Re: RF 70-200 f/2.8 vs 4.0 decisions decisions!
José B wrote:
thunder storm wrote:
José B wrote:
[text snipped]
The Tamron 70-180mm f/2.8 @810 grams & 1239 euro is pretty appealing, but I think I rather stick with 85mm f/1.4 for my portraits. When I need reach for landscapes I rather use a 100-400mm.
I think you meant Tamron 70-200/2.8.
No, I have an A7IV next to my R5.
I wish they had the 70-180/2.8 available for RF.
I would prefer to slap it on my R5, and the same is true for the 50mm f/1.2 GM and Sigma 85mm f/1.4 DN, as the R5 is the better camera, but like the Rolling Stones where singing: You can't always get what you want.
I almost bought this lens in e-mount for my Sony A6600.
Makes sense.
hahahaha, that's a great problem to have----What do I feel like today, should I shoot with the R5 or A7IV?
I'm not complaining. I can also shoot multiple bodies to avoid lens changes. The best thing Canon ever did is creating the EF mount so I can shoot my sigma EF glass on both bodies. There's just one remaining first world problem: I can't use the FE 50mm and FE 85mm simultaneously, as both lenses need the A7IV. That's where the incompatibility hits me.
If the Tammy comes out in RF, I'll sell my EF 70-200/2.8 L IS for whatever it is worth. I don't think I will miss the extra 20mm.
No, definitely not, 180 is more than enough. 105mm is the max for portraits, and 85mm is often better. Too much compression for my taste on those longer focal length anyway. Even the Tamron 35-150mm f/2.0-2.8 is longer than I need. The RF 28-70mm f/2.0 is a bit too short OTOH.
What I really want is a 45-80mm f/1.8. If Nikon will make a good one I will buy a Nikon body too.