AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |
Back to Blog
Canon rf objektiv7/28/2023 ![]() I just don't understand the math people are doing in their heads. And then after a lens has been out for years like the EF OF COURSE it's cheaper. See, if you could get the RF f/4 lens for the same price as the EF f/2.8 was ORIGINALLY listed at, then you would, in reality when adjusted for years of inflation, be paying WAY less than that lens. I'm also very curious about why they think the R6 is overpriced and, if that's the case, why don't they buy the R or RP? As camera and lens sales decline, I wonder how people think it's even possible for new lenses to be released at a cost that is, in reality, lower. Also, if this is "yet another reason" then what are all of the other reasons? I find this type of thinking fascinating and I'd love to see some data gathered on how often people actually follow through and if they do how they feel about the decision after the fact. I'd love to hear about that experience when you do decide to sell all of your gear and move. If you want to debate all gear and future prices from everyone, we can have that debate (we probably won't disagree with one another) but it has no bearing on my previous post or the OP's. I compared 1 lens to 1 lens using current prices "NOW" - like the OP stated and showed his exaggeration was both wrong and unnecessary to make. Since this article was about Canon's 14-35/4, I looked for the closest 'Leica' lens that I could compare (and point out the absurdity of that statement) that lens is the Leica SL 16-35/3.5-4.5 and it costs $6,295 (3.7x more expensive) I think it's actually safe to say there is no point even in the next few years where Canon will make a lens - similar to something Leica has & have it's priced anywhere near a Leica. It's that NOW that I think you may have missed that I picked up on & posted about. In the original post, said: "Canon are NOW charging Leica prices". (2/2) | So let me go back and highlight the thing that made my reply so spot-on. I thought yours was a thoughtful comment - and does not warrant the LOL response above! They look like technical marvels but are way overkill for my (non-professional) needs and way too heavy. ![]() I would say, however, that I don't mind that the 1.2 primes are available for folks who want them. I decided that I would stick with that one (+ adapter) and save the extra cost - at least for now. The EF 16-35 f4L is one of my favorite lenses and gives me great results. I had this on backorder from B&H but was not comfortable with the idea of dealing with the distortion at the wide end especially since I shoot raw and use Lightroom (I did not want to incorporate DPP into my workflow or wait for an Adobe profile). I was looking forward to getting this to go along with my 24-105 L and the 70-200 f4L - both of which I love for their IQ and relatively smaller size than EF (especially when factoring in the adapter). ![]()
0 Comments
Read More
Leave a Reply. |