Interesting! I don't think my compute has the horsepower to run this program, though.. . . and you could even take the corrections a bit further with noise and stabilization programs that Topaz and others offer. Not perfect . . . but does a pretty good job to reduce the blur and noise even further: (working on the original, larger file would yield better results)
It is offered in a kit with the RP. I think the kit price was a little over $1,200USD not long ago.
$1200 for an RP and a 24-240 lens would be a too good to pass up deal.
So this lens is on par with my RF 28-70 f2... Because the BODY makes all the difference?
Not hardly. Why even bother comparing a "specialized" lens vs. a more common lens? Makes no sense. I was simply responding to the comments I knew to NOT be applicable to all bodies. The RF28-70 f2.0 will misbehave on the wrong body and not used properly as well.
Yes, it was a great deal that got me off the fence to get going with full-frame mirrorless. It was not really a "kit" but rather a special they were running on the Canon Refurb site.
I never said the body makes ALL the difference. But as we ALL know the focus chops of the R5 are a far cry from a RP or R.
What is the "wrong body" for a 28-70 2.0L? The options are RP, R. R-5 and R-6. I am going to guess that the RP is the wrong body. Correct?
I don't feel the RP is an ideal mate if for no other reason then NO options for any image stabilization. For those that have no issues keeping their ISO's up to keep shutter speeds acceptable it would work (optically) fine. Just too many compromises. Let's face it....the RF28-70 f2.0 was NOT intended by design for the lower line of the R series cameras. That's not an insult it's more common sense.
Was this done with Topaz?Interesting! I don't think my compute has the horsepower to run this program, though.. . . and you could even take the corrections a bit further with noise and stabilization programs that Topaz and others offer. Not perfect . . . but does a pretty good job to reduce the blur and noise even further: (working on the original, larger file would yield better results)
I don't think Canon intended it for any particular camera in the R series. I think they designed and built the very best 28-70 zoom they could and chose f2.0 because they could do it. It is more of a vanity project than anything else, sort of the way the EF 50 1.0 was when it came out. "Look at what we can do!!"
This lens requires a flash to work indoors?I had the shutter speed set to match ambient with the flash to expose the dog. Lens is racked out to 240mm. This is wide open at the longest zoom setting. Also below is a close up crop of his face. Probably get crisper results with a higher shutter speed.
Dog on the chair.
Close up crop of dog.
In my opinion, yes. Here is one I shot last night, no flash in a room illuminated only by an overhead ceiling fan light. ISO 25600, f4.0 @ 24mm. Zoom in and it gets worse. This is a lens you don't use indoors unless you have a flash.This lens requires a flash to work indoors?I had the shutter speed set to match ambient with the flash to expose the dog. Lens is racked out to 240mm. This is wide open at the longest zoom setting. Also below is a close up crop of his face. Probably get crisper results with a higher shutter speed.
Dog on the chair.
Close up crop of dog.
I agree with that. Flash (bounced) makes for pleasing exposures with plenty of detail. The bounce takes the harshness out of the light source and makes it look more natural. However, I have shot no flash pictures with slow zooms and then turned them into something moody or atmospheric. Two examples, shot in a dark bar 15 years ago with my 10D and 50 1.4 @ ISO 3200
I agree with that. The light level is the important thing in the room. This was dark room at night. Only one dim overhead light source. I am actually impressed that it turned out as good as it did. Even my slow 40mm 2.8 pancake could take acceptable pictures in this light. I have had pretty good high ISO results with the RP.
