, price being about equal.
Click to expand...
Yes the A7R II is very tempting. Getting close to $1K on the used market. While not a perfect camera it was the first model that played well with Canon lenses. The III to me is where they pretty much got it right. Should be going down more on the used market with everyone throwing them away and buying the IV.
 
The 24-240 is a consumer lens. They're targeting the pros and advanced users first because they're more likely to buy into the system quicker.

The average Joe isn't going to upgrade until their current camera breaks, so they have time to get there. But, they now have their first consumer zoom for when they do upgrade.
 
Nope.

Regardless of high iso improvements, a lower iso will still have less noise. Also, they're can never be enough shutter speed for freezing action in low light venues.
 
Blue II said:
The 24-240 is a consumer lens. They're targeting the pros and advanced users first because they're more likely to buy into the system quicker.

The average Joe isn't going to upgrade until their current camera breaks, so they have time to get there. But, they now have their first consumer zoom for when they do upgrade.
Click to expand...
Funny, I see it the other way around. Pros are usually reluctant to change. When they have learned their gear well, and if they have no issues with it, there isn't much incentive to change. They are in it to make money. New gear has to justify itself with more income. Amateurs on the other hand are always chasing after the next great thing in an attempt (usually fruitless) to make their pictures better. Now amateurs with real deep pockets may be the target audience as they will spend absurd money for a perceived IQ increase or even bragging rights to owning something.
 
Blue II said:
Nope.

Regardless of high iso improvements, a lower iso will still have less noise. Also, they're can never be enough shutter speed for freezing action in low light venues.
Click to expand...
More is always better until you have to pay for it or carry it around. I'm guessing you don't do much backpacking. Besides the absurd cost of some of the new lenses, I have no desire to try and pack them up or down a mountain.
 
jwilliams said:
Blue II said:
Nope.

Regardless of high iso improvements, a lower iso will still have less noise. Also, they're can never be enough shutter speed for freezing action in low light venues.
Click to expand...
More is always better until you have to pay for it or carry it around. I'm guessing you don't do much backpacking. Besides the absurd cost of some of the new lenses, I have no desire to try and pack them up or down a mountain.
Click to expand...
 
jwilliams said:
michoristo said:
You can use pretty much all the existing EF lens on the R/RP. Why would you want redundant lenses that will do the exact same thing?
Click to expand...
The new mount and mirrorless is supposed to allow much better lens designs. That would be the reason.
Click to expand...
The 50 1.2 and 28-70 2.0 is a testament to that.

The EOS R really lacks a lot of features that the Nikon and Sony mirrorless has, if it weren't for the amazing new glasses there really would be no reason to buy the thing over a 5DIV.

The F4 lens , at least on Nikon, don't really take advantage of the new mount. It would be even worse on the EOS R with it's lack of IBIS.

With all the new mounts/systems out now. It is a really good time to buy into a system that you feel will benefit the way you shoot. Want a good light mirrorless package? Nikon. Best AF? Sony. Fast Glass? canon.

Canon being Canon probably isnt goint to be filling in it's F4 line up any time soon. One or two a year. If you want to shoot a light FF mirrorless F4 and up, do you really want to wait another 2-3 years?
 
Blue II said:
jwilliams said:
Blue II said:
Nope.

Regardless of high iso improvements, a lower iso will still have less noise. Also, they're can never be enough shutter speed for freezing action in low light venues.
Click to expand...
More is always better until you have to pay for it or carry it around. I'm guessing you don't do much backpacking. Besides the absurd cost of some of the new lenses, I have no desire to try and pack them up or down a mountain.
Click to expand...
That's why I ordered the 24-240 for personal use and to not have to carry much weight.S using my 1Dx2 and f/2.8 lenses for sports.
Click to expand...
Problem is you're now carrying just one lens that is a consumer level zoom. Great for avoiding lens changes, but not so good if wanting high IQ. I'd rather have a top notch 16-35 f4 or even 24-70 f4 than that lens. I'm certainly limited in my FL range, but I can go after specific subjects and not have to carry extra weight. Big difference between backpacking long distances with your gear and taking it on vacation also. I'm sure the 24-240 is a fine vacation lens. Not what I'm looking for though.
 
michoristo said:
jwilliams said:
michoristo said:
You can use pretty much all the existing EF lens on the R/RP. Why would you want redundant lenses that will do the exact same thing?
Click to expand...
The new mount and mirrorless is supposed to allow much better lens designs. That would be the reason.
Click to expand...
The 50 1.2 and 28-70 2.0 is a testament to that.
Click to expand...
No doubt. Great lenses from a technical standpoint. Kind of a 'lookee what we can do statement'. Unfortunately that does nothing for 99.9% of buyers.
michoristo said:
The EOS R really lacks a lot of features that the Nikon and Sony mirrorless has, if it weren't for the amazing new glasses there really would be no reason to buy the thing over a 5DIV.
Click to expand...
Agree.
michoristo said:
The F4 lens , at least on Nikon, don't really take advantage of the new mount. It would be even worse on the EOS R with it's lack of IBIS.
Click to expand...
No f4 isn't pushing the limits of the aperture, but you've an area where a mirror used to reside for the designer to take advantage of. That helps no matter the aperture of the lens. Their 24-70 f4 is very compact when retracted and very reasonable size when extended. Could not do that with a DSLR design. Smaller than the 24-70 4L IS I had and very good IQ from all reports I have read.
michoristo said:
With all the new mounts/systems out now. It is a really good time to buy into a system that you feel will benefit the way you shoot. Want a good light mirrorless package? Nikon. Best AF? Sony. Fast Glass? canon.
Click to expand...
Yeah I'll admit we're all a bit spoiled at this point. Sony is hard to ignore even though they get a lot of hate. Without them Canon and Nikon probably would not have FF mirrorless at this point in time. I've played around with all the FF mirrorless and like the Nikon bodies the most. They have gotten off to a good start for my needs with lenses even though they have very few. Too bad all my FF lenses say Canon on them.
michoristo said:
Canon being Canon probably isnt goint to be filling in it's F4 line up any time soon. One or two a year. If you want to shoot a light FF mirrorless F4 and up, do you really want to wait another 2-3 years?
Click to expand...
That is it. Few want to wait 2-3 years more. I'm have more patience than most folks, but I'm finally running short of it now. I've already waited a long time for Canon to get into mirrorless FF and I've got mediocre bodies and superb lenses I cannot afford. With Nikon I can get a 14-30 and 24-70 in a f4 lens and have a great lightweight kit. Can do the same with Sony and they also have the f4 tele zoom.

--
Jonathan
 
Last edited:
jwilliams said:
I've shot Canon for about 40 ears, but like many I've been scratching my head at their moves for the last several years. Glad I mostly skipped the dead end M system (sigh of relief).
Click to expand...
Those of us using and loving the vibrant and alive M system are also glad. Otherwise you'd have been constantly moaning on the M forum that Canon didn't do exactly what you wanted them to do. Kind of like you're doing on this forum.
jwilliams said:
Anyone else think the same?
Click to expand...
No.
 
Alastair Norcross said:
jwilliams said:
I've shot Canon for about 40 ears, but like many I've been scratching my head at their moves for the last several years. Glad I mostly skipped the dead end M system (sigh of relief).
Click to expand...
Those of us using and loving the vibrant and alive M system are also glad. Otherwise you'd have been constantly moaning on the M forum that Canon didn't do exactly what you wanted them to do. Kind of like you're doing on this forum.
Click to expand...
Did I pi$$ in your cereal this morning? There is always the option of not responding to a post, but then you couldn't be a …. oh wait. No sense in that. Welcome to the ignore list.
Alastair Norcross said:
Alastair Norcross said:
Anyone else think the same?
Click to expand...
No.
Click to expand...
Now I am relived that you don't think like me.
 
PGSanta said:
jwilliams said:
Didn't Canon get the memo that modern cameras have great high ISO. f2.8 zooms were a necessity in the film era, but much less so now.

I've owned almost every f4 L zoom and found them to be plenty capable, smaller and lighter. If I need more I'll put a prime on the camera.

I am sure there are those who want the f2.8 zooms and even the f2 zoom, but what is available to mount them on are consumer grade cameras. It seems Canon is targeting the mass market with the bodies and Pros with the lenses. Makes no sense.

Yes there is one f4 zoom. Seems like a nice lens optically, but still a bit large for what it is. On an RP it is way too big and with an R it is not exactly a small handy pairing. Hold a Z6/7 with the 24-70 and you feel they were made to go together. Not so much with Canon. Yes the Canon has more reach and is a fine lens, but a smaller more compact one would have been a better starting point.

I've shot Canon for about 40 ears, but like many I've been scratching my head at their moves for the last several years. Glad I mostly skipped the dead end M system (sigh of relief). Now that it seems they finally got the message on mirrorless, they are making camera bodies that aren't close to being competitive with Nikon or Sony and lenses that while having very good absolute IQ capability are beyond the reach of most and aren't even a good fit for the bodies.

Color me puzzled. Very puzzled.

Anyone else think the same?
Click to expand...
Nope.
Click to expand...
Lol - was about to post this exact response
 
Yeah, I agree.

But this forum is a subset of Canon users, and photographers usually think their specific needs are the only ones that matter. So don't expect a lot of agreement here.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top