I have this lens and it’s amazing. I hate the mk2 version. Never liked it, honestly. Always felt cheap. The build quality on the mk3 is SO much better.
Agreed. This wide angle lens is typically used for landscape photography, and we know in that landscape we seldom use it wide open, plus most of the landscape photographers use tripod.
Tianxiao Zhang Actually it is worth the difference and you dont know what you are missing. The f2.8 iii is made to an entirely different standard and has nearly no coma right to the corners and wide open @ f2.8. Astro is easy, video @ f2.8 looks gorgeous.
Not to mention the 17-40mm which currently costs $500... Not sure if this is 4 times better unless you are doing astronomy shots. Now that I mention it maybe that's why they made the price "astronomical."
17-40 is nearly 800EUR in EU, 700 if you catch it on sale. Tho it's a good wide angle if you're not into test chart photography, 16-35 f2.8 is just another level of quality.
At that price point it should've had IS also. f2.8 + IS would have been a great combo for super low light shots, especially when you're pushing towards that 12800 iso limit.
@@nordic5490 Same here. Can't work out why anyone would need IS at 16mms. I have 1000s of photos taken with the 3 Canon 16-35s and I much refer the 16-35f2.8L III over the ''II'' and the f4. Now if Canon releases a 11-24f2.8L I'll trade in the f4 version. I prefer to have 2.8 and not need it than to need it and not have it.
I own the Canon 16-35 F4, It was the cost factor that was the determining factor for buying the F4 Variant Eventually, I may upgrade for the additional light and sharpness?
I have the F4 and love it. I don't miss having 2.8 at all since the F4 has IS I can lower the shutter. But even having a 2.8 on a wide-angle doesn't give you that noticeably more bokeh anyway.
Please spare time to mention number and type of lens glass elements and overall weight if you are able. For hobby and my most expensive lens is 24-70 2.8 G (non VR).
Overall performance is very high on the mkIII, that is why it's pricey, pretty good upgrade over the previous model. But, and here is the but, it really only matters if you are making large prints, and I mean really large. And for that, if you are also using it on something really sharp like the 5DSR. That camera is so high in sharp details that there is a clear difference. Again though, the people making large prints, they also sell them for big bucks, and that makes it a justified purchased. Most mere mortals have no use for a lens of this quality, since they are not likely to notice or appreciate the difference. The faster aperture also really only matters to night shooters or action shooters (which is not done at ultrawide very often). I personally like the F4L IS version. Most wide shots aren't even done wide open, negating the need for a fast ultra-wide (I shoot at F8 a lot on my widest angles). The F4L IS is also super sharp, one of the best there is. The added IS makes it an even better value. But F4 can never be F2.8, so astro shooting is not as good, and video is also done better at F2.8 (even though the lack of IS or IBIS bodies makes it less so). I can see reasons why it is so high priced, but I can also see why the majority of shooters will never need it. Also, the intro price of lenses from Canon are always high, so that they can offer rebates and incentives later to boost sales, then pull them to artificially increase the price, without actually increasing the price. It just goes back to base price. Right now I think there is a 300 dollar rebate on it, instant. Funny, I find that people that jsut "upgraded" from crop to full frame struggle with the price of wide angle lenses. They go from systems where they could get a 10-XXmm lens for 300 or less, to one that they are either twice that or more, or do not come with key features like AF, AE, or IS. It's one of the most overlooked aspects of people moving to full frame systems.
I picked up a new sigma 18-35 f1.8 for around 500 bucks ... never looked back. Incredibly sharp ... everywhere. For the canon money, I could have 4 brand new Sigma's on my shelf.
The rendering on the 2.8 just is better. Also, IS doesn't make up for a stop less. It's pretty obvious what you are paying for. One is a very good wide angle lens, the other one is a beast :) Strictly spoken from a photographers point of view. For video, the IS might be a selling point.
Mikat I carry this lens and the 100-400L ii mostly when I go out. My 70-200 f2.8 sits on the shelf collecting dust. If I am going to shoot portraights I take the 85mm f1.2.
@@nordic5490 I sold my 70-200 II in anticipation of the III but just haven't been able to pull the trigger. Like you I carry a 100-400 II attached to a 7DM2 and use my 11-24f4L , 16-35f2.8L III, 24-70f2.8L II and 85f1.2L II on my 5DMiv. At 67 I'm having trouble with my hands when using the 100-400 II so I'm not sure I want the 70-200 III now. Was thinking of getting the 135f2 instead.
@@kevinjorgensen1046 Hi Kevin, I was just wondering why you decided on both the 11-24 and the 16-35? If you already have the 24-70 that covers 35mm? Im wanting a new L series lens for landscape and architecture - and wondering about the 11-24 or 16-35, why did you opt for both?
IMO, adding the extra stop offers “apples” value versus the IS which offers “oranges” value, and which value is more important depends on what you are shooting. But the price of each lens should be much closer. For me it was no contest. 90% of my wide angle is outdoors and daytime, so f/4IS.
looking smugly on to the 16-35 III sitting right next to me on the table. The price of a new one is absolutly absurd, but I got a 2022 Model for a fraction of it´s retail price. If you guys want an EF Lens, now is the time to get one for cheap.
Cochise Hart landscape is only one field. I have this lens and it has nearly no noticeable coma @ the corners @ f2.8 - no other lens is like this. Also video @ f2.8 looks gorgeous.
Lavli Singh I have the series 1 85mm F1.2 and the bokeh is the best in business, creamier than the series 2. I shot video on it @ f1.4 2 weeks ago and the look is totally gorgeous. I am keen to get my hands on the 85mm f1.2 R to try it.
Canon is a single company in the world providing 85 f1.2 . It's one, if not the best 85mm lens out there. I'd say the price is justified for what you get.
People tend to forget, 1.2 aperture means 50% more light than 1.4, which means it doubles the amount of glass required for 1.4, nikon said it was impossible, 6 months later canon released it.
I was trying to decide between the canon ef 24 70 f2.8 and the Sigma Aer version but first of May the price went back up so I am back in neutral waiting for another sale. RF would be nice. But $$$$
Absolutely too expensive. You're better off with the Tamron 15-30 f/2.8 with IS (they call it VC) for half the price. You still get approximately the same optical performance as well, even in the corners. Sigma also has an excellent 16-35 f/1.8 ART if you have a crop sensor that's in the same price range as the Canon f/4.
@@nordic5490 That's odd because I rented the Canon to evaluate it and there was noticeable coma in the corners in the tighter focal lengths. Wouldn't be a problem on a crop sensor, but definitely there on FF.
ChristianWheel There is a tiny amount of coma on my series 3 if you pixel peep hard enough, but it doesnt have a funky corner coma, eg space ships with spike through the middle that the Tamron and Sigma does. Your rental copy may have been knocked out of alignment - this happens. Go on an astro forum like CLOUDY NIGHTS and others have the same experience as me.
I have the F4, and it does what I need. I'll wait though for the 15-35R version that's on it's way, as I'll probably get an RP sometime this year. I reckon it will be about the same price, and of the two, I know which one I'd prefer to buy.
I'd think that with the uproar of the old optical equipment, all these brand new prices will drop a bit... But I don't think so with Yen-Dollar conversions, consumers always carry the can... This scenario could not be worst: both old and new equipment market its in a bubble that never pops.
it was a first compact cinema camera with interchangeable lenses, which had build quality and capabilities of 1DX. It was the first hybrid of Canon's flagship beasts. It still outperforms most cameras on a market, yet it's 7 years old. Well, you wanted the best, had to pay for it.
I don't know if these guys have much in the way of RF lenses yet (I know you talked a while back about having the R now too) but it'd be fascinating to see the RF 24-70mm f2L if they have it. Just as it's a chunky one both in price and size!
the problem of going mirrorless is that native lens are expensive, and they are focused by wire if dslrs are getting cheaper and lenses too just because the hipe, i would say: go canon dslr and youll find good affordable glass (sigma too)
I had the ''II'', traded it in for the f4 then traded the f4 for the ''III'''. No regrets whatsoever. I prefer to have f2.8 and not need it than to need it and not have it.
Few could really justify the 16/2.8iii because the ISO performance difference over f/4 isn't great enough. Also people aren't making huge prints and so no one is looking at the corners.
Some people make huge prints, those same people sell them for big bucks too, so they can easily justify it. Most mere mortals, no way. The F4L IS is even a little pricey for most at 1000 USD, but is so much bang for the buck! I would choose it over the 17-40mm any day of the week, even with it being 500 USD right now.
They got to make back that money they are undercharging for their cameras somehow. Same strategy they use on their game systems. Make almost nothing from the system, make all the money on game licensing, or in this case, lens price gouging.
This is why I can’t go full frame I’d be broke and homeless in 3 months ...lol hey I’d have great photos but yeah sleeping under a park bench in the cold isn’t enticing for me
I guess it's premature to call the death of DSLRs, but I'm calling it. I'm not spending any more money on DSLR lenses, because my next camera will be mirrorless.
why SOny version is about $700 more expensive? and in general Sony lenses are more expensive and for some reason their range is a complicated mixed up mess. The line of primes 24/35/50/85/100 with same aperture from Sony is $2000 more expensive than Canon's. And only $400 yet still more, if I compare my personal line, which Sony doesn't offer at all - with 50/85 f1.2
Cost that much is because they all got together and said this is what we're going to spend, our cost what we will charge and if we all get together make really good lens we can charge $2200 $10,000 just like what the oil corporations , Apple , can't say they spent half that $2,200 making that lens the supply side is a lot lower for the corporations
Rozely Lindim nope. Get yourself a gimbal or a proper tripod. Video @ f2.8 looks gorgeous. I shot professional video on this lens 2 weeks ago. You dont know what you are missing.
It's a love-hate relationship for me. I love the user experience of Canon, but it just kinda feels like their products are offering less in terms of value. They're clearly holding back from putting features into their consumer products.
Expensive...keep for life without upgrade constantly like body weatherseal fstop low light consistent IS option. Now canon has no crop ibis on r5 little crop 1.08x on r6 shutter sensor protection weatherseal audio usbc go along ibis digital IS to go along with fstop is lenses options or alternatives. New sony a7siii can't compete except its good for 4k video but low mp for photography...r5 or good deal pro r6 or r can do both photo video than new Sony a7siii.
This is quickly becoming my favourite series on RUclips. It's just so bloody good!
I have this lens and it’s amazing. I hate the mk2 version. Never liked it, honestly. Always felt cheap. The build quality on the mk3 is SO much better.
I have had the version 2 and upgraded to the f/4 IS. The f/4 IS is such a solid step up!
I agree. Have been using the f4 IS version for years. One stop faster isn't worth the difference.
Agreed. This wide angle lens is typically used for landscape photography, and we know in that landscape we seldom use it wide open, plus most of the landscape photographers use tripod.
Tianxiao Zhang Actually it is worth the difference and you dont know what you are missing. The f2.8 iii is made to an entirely different standard and has nearly no coma right to the corners and wide open @ f2.8. Astro is easy, video @ f2.8 looks gorgeous.
It is cheaper in USA. From $1,800 I got it $1,599 with discounts I got through membership. I love it. It’s always with me.
Not to mention the 17-40mm which currently costs $500... Not sure if this is 4 times better unless you are doing astronomy shots. Now that I mention it maybe that's why they made the price "astronomical."
good one👍
Seth Moyer I have this lens. Shooting wide field astro is is a doddle with nearly no coma. Shooting video @ f2.8 is gorgeous.
17-40 is nearly 800EUR in EU, 700 if you catch it on sale. Tho it's a good wide angle if you're not into test chart photography, 16-35 f2.8 is just another level of quality.
At that price point it should've had IS also. f2.8 + IS would have been a great combo for super low light shots, especially when you're pushing towards that 12800 iso limit.
The comparison video I’m looking for . Awesome.
I'd rather have f/4 with IS than f/2.8 without, when we're talking about wide angle lenses.
Peter Kaltoft why ? I have this lens and I don't need IS @ 16mm. This is a phenomenal lens for wide field astro, milky way, et al. F4 doesn't cut it.
That's what I brought
@@nordic5490 I don't do astrophotography.
agreed, I have the f/4 is and I feel like its the best value
@@nordic5490 Same here. Can't work out why anyone would need IS at 16mms. I have 1000s of photos taken with the 3 Canon 16-35s and I much refer the 16-35f2.8L III over the ''II'' and the f4. Now if Canon releases a 11-24f2.8L I'll trade in the f4 version. I prefer to have 2.8 and not need it than to need it and not have it.
I had the original version, but upgraded to the 14-24 nikkor glass with an adapter to canon - pretty happy with that~
The 11-24 is great but expensive alternative.
He lighted up at "DOUBLE THE PRICE" LMAO 1:50
I own the Canon 16-35 F4, It was the cost factor that was the determining factor for buying the F4 Variant
Eventually, I may upgrade for the additional light and sharpness?
I using f4 IS version and its produce top notch quality even in low light with slow shutter speed IS work perfectly ..
I have the F4 and love it. I don't miss having 2.8 at all since the F4 has IS I can lower the shutter. But even having a 2.8 on a wide-angle doesn't give you that noticeably more bokeh anyway.
Please spare time to mention number and type of lens glass elements and overall weight if you are able. For hobby and my most expensive lens is 24-70 2.8 G (non VR).
Overall performance is very high on the mkIII, that is why it's pricey, pretty good upgrade over the previous model. But, and here is the but, it really only matters if you are making large prints, and I mean really large. And for that, if you are also using it on something really sharp like the 5DSR. That camera is so high in sharp details that there is a clear difference. Again though, the people making large prints, they also sell them for big bucks, and that makes it a justified purchased. Most mere mortals have no use for a lens of this quality, since they are not likely to notice or appreciate the difference. The faster aperture also really only matters to night shooters or action shooters (which is not done at ultrawide very often). I personally like the F4L IS version. Most wide shots aren't even done wide open, negating the need for a fast ultra-wide (I shoot at F8 a lot on my widest angles). The F4L IS is also super sharp, one of the best there is. The added IS makes it an even better value. But F4 can never be F2.8, so astro shooting is not as good, and video is also done better at F2.8 (even though the lack of IS or IBIS bodies makes it less so). I can see reasons why it is so high priced, but I can also see why the majority of shooters will never need it. Also, the intro price of lenses from Canon are always high, so that they can offer rebates and incentives later to boost sales, then pull them to artificially increase the price, without actually increasing the price. It just goes back to base price. Right now I think there is a 300 dollar rebate on it, instant.
Funny, I find that people that jsut "upgraded" from crop to full frame struggle with the price of wide angle lenses. They go from systems where they could get a 10-XXmm lens for 300 or less, to one that they are either twice that or more, or do not come with key features like AF, AE, or IS. It's one of the most overlooked aspects of people moving to full frame systems.
Yup i'm gonna sure buy this lens coz the clients always checks corner to coner sharpness...
I picked up a new sigma 18-35 f1.8 for around 500 bucks ... never looked back. Incredibly sharp ... everywhere. For the canon money, I could have 4 brand new Sigma's on my shelf.
Sigma is a cropped crap
It's like a 25-55m tho on full frame....not 18-35
This is a great sports lens, especially for Basketball and similar when you can be very close to the action. But a used VII is a much better value.
Definitely going to get this lens I think it would be perfect for my South Africa photography trip
Great comparison! Just purchased the III, thanks for making the differences clear.
The rendering on the 2.8 just is better. Also, IS doesn't make up for a stop less. It's pretty obvious what you are paying for. One is a very good wide angle lens, the other one is a beast :)
Strictly spoken from a photographers point of view. For video, the IS might be a selling point.
Straight on point, perfect ! I have all the info I need in 3min thank you ! :D
Why either them 2.8/4 ? Sharper corners better for low light...kit wide lense 15-45mm or 18-55mm good enough unless you want my index finger.
You should reeaaaaallllly talk about super telephoto lenses
I’m no pro and well happy with my 2.8 version mk2😊
for $2200 I'd much rather have the 70-200mm f/2.8L III
The 70-200 v3 is awesome, I have it and the 16-35 f4 is and they are both great
Mikat I carry this lens and the 100-400L ii mostly when I go out. My 70-200 f2.8 sits on the shelf collecting dust. If I am going to shoot portraights I take the 85mm f1.2.
Very good for wide angle shots
@@nordic5490 I sold my 70-200 II in anticipation of the III but just haven't been able to pull the trigger. Like you I carry a 100-400 II attached to a 7DM2 and use my 11-24f4L , 16-35f2.8L III, 24-70f2.8L II and 85f1.2L II on my 5DMiv. At 67 I'm having trouble with my hands when using the 100-400 II so I'm not sure I want the 70-200 III now. Was thinking of getting the 135f2 instead.
@@kevinjorgensen1046 Hi Kevin, I was just wondering why you decided on both the 11-24 and the 16-35? If you already have the 24-70 that covers 35mm? Im wanting a new L series lens for landscape and architecture - and wondering about the 11-24 or 16-35, why did you opt for both?
Excellent review!
I own and love the F/4L. I use it for landscapes and don't need F/2.8, especially with no IS and double the price.
IMO, adding the extra stop offers “apples” value versus the IS which offers “oranges” value, and which value is more important depends on what you are shooting. But the price of each lens should be much closer. For me it was no contest. 90% of my wide angle is outdoors and daytime, so f/4IS.
looking smugly on to the 16-35 III sitting right next to me on the table. The price of a new one is absolutly absurd, but I got a 2022 Model for a fraction of it´s retail price. If you guys want an EF Lens, now is the time to get one for cheap.
Might as well buy the f4 especially if shooting landscape. Heck of a lot less in price too.
Cochise Hart landscape is only one field. I have this lens and it has nearly no noticeable coma @ the corners @ f2.8 - no other lens is like this. Also video @ f2.8 looks gorgeous.
How much would you predict the RF 15-35mm f/2.8 IS will cost? All the comments below saying they'd rather get the f/4 IS
I have the f4 and I never wished I could open the aperture more
What do you think about the price of rf 85mm f1.2l ?? Lol
Lavli Singh I have the series 1 85mm F1.2 and the bokeh is the best in business, creamier than the series 2. I shot video on it @ f1.4 2 weeks ago and the look is totally gorgeous. I am keen to get my hands on the 85mm f1.2 R to try it.
Canon is a single company in the world providing 85 f1.2 . It's one, if not the best 85mm lens out there. I'd say the price is justified for what you get.
@@nordic5490 Got some photos to back up that claim? I for one would love to see them.
People tend to forget, 1.2 aperture means 50% more light than 1.4, which means it doubles the amount of glass required for 1.4, nikon said it was impossible, 6 months later canon released it.
It is good for portrait/travel photos?
Please try the 85mm f1.4 GM for Sony, and compare it to the Sony 85mm f1.8 :)
I have the 16-35/4 L IS.
Good enough for me.
After trying both of them, I also chose the f4. The difference was next to nothing.
Bloody hell this lens is a must in my bag.
I think $1800 would be a fair price
They go for $1900 even directly from Canon. I got mine for that price a few months ago from B&H
500$
I was trying to decide between the canon ef 24 70 f2.8 and the Sigma Aer version but first of May the price went back up so I am back in neutral waiting for another sale. RF would be nice. But $$$$
I love this series
if i ever travel to Malaysia I'm coming to visit
I have one, and yes, it is worth the money, and no you don't need IS @ 16mm on a ff.
Absolutely too expensive. You're better off with the Tamron 15-30 f/2.8 with IS (they call it VC) for half the price. You still get approximately the same optical performance as well, even in the corners. Sigma also has an excellent 16-35 f/1.8 ART if you have a crop sensor that's in the same price range as the Canon f/4.
Isn't it an 18-35?
@@keloduma You're right it is!
ChristianWheel not true. I have this lens and it has nearly no visible coma @ the corners @ f2.8. The Tamron and the Sigma cannot do this.
@@nordic5490 That's odd because I rented the Canon to evaluate it and there was noticeable coma in the corners in the tighter focal lengths. Wouldn't be a problem on a crop sensor, but definitely there on FF.
ChristianWheel There is a tiny amount of coma on my series 3 if you pixel peep hard enough, but it doesnt have a funky corner coma, eg space ships with spike through the middle that the Tamron and Sigma does. Your rental copy may have been knocked out of alignment - this happens. Go on an astro forum like CLOUDY NIGHTS and others have the same experience as me.
I have the F4, and it does what I need. I'll wait though for the 15-35R version that's on it's way, as I'll probably get an RP sometime this year. I reckon it will be about the same price, and of the two, I know which one I'd prefer to buy.
24-70MM F2.8!!!!
I wish Malaysia was closer to NY... i definitely need that need lens
I'd think that with the uproar of the old optical equipment, all these brand new prices will drop a bit... But I don't think so with Yen-Dollar conversions, consumers always carry the can... This scenario could not be worst: both old and new equipment market its in a bubble that never pops.
Why Canon 1DC was $15k? Make a video on that
Because it was a 4K video camera when FF 4k video was very rare.
it was a first compact cinema camera with interchangeable lenses, which had build quality and capabilities of 1DX. It was the first hybrid of Canon's flagship beasts. It still outperforms most cameras on a market, yet it's 7 years old. Well, you wanted the best, had to pay for it.
I don't know if these guys have much in the way of RF lenses yet (I know you talked a while back about having the R now too) but it'd be fascinating to see the RF 24-70mm f2L if they have it. Just as it's a chunky one both in price and size!
And here I am watching this with my Canon camcorder. Oh well, we all gotta start somewhere. I still find this super interesting.
No Regrets go with a 70d for ur next camera bro
Depends on what you're using the lens for and if you're actually making money with your photography.
Probably not too expensive for its cost to make, you just need a very good reason to need it over the f4 variant.
Here in USA it cost 1800
I own the version iii, and for me it's worth it.
would love to see your review on the rf lenses from canon, the existing ones aswell as the upcpmming
In this lens category for my Canon 7Dll I own a Sigma Art 1.8 18-35. How do you feel it compares to the Canon’s in your video?
i need a canon lens like this for video
I have it and love it👌🏾
now that my clients know this , they demand that i shoot with V3 of the lens and now i have to upgrade
Sarcasm
That's a very expensive coffee mug 🤔
Which camera you are recommenting mirrorless or Dslr please reply
the problem of going mirrorless is that native lens are expensive, and they are focused by wire if dslrs are getting cheaper and lenses too just because the hipe, i would say: go canon dslr and youll find good affordable glass (sigma too)
ZY PRODUCTION, YOU SHOULD DO A VIDEO ON THE BEST PLACE TO SHOP FOR CAMERAS! I HATE ACCE, THEY BROKE MY CAMERA AND DID NOTHING.
GG I'm about to buy the 16-35 F2.8 version 2 tomorrow, but when I saw your comparison photo of the corner sharpness I almost puked........
do you really need the f2.8? otherwise the F4 IS is amazing!
QZ AU buy the series iii, I did. You won't regret it.
I had the ''II'', traded it in for the f4 then traded the f4 for the ''III'''. No regrets whatsoever. I prefer to have f2.8 and not need it than to need it and not have it.
The Rf says, Hello!
good nan
Well, good their's competition! :D
Few could really justify the 16/2.8iii because the ISO performance difference over f/4 isn't great enough. Also people aren't making huge prints and so no one is looking at the corners.
Some people make huge prints, those same people sell them for big bucks too, so they can easily justify it. Most mere mortals, no way. The F4L IS is even a little pricey for most at 1000 USD, but is so much bang for the buck! I would choose it over the 17-40mm any day of the week, even with it being 500 USD right now.
How about some Sony reviews..
You got it!
Would love to see Why It's Expensive - $2,600 for the Sony FE 70-200mm f/2.8 GM OSS compared with $1,400 for the f/4 G
They got to make back that money they are undercharging for their cameras somehow. Same strategy they use on their game systems. Make almost nothing from the system, make all the money on game licensing, or in this case, lens price gouging.
why would you go for a lens focused by wire?
next up: Noct-NIKKOR 58mm f/1.2
RF 15-35 :)
Why Canon has a bad habit making a lens with wider aperture (also a lot expensive) but remove the IS?
For astro though, f4 is not even an option...
maybe one video on whichever leica lens!
Leica bodies are only expensive because of the name, is assume their glass isn't that much different
If you like to take photo in low light condition, then I think it is worth it.
Then there's the Tokina 16-28 f2.8 for $699... It's difficult to justify the Canons price.
Flare weight only problem. It hold on a7r III and sharpness ect(price too) why i bought tokina
Sigma 18-35 f1.8 is better in my opinion
Trym no it isnt The Siggy has too much and funky coma @ the corners wide open.
That is a great crop camera lens. It's not FF.
you could get yourself a canon 80d + sigma 18-35 1.8 for that money....
16mm vs 28mm?
Tomo Amsterdam completely different league mate.
Nor Dic je i know but my point is for that kind of money it’s not kinda worth it for a normal consumer....
Or 2200 $1 tacos!
i used ro have the 80d and i end up buying the 5D4, full frame is way better
I paid €1560 for the 2.8 so I'm happy
This is why I can’t go full frame I’d be broke and homeless in 3 months ...lol hey I’d have great photos but yeah sleeping under a park bench in the cold isn’t enticing for me
sony 400 f2.8
I guess it's premature to call the death of DSLRs, but I'm calling it. I'm not spending any more money on DSLR lenses, because my next camera will be mirrorless.
why SOny version is about $700 more expensive? and in general Sony lenses are more expensive and for some reason their range is a complicated mixed up mess.
The line of primes 24/35/50/85/100 with same aperture from Sony is $2000 more expensive than Canon's. And only $400 yet still more, if I compare my personal line, which Sony doesn't offer at all - with 50/85 f1.2
How much can I get for one kidney ?
I have the f/4 and even though it's really good, I'd really appreciate de extra light.
Cost that much is because they all got together and said this is what we're going to spend, our cost what we will charge and if we all get together make really good lens we can charge $2200 $10,000 just like what the oil corporations , Apple , can't say they spent half that $2,200 making that lens the supply side is a lot lower for the corporations
Nah get the Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8. It's cheaper, slightly sharper and wider. Oh and for astrophotographers, less coma.
Would be nice if it's has IS on this slow lenses.
At the same, wish my EF400/2.8 IS III doesn't have the lousy DOF that many beginners like.
F/4 with IS is better overall functionality and great for video work.
Rozely Lindim nope. Get yourself a gimbal or a proper tripod. Video @ f2.8 looks gorgeous. I shot professional video on this lens 2 weeks ago. You dont know what you are missing.
But not for sports.
So... Do You like Canon? Just wondering...
It's a love-hate relationship for me. I love the user experience of Canon, but it just kinda feels like their products are offering less in terms of value. They're clearly holding back from putting features into their consumer products.
Expensive...keep for life without upgrade constantly like body weatherseal fstop low light consistent IS option. Now canon has no crop ibis on r5 little crop 1.08x on r6 shutter sensor protection weatherseal audio usbc go along ibis digital IS to go along with fstop is lenses options or alternatives. New sony a7siii can't compete except its good for 4k video but low mp for photography...r5 or good deal pro r6 or r can do both photo video than new Sony a7siii.
I just feel there isn’t a place for this lens. If you want a fast, wide lens then get a prime.
The price is right. We are poor.
Aaargh, those fingers all over the glass 😖
The RF 15-35mm F2.8 IS is 2299$ Then YES the 16-35mm F2.8 III is seriously overpriced. lol
"Because it has a Canon logo"
"Why are you putting quotes around your answer?"
2200 pesos? ta barato, ajua