[Rondec]

You don't shoot at f1.2 or f1.4 at 1/20s or 1/40s so that you have to rely on stabilisation. At f1.2 or f1.4 the subject has to be frozen if you want to catch him in focus at low shutter speeds given the tiny DOF.

Well, you can actually shoot f2 and f1.2 lenses at other apertures than f2 and f1.2. I mainly use image stabilization with wider angles when I'm shooting landscape and want to drag my shutter a bit -- say shooting a waterfall at 1/8 second or a night scene and trying to keep iso as low as possible.

As to why those lenses don't have stabilization, I think they are probably big enough and complex enough without sticking stabilization in them. And most non-telephoto primes have not traditionally been stabilized either.

[Dan Rentea]

Agreed. In fact, with my Hasselblad HV, it's not possible to input the focal length for non-native lenses, so when I'm shooting those I have to disable stabilisation - and it rarely, if ever, causes me any problem... though I do sometimes have to shoot at higher ISO settings than I would with my A7 MkII with stabilisation running...

Furtunate that these days high ISO is good even on crop cameras.

Regarding this EOS R camera, there are 3 things that interests me:

1. Eye af. As I understood from internet, Canon said that they will update the firmware in late October and eye af will be available in Ai Servo also (Ai Servo is the equivalent of AF-C). At the release of the camera the eye af was available only in AF-S.
2. EVF - as much as I like mirrorless cameras, EVF gives me headaches. Except the EVF from A9, the other EVF from mirrorless cameras that I've tried didn't worked for me. Nikon and Canon said that their EVF are better than competition so this will be the first thing that I will test as soon as the EOS R will be available for rent.
3. Adaptors - if the af won't suffer when the adapter is added, then this is going to be a real benefit for the ones who have a lot of EF lenses from their DSLRs. I mean, with the adapters I will have that ring which is programable (I can change aperture, ISO, etc.) and I will also have ND filters and polarising filters with any lens mounted on camera.

I admit that for the moment I rather see this camera as a second camera for my 5D Mark IV rather than a replacement but I'm also waiting too see the other model that Canon said will hit the market in a few months.

---------- Post added 09-12-18 at 09:41 AM ----------

Well, you can actually shoot f2 and f1.2 lenses at other apertures than f2 and f1.2. I mainly use image stabilization with wider angles when I'm shooting landscape and want to drag my shutter a bit -- say shooting a waterfall at 1/8 second or a night scene and trying to keep iso as low as possible.

I rather use a light tripod or a monopod in those situation, but again, I understand your point of view.

As to why those lenses don't have stabilization, I think they are probably big enough and complex enough without sticking stabilization in them. And most non-telephoto primes have not traditionally been stabilized either.

I don't think size or complexity of the lenses have to do with adding or not image stabilisation. The examples than comes to my mind are 70-200mm lenses (the f2.8 and the f4 versions). Canon has them with and without image stabilisation and there are identical in terms of size and optical performance.

Canon added stabilisation in the new released 85mm f1.4L lens and I'm waiting to see if the new 135mm f2 will have IS also.

[Rondec]

Furtunate that these days high ISO is good even on crop cameras.

Regarding this EOS R camera, there are 3 things that interests me:

1. Eye af. As I understood from internet, Canon said that they will update the firmware in late October and eye af will be available in Ai Servo also (Ai Servo is the equivalent of AF-C). At the release of the camera the eye af was available only in AF-S.
2. EVF - as much as I like mirrorless cameras, EVF gives me headaches. Except the EVF from A9, the other EVF from mirrorless cameras that I've tried didn't worked for me. Nikon and Canon said that their EVF are better than competition so this will be the first thing that I will test as soon as the EOS R will be available for rent.
3. Adaptors - if the af won't suffer when the adapter is added, then this is going to be a real benefit for the ones who have a lot of EF lenses from their DSLRs. I mean, with the adapters I will have that ring which is programable (I can change aperture, ISO, etc.) and I will also have ND filters and polarising filters with any lens mounted on camera.

I admit that for the moment I rather see this camera as a second camera for my 5D Mark IV rather than a replacement but I'm also waiting too see the other model that Canon said will hit the market in a few months.

---------- Post added 09-12-18 at 09:41 AM ----------



I rather use a light tripod or a monopod in those situation, but again, I understand your point of view.



I don't think size or complexity of the lenses have to do with adding or not image stabilisation. The examples than comes to my mind are 70-200mm lenses (the f2.8 and the f4 versions). Canon has them with and without image stabilisation and there are identical in terms of size and optical performance.

Canon added stabilisation in the new released 85mm f1.4L lens and I'm waiting to see if the new 135mm f2 will have IS also.

I would rather use a tripod or monopod when using telephoto lenses, but it doesn't always work out that way. There are plenty of times when you have your camera and a lens, but don't have a tripod and you still want to drag your shutter a bit.

As far as your examples, I imagine that they were built exactly the same and then the stabilization lens element is just locked into place in the non-IS version -- but they have to be designed to have that element there in the first place. For whatever reason they didn't put such an element in these new lenses for the R. Maybe it was cost, maybe it was complexity of design, maybe they thought it would add a little bit more to the size and that was too much already, maybe something else. At this point it is all speculation.

[surfar]

1. Eye af.

Theres a few things that will be updated by firmware...its announced to coincide with Koln(is there an umlaut?) so its a rush job.

Except the EVF from A9

Its similar, hope its OK....its been compared to an OVF.

3. Adaptors - if the af won't suffer when the adapter is added, then this is going to be a real benefit for the ones who have a lot of EF lenses from their DSLRs. I mean, with the adapters I will have that ring which is programable (I can change aperture, ISO, etc.) and I will also have ND filters and polarising filters with any lens mounted on camera.

They should be good, innovative on Canons part.

[Dan Rentea]

I would rather use a tripod or monopod when using telephoto lenses, but it doesn't always work out that way. There are plenty of times when you have your camera and a lens, but don't have a tripod and you still want to drag your shutter a bit.

Now tell me, why in the world I would like to take with me when I go out shooting landscapes a fast lens like 28-70mm f2 or a 50mm f1.2? I'm asking because these are targeted lenses not all around lenses. That's why f4 lenses exists and that's why they are small, light, excelent optically and they also have IS. 16-35mm f4L IS lens and 70-200mm f4L IS are perfect for the scenarious that you are talking about.

[Rondec]

Now tell me, why in the world I would like to take with me when I go out shooting landscapes a fast lens like 28-70mm f2 or a 50mm f1.2? I'm asking because these are targeted lenses not all around lenses. That's why f4 lenses exists and that's why they are small, light, excelent optically and they also have IS. 16-35mm f4L IS lens and 70-200mm f4L IS are perfect for the scenarious that you are talking about.

I don't really know why you would buy a 28-70 f2 lens in the first place, but if I owned one, I probably wouldn't have money for f4 varieties of the same lenses. I own the DFA *70-200 f2.8 and I can tell you that I am not going to buy the DFA 70-200 f4 when it comes out -- not because it won't be a nice lens and certainly it will be smaller, but I can't really afford to have such duplication and my wife uses the f2.8 when shooting weddings and doesn't feel like f4 would be adequate.

I guess I don't have as much redundancy in my lens line up as you do and I tend to have one zoom and maybe a couple of primes to cover each focal length, whereas you have f2.8 and f4 zooms as well as f1.2 and f1.4 primes. But it is more of a hobby for me too.

[Dan Rentea]

I don't really know why you would buy a 28-70 f2 lens in the first place, but if I owned one, I probably wouldn't have money for f4 varieties of the same lenses. I own the DFA *70-200 f2.8 and I can tell you that I am not going to buy the DFA 70-200 f4 when it comes out -- not because it won't be a nice lens and certainly it will be smaller, but I can't really afford to have such duplication and my wife uses the f2.8 when shooting weddings and doesn't feel like f4 would be adequate.

I guess I don't have as much redundancy in my lens line up as you do and I tend to have one zoom and maybe a couple of primes to cover each focal length, whereas you have f2.8 and f4 zooms as well as f1.2 and f1.4 primes. But it is more of a hobby for me too.

I don't have f2.8 zoom lenses because I like to use primes for low light situations (faster aperture, lighter, smaller, easier to shoot without getting too much attention). But I use f4 zoom lenses with image stabilisation for hobby (travel, landscape, even wildlife occasionally with 70-200mm f4 lens) or sometimes for outdoor corporate events. I wouldn't use a 15-30mm f2.8 or a 70-200mm f2.8 for landscapes when I'm hiking due to weight and size of the lenses, but I understood the fact that you share your lenses with your wife and therefore you have to use those heavy lenses.

So, you make a compromise by saving money and using heavy f2.8 lenses (which are very good lenses) for landscapes and you make sometimes other compromises when you want to shoot handheld at long shutter speeds. That doesn't mean that you need image stabilisation on wide lenses with fast aperture because again, those are targeted lenses.

[repaap]

Oh, btw, F4 lenses and compact size...24-105. Quite compact. Almost fits to your pocket, if you are a kenguru.

[Dan Rentea]

Oh, btw, F4 lenses and compact size...24-105. Quite compact. Almost fits to your pocket, if you are a kenguru.

Canon 24-105mm f4 is big if you compare it with Pentax, but:
- it is a 24-105mm lens, not a 28-105mm lens
- it has f4 on all focal lenghts; Pentax is f/3.5-5.6

[repaap]

That also goes for 28-70/2 it is not 24-70/2.8 if it would be 24-70/2 some guys might have problem to carry that thing around..but being 28/2 it is a good compromise. Just like 28-105 is if you want light weight that is. Look. No need to argue about this. I’v seen 16-35/4 on my friends 5DIV and it is ’small’ set up. He uses polariser btw all the time with it...so 15-30 would be out of question. That 24-105/4 is still a big lens, especially that shown at this video. I’d rather have 28-105 or even 24-70 and use prime at tele end..

[Dan Rentea]

That also goes for 28-70/2 it is not 24-70/2.8 if it would be 24-70/2 some guys might have problem to carry that thing around..but being 28/2 it is a good compromise. Just like 28-105 is if you want light weight that is. Look. No need to argue about this. I’v seen 16-35/4 on my friends 5DIV and it is ’small’ set up. He uses polariser btw all the time with it...so 15-30 would be out of question. That 24-105/4 is still a big lens, especially that shown at this video. I’d rather have 28-105 or even 24-70 and use prime at tele end..

I don't intend to start a debate here and again, we all have different approaches. Having Pentax 28-105mm on K1 may be bigger in size and a little heavier than EOS R with 24-105mm.

To me the funny thing is that people who have no problem shooting with Pentax 70-200mm f2.8 lens talks about the weight and size of Canon 28-70mm f2 which is 300g lighter than Pentax lens. We all know by now that mirrorless it's not about less weight, at least not when comes to full frame.

If adaptors will not slow down the af, then there are lots of options to choose from. There is Canon 24-70mm f2.8 & f4 lenses, there is the new light 28-75mm f2.8 from Tamron, etc. And another plus of the adaptor is the included filters (ND and polarised filters). This means that any fisheye lens or the impressive Canon 11-24mm lens will benefit from these filters.

[repaap]

I don't intend to start a debate here and again, we all have different approaches. Having Pentax 28-105mm on K1 may be bigger in size and a little heavier than EOS R with 24-105mm.

To me the funny thing is that people who have no problem shooting with Pentax 70-200mm f2.8 lens talks about the weight and size of Canon 28-70mm f2 which is 300g lighter than Pentax lens. We all know by now that mirrorless it's not about less weight, at least not when comes to full frame.

If adaptors will not slow down the af, then there are lots of options to choose from. There is Canon 24-70mm f2.8 & f4 lenses, there is the new light 28-75mm f2.8 from Tamron, etc. And another plus of the adaptor is the included filters (ND and polarised filters). This means that any fisheye lens or the impressive Canon 11-24mm lens will benefit from these filters.

Let’s not start a debate again.

But it is not the weight thing, I’m happy to carry 70-200 or 24-70, if I need f 2.8. Point was that 24-105/4 is not that convinient that I’d bring that along. To me it looks like that. Again it is purely what I’d like. And 24-105 is also expensive lens. Regardless of brand as are those fast zooms. But when it get’s to f4 there is little difference between 4 and 5,6. And there weight reason and prize ratio make a bigger thing than f2.8 vs. 4. But that is all matter of taste. I have been actually hoping for 24-105/4 for pentax too, but now I have changed my mind

Again this is not for debate, just to clarify my thoughts. As I said earlyer in other thread to you, it is great to have different style and way of looking and doing things. (You have to admit that 28-70/2 is still huge! Seriously, it is different to have big 70-200/2.8 zoom than that thing, with no handle huge size...my 15-30 is biggest that I’d like to have(talking about width) but anyway good to have options..) besides cat and flower pictures have never looked as good as with these lenses

[UncleVanya]

I would argue that a 28-70 f/2 being 300g lighter than a 70-200 f/2.8 is not very relevant as they are used for quite different things. I would also argue that saying IS isn't important ignores the fact that IS is very much a key feature of most walk about lenses or the bodies they sit on today. I would also argue that the 28-70 f/2 is massive and it is unclear how this is an advantage over a 24-70 f/2.8 lens which would likely be smaller. Finally the reality here is that this marketplace is seeing a huge trend towards glass that reeks of one-upmanship over function and seems to be pushing the limits for a need that has yet to be proven. If this guy can sell images from his old glass and make a living what is the point of this super glass other than bragging rights? Nikon's 'Worst' and 'Best' Zoom Lenses Compared

[Dan Rentea]

I would argue that a 28-70 f/2 being 300g lighter than a 70-200 f/2.8 is not very relevant as they are used for quite different things. I would also argue that saying IS isn't important ignores the fact that IS is very much a key feature of most walk about lenses or the bodies they sit on today. I would also argue that the 28-70 f/2 is massive and it is unclear how this is an advantage over a 24-70 f/2.8 lens which would likely be smaller. Finally the reality here is that this marketplace is seeing a huge trend towards glass that reeks of one-upmanship over function and seems to be pushing the limits for a need that has yet to be proven. If this guy can sell images from his old glass and make a living what is the point of this super glass other than bragging rights? Nikon's 'Worst' and 'Best' Zoom Lenses Compared

People always react different to new things. But there will always be a market for these lenses like the 28-70mm f2 lens. And not just for bragging rights. For example, there is Canon 200mm f2.8L lens at around 750$ which is a very good lens. But there is also the 200mm f2 lens which costs 5600$ and is more than 3 times heavier than the f2.8 version. Seeing the difference in images between those 2 lenses, photographers that want the best image posible in terms of sharpness, bokeh, etc. will pay for the f2 lens. I remember the negative comments when Canon released the 11-24mm f4L lens. People said that it's a masive lens, that it's heavy, they also said that is too expensive, that it doesn't have image stabilisation, etc. But once they start renting and using that lens, all the negative comments started to disapear and the lens started to sell very well to a certain category of photographers. As I said, 28-70mm f2, 11-24mm f4, 70-200mm f2.8, 200mm f2, etc. are targeted lenses.

Same with the 28-70mm f2. If it's sharper, faster focusing and with better bokeh than 24-70mm f2.8, people will buy it. Some wedding photographers that I've talked to are more interested in this lens than the camera released by Canon a few days ago because they saw a lens which is 1 stop faster than 24-70mm f2.8 lens.

Regarding your example with old lenses, people made a living shooting with Tamron 70-200mm f2.8 on their Pentax cameras. Some probably still make a living shooting with that lens. But I wonder, the ones who replaced their light, cheap Tamron 70-200mm f2.8 which costs 750$ and weights 1150g to Pentax 70-200mm f2.8 which costs double and it is also 650g heavier than Tamron lens, did it for bragging rights?

I never said that IS is not important. I said that I found that image stabilisation is important mostly for tele lenses like 85mm, 70-200mm, 135mm, etc. For wide angle lenses with fast aperture I didn't find IS to be a real necesity for me.

[Rondec]

I don't intend to start a debate here and again, we all have different approaches. Having Pentax 28-105mm on K1 may be bigger in size and a little heavier than EOS R with 24-105mm.

To me the funny thing is that people who have no problem shooting with Pentax 70-200mm f2.8 lens talks about the weight and size of Canon 28-70mm f2 which is 300g lighter than Pentax lens. We all know by now that mirrorless it's not about less weight, at least not when comes to full frame.

If adaptors will not slow down the af, then there are lots of options to choose from. There is Canon 24-70mm f2.8 & f4 lenses, there is the new light 28-75mm f2.8 from Tamron, etc. And another plus of the adaptor is the included filters (ND and polarised filters). This means that any fisheye lens or the impressive Canon 11-24mm lens will benefit from these filters.

There is a difference in expectation of size for a 70-200 f2.8 and a 28-70 lens. I'm not disrespecting Canon's decision to release it. I think the comments had more to do with Canon's decision not to stabilize the sensor in the EOS-R.

I'm not particularly interested in this camera or the lenses that accompany it and from the sound of it, you aren't very interested in the 28-70 f2 either. Obviously there are people out there with specific needs who probably will love it and that's fine. It is still pretty big and expensive and f2.8 or f4 zooms seem to be better balances between size/cost/performance.