R2D2
•
Forum Pro
•
Posts: 26,528
Re: Future of Canon M Series - Invest or Sell?
4
nnowak wrote:
R2D2 wrote:
nnowak wrote:
R2D2 wrote:
nnowak wrote:
JimMorgan wrote:
Every time I see these kind of posts, especially with a reference to FF, I have to wonder. If money is an issue, especially a couple grand, what are they going to do for FF? The new Canon 70-200 F4 for the RF mount is $1599 MSRP and the F2,8 is $2599 MSRP. I'm guessing even when we start seeing a lot of third party RF lenses they will be several hundred dollars. Even the nifty 50 for the RF mount is $200 and the cheap zoom, the 24-240 is $899.
The "cheap zoom" is the RF 24-105mm f/4.0-7.1 that retails for $399.
Right. Canon is going to be filling out the lower end RF lineup even more.
It will be really interesting to see how small and inexpensive the RF 18-45mm and 100-400mm end up.
I think my own interest in FF will gravitate toward the upper end of things. Likely all RF-L lenses for the serious stuff I shoot.
But for all of my fun shooting, I find the M System to be Extremely capable and honestly a lot more fun to shoot with.
The RF mount also has the RF 600mm f/11 for $699 and the RF 800mm f/11 for $899. What Canon lenses are less expensive and can be adapted to the M system that would provide the respective 400mm and 500mm for equivalence?
Actually my EF 400mm f/5.6L does smashingly well on the M bodies (esp the M6ii!), and with a TC can cover the range of BOTH of those RF lenses. 640mm equiv @ f/5.6, and 900mm equiv @ f/8. $900 used.
Technically, your above combo would be equivalent to 640mm f/9.0 and 896mm f/13.
Negatory. For birders,
Not everything is about birders.
Birds, planes, critters, sports... all can benefit from additional focal length at times. But Canon had better not count out the birders!
we're almost Always focal length limited, so it's actually the true Aperture that is the relevant metric (remember, same amount of photons per unit area ). Crop the FF to APS-C size and voila, equivalence.
If you are going to be cropping FF to APS-C, what $899 800mm lens are you going to put on the M to get to 1280mm equivalent?
900mm at f/8 is actually my workable maximum on the M6ii. What is yours?
No denying the quality of the output, but you are comparing an unstabilized and discontinued lens against new options.
You asked for options that can be adapted to the M system and provide 400 and 500mm. This is a really good one.
Folks have been trying to count out the 400 f/5.6L for many many years (and failed ). I recommend shooting bursts to increase low-light capability (poor man's image stabilization)...
I am not discounting the capabilities of the 400mm L. I am discounting the 400mm L because it is discontinued, only available used, and thus not a valid comparison to pricing of new lenses.
Come on. You're saying no-one should ever buy anything used?? There's zillions of folks here who have. It's an entirely viable option.
Lots more samples from the 400 in my galleries...
https://pbase.com/jekyll_and_hyde/the_birds
You also need to add the $429 cost of the 1.4X III into the equation.
Actually I much prefer to use a 3rd party TC with this combo, as the AF is tons faster.
And I prefer to never use a TC, regardless of manufacturer.
That's entirely your choice. But IMO you're eliminating some excellent options.
Still, the 1.4x iii comes in way under the pair of RF lenses that you recommended (plus you can't use the 600 and 800 on M anyway).
$1329 for the 400mm L and 1.4X TC III (your used price) vs $1598 for both RF lenses. Your "way under" is less than the difference between the EF-M 32mm and RF 50mm f/1.8. Of course, this assumes someone Iis buying both RF lenses. Only buying one of the RF lenses is cheaper than any of the EF combinations.
Actually there's a 400/5.6 on FleaBay right now for $750, and my Tamron 1.4x TC is $100.
From experience, simultaneously juggling a TC and mount adapter just plain sucks.
LOL, worse IMHO is carrying around TWO separate telephoto lenses, @ 600mm and 800mm each!
You're assuming someone is buying both.
I certainly wouldn't be carrying around both! In fact I have the RF 100-500 + 1.4x TC to cover the ranges I want.
The size and weight differences are also huge.
Yes, the EF-M 32mm f/1.4 is quite a bit bigger and heavier than the RF 50mm f/1.8. Much more expensive too.
LOL, that’s like saying a Walnut is bigger than a Peanut.
The point was that absolute statements claiming full frame is always bigger, heavier, and more expensive simply are not true.
The point is that the difference between the lenses you referred to is too small to matter!
Whether or not you find the difference significant does not change the fact that the full frame lens is smaller, lighter, and cheaper than the EF-M equivalent.
The RF 50mm f/1.8 is NOT equivalent to the EF-M 32mm f/1.4 at all. In fact the 32 outclasses the RF 50 in every respect IME (I have both). It's sharper, faster focusing, has better colors, better bokeh (IMO), and is quieter. Plus the M6ii combo is smaller than the RF 50 on the R. And IMHO a heck of a lot funner to shoot!
R2
