RF 400, or EF 400 with adapter?

BirdShooter7 wrote:

tkbslc wrote:

BirdShooter7 wrote:

tkbslc wrote:

BirdShooter7 wrote:

That’s the heavier mk2, not the mk3

$6000 vs 1kg weight savings. Same pictures.

Yes, that 1kg makes a big difference.

To many people, so does having an extra $6000

By that logic, why buy a camera at all... think of all the money you save...

Now you are just being absurd. I guess you would also say buying a used BMW instead of a new one means you might as well just ride a skateboard? Buying a similar, but cheaper house a little farther away from work means you should live in a tent under the bridge? Vacationing in your own country vs internationally means you should just stay home? (can go on all day)

By your logic you’d be even better off buying the ancient EF 400mm f/2.8L IS USM. Same pictures even cheaper...

I don’t know how my logic says that. Version 1 of the lens is 2.5kg heavier (basically double) than the III. And you’ll be going far enough back that AF and IS will feel like old tech. The II is still modern tech with a reasonable weight penalty and no optical compromise vs III or RF.

It gives the same picture quality and saves thousands of dollars... Now that the RF superteles are hitting the streets how long do you think it’ll be before Canon starts limiting features from new bodies the way they did the original IS superteles?

It's not like EF lenses are going to be worth zero dollars if you decide to sell later due to things changing. A new EF III or RF will likely have more depreciation as you open the box than an EF II will after 5 years of fun.  So I don't see that as any real risk at all.   (I think for any of those theoretical new features, you'll need an RF 400mm II after they do a real RF design)