Re: Looks like it will be popular - A few words of caution
Nando81 wrote:
With the "common person's standard zooms" (rf 24-105 f4/STM or rf24-240) going down to 24mm, this looks like it is going to be very popular for people not willing to spend for a 14-35/15-25 L lens.
For me the real alternative is the EF 16-35 F4 L. I'm perfectly happy with EF glass, and used samples (with warranty) can be found in my neck of the woods for about $520 which I'm prepared to pay for. But I don't want is the boat anchor like weight.
What I can't decide is if the price is justified by the image quality, the "cheap" build quality, the lack of any weather sealing, etc... Everyone seems to think this is a cheap/value lens. But the price (around $340 here), compared to the RF 50mm 1.8 (equivalent lens in features/quality but longer), seems totally out of whack.
Anyway, rant over. Thanks for the info, much appreciated.
I already have the RF15-35f2.8 and it is a fantastic lens. I'm sure the EF 16-35 f4 L is a better lens than the RF16 f2.8 and a better value but as you say, there is the weight.
I have a special technical reason for my interest in the RF16f2.8 which has to do with some optical physics (I'm hoping it will work. I also figure it would be good to have a "throw in the pocket" wide-angle. I'm testing all my lenses to see where they work and don't work as well. BTW, the other RF lens I don't like is the RF85f2 macro mostly due to the focus. I replaced it with the RF100f2.8L which is fantastic. I'm not a total "L lens snob" as I very much like the RF 24-240 for what it can do.
I just ordered the RF16f2.8 on the "slow boat through B&H with Payboo" to save 8% so with shipping and taxes it is $299.