Will this be the end?
Being very rude, horrible, trying to make fun of others, throwing insults is a summary of your interaction here.
Simply, it's a disgrace and it's embarrassing to read your words.
I'm sorry if you thought I was being very rude, but I thought you were a very intelligent man being deliberately obtuse and straying a long way from the original point of the thread to no very good purpose. I was reacting your tone, but should not have responded in kind and I'm sorry for that. But you still haven't answered any of the five points I made in the post you just replied to.
Your rudeness, actually becoming personal on more than one occasion shouldn't happen.
It shouldn't have happened, but neither should your general and personal insults and rudeness have happened.
My point was to challenge a point that the RF lens was a miracle of science. No more no less. The challenge stands strong and firm and I add Fred Miranda to the evidence.
Nobody said that the RF lens was a miracle of science. Alastair said "
The RF 70-200 is simply a marvel of optical and physical engineering". I think that the designers stuck to the engineering brief very well; you disagree with the brief in the first place. You need to quote the unspecified evidence from Fred Miranda, nobody's going to search for it.
The OP did /does utilise a Tele and it's reasonable to point out that the EF lens can allow that and the RF cannot.
It is. Once.
Your points are not questions and are wrong, or at least one is. You try and tell me what is irrelavant to me, that cannot be right.
Call me unimaginative if you like, but I still don't see why you would want to use an extender to convert a 70-200mm
f/2.8 into a 140-400mm
f/5.6 when you already have two 100-400mm
f/4.5-5.6L lenses available. Perhaps the 200-800mm
f/6.3-9 would be a better fit for you as that one will take either RF extender.
Even if you guessed right (you didn't) it's not cricket. The RF100-500 has a design flaw, and that is it's lack of full compliance with a Tele. It's such that we hadn't upgraded two EF100-400ii because of it. Canon made it's choices but I'm not happy with them on this occasion. The poor compatibility will be an issue for me as long as I own it, but it does offer some advantages which I will accept with risk. It's also not a light gathering improvement which makes investment a little more difficult. A mildly funny thing is I got an email from MPB saying my lens (100-400) was worth more than my estimate. Only gone and left the Tele on it - so little is it taken off.
Maybe the optical designers never considered that people would want to use an extender to achieve a focal length within the normal range of the zoom. I'd put that one down to a lack of imagination rather than an actual flaw. (The RF lens design flaw that annoys me most is the lens cap that will only go on in one orientation. Particularly as it's a mistake Canon made in 1979 and corrected in 1987.)
Your mildly funny thing does sound as if you need a 200-800mm zoom rather than a 100-500mm though. It should pair seamlessly with an RF 70-200mm zoom.
R2, who absolutely loves his spends his time at the long end. I'm short end, long end and care less in the middle.
I don't understand some of your points sorry. What does better matched to mirrorless mean?
It means, among other things, that it's better balanced and weighted, cooperates better with the IBIS and understands the high speed RF protocol.
It's a bad match if it can't accept a Tele and I absolutely need it to but the lens I have manages just fine. Here have this new expensive one that won't do the job.
I abide bullies and selfishness. Is it surprising I don't wish to have chit chat?
I can't abide them myself. Some examples in this thread for instance;
Repeatedly bringing in comparisons to a lens in a different class, even after being repeatedly told that lens was not comparable. Sneering at an illustration using comparisons with two different classes of motor cars.
"
What's magic about F2.8? Nothing I don't think." when the difference of class was pointed out for the second time. I'm acutely aware of the difference made by halving the power of something.
"
The background to the discussion is the wish to move from R5 to R7. So why not move to Fuji?" The thread was about moving
from Fuji
to the Canon R6 II.
"
That doesn't answer my question. The background is a number of members using the R7 for small birds." In the same post. Birds had not been mentioned previously in the thread, the OP was talking about children's sports.
"
The thread has NOT rigidly stuck to the title in bold helps." when the change of subject was immediately pointed out.
"
The lens is the lens fella. You are being mighty odd.", again, when the weight discrepancy and difference of class was pointed out.
"
Are you just a little childish here?"
There are quite a few more examples, but that's enough to show why I was short with you.
I do appreciate your message and happy to move on and forget it. We have different views and likely different needs and expectations for what we are trying to achieve. It sounds like portability is something very important to you. Forgive me I don't recall the body you use but I guess it reflects similar? I'm r5 with a grip as about as big as it gets.
