>new Canon RF 28-70mm f/2.8 IS STM lens >smallest and lightest constant f/2.8 mirrorless FF zoom with image stabilizationCanon won.
>>4359137>smallest and lightestMore plastic elements?
>>4359137>1100$ + tax for a kit lenshow about you go kys today?
>>4359151>Fast stabilized standard zoom lens but lighter and cheaper>muh kit
>>4359157He needs something to be angry about. It's all he has
>zoom
It is an interesting lens for sure. I think it will be a bundle option for upcoming canon cameras and if they are able to cut retail pricing by doing so then it may be a huge selling point. I have the 24-70 2.8, but i hate the size so this would be a nice fuckaround lens, but not at this price, especially here in yurop.
>>4359157and low quality optics
>>4359137Fellow Sonyshitters... Not again!! They cant keep getting away with it!
>>4359167So the sigma and tamron you were begging for all there years ?
>>4359137You have to zoom the lens in to use it. See here at 2.30:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VC0sTftOKPI&t=150s
>>4359175>whataboutismkys today
>>4359232>You have to zoom the lens in to use it.no shit, sherlock
>>4359157>28-70>28>2024>1200£ = 1421€ = 1568$>kit lenscanon users need to buy a rope[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:Image Width1080Image Height1080
just look at the quality of these rocks
>>4359242and these leafs
>>4359168What the sigma are you crying about now, Clive?
Hold up, does Canon really not supply hoods on non-L lenses? Their bean counters really are running the company then.
ill keep my 24-105 f4>>4359252people actually use those?
>paying $1100 for plastic gimmicksThe tamron 28-75 is unnoticeably larger, actually has weather sealing, and works on both nikon and sony.>BUT MUH OIS COMBINES WITH IBIS FOR LE 8 STOPSCool, not even the branches on the trees that offer up the leaves to go with your rocks will stay still long enough for it to matter.Photographs that matter, AKA photos of PEOPLE actually DOING STUFF, basically bottom out at 1/30s. I would rather use micro four thirds than a cannot POS R. at least the small zooms are weather sealed.>>4359252Non L lenses do not get:Hoods, so you cant protect the front element from damage and glareWeather sealing, so water intrusion is not slowed and you immediately kill your camera if you get caught in unexpected rain
>>4359232>its a zoom with a storage position like the niggor 24-70 f4Lmfao what a joke. $1500 kit lens.Why is canon making native overpriced tamrons?
>>4359236Is the Sigma 28-70mm f2.8 like this as well?I prefer lenses with internal zooming. Or at the very least, that I don't have to extend the barrel an inch or two just to take photos.
>>4359275Because if you bought an R series you mentally prepared yourself to have your balls raked over hot coals every time you wanted a new lens.
>>4359282If you’re smart enough to see how retarded this shit is, you still have your dslr or shoot micro four thirds.
>>4359314>but muh 25g lighter and pixel peep line charts on dpreview
>>4359252Hey at least they provide weather sealing at the mount now. Can't give us everything all at once. Next time perhaps they will include a plastic hood that cost them less than $5 to produce.
>>4359137>Release new lens that mogs the competition >Makes /p/ seetheCanon won indeed.
>>4359365Being astounded by how shitty and overpriced it is isnt seething, its mockery>inb4 “u poor? money doesnt matter to me” - conveniently stops shopping at 1/2 his credit limit, has no kids, and lives with his mom
>>4359137What company is making these lenses for everyone? Canon, Nikon, Olympus, Fuji, all these things are obviously being made and coming out of the same factory in china & Thailand. Same construction method, same fasteners, same telltale marks of the moldmakers, same fit & finish. Even the switches and the lettering process is the same. It's weird and I don't like it.
>>4359376Tamron
>>4359377those dicks
>>4359369
>>4359137>starts at 28mmInto the trash it goes
>>4359446truththis is the lens to admire
>>4359500I wish this lens existed for e-mount :(
>>4359503>i wish i had a 20-60 f3.5-5.6 instead of the fe 20-70 f4 g that is the same size and higher qualitydo you also wish you had the "canon" (tamron) 28-70 f2.8 instead of the tamron 28-75 f2.8 gii that is sharper and basically the same size if you ignore the storage position that doesn't let you take photos? lol
>>4359503Of course you do, Clive
>>4359508The 20-60 is smaller, lighter and less than half the price.
>>4359500>3.5-5.6Top fucking lul, so THIS is the power of L mount[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width360Image Height360Scene Capture TypeStandard
>>4359514UH Sonybros?? Our response???
>>4359520I'm not a mixed race incel so I don't care about sony kit lenses
>>4359518Photography is just a hobby and I mainly shoot with primes. I dont really want to spend $1k on a zoom I'll seldom use.
>>4359520No one is actually seriously posting about wanting this lens anon it’s not the same thing lol
>>4359527You can afford a $2k(post tax) ff mirrorless but not a $1000 lens? You need to work on your money management skills.
>>4359543Huh? My used a7 did not cost anywhere near $2k...
>>4359543If I was buying a """cheap""" standard zoom that stopped at 28mm instead of 24mm it certainly won't be the $1100 one that doesn't even include a lens hood. If I was buying 1st party I'd just dole out the $2k or so for the one without compromises.
>>4359543I can get a new R8 for $1750 AUD. RP for $1100. Body only. An RF 24-50 is like $200 used since people take them out of kit boxes, or if you want to go for something non-retarded, an RF 24-105 is like... $600? Either or, even if anon bought an R6 or R, you can still get good results on other lenses that don't cost as much.
According to the patent this lens is a 29-69mm lens.
>>4359575and then what? take pictures of leafs and rocks?a 100$ point and shoot can give same results
>>4359755ansel adams has big ass stretches of protected land named after him and his descendants are in hollywood. such is the power of rocks and leaves. at least you had sex with 5 different 4/10 tindr whores. portrait chads! monogamous incel betabux btfo by the sigma alpha males!
>>4359508>>4359509>$500>$1100loo. lmao even.
>>4359755>Having an imaginary argumentI was talking about the price of things, and nobody mentioned subject matter at all. Take your meds.
>>4359137Good value for this Black Friday but I'm confused why Canon didn't develop/launch this years earlier. Were they just not thinking of intermediate value lenses in 2019, 2020?
>>4359846>better things cost more:osnoy btfo?
>>4360181They wanted people to spend the big bucks first (for L lenses) before giving the option of cheaper alternatives.Good strategy because I shelled out $1400 for the 24-105mm f4L, which I didn't really want, and which was way more expensive than any other lens I'd ever bought up until that point.
>>4360181No way it is gonna be on sale that early.
>>4360185>better things cost moreSo why is it half the price?
>>4359772u mad?
>>4360216Reckon you got any value out of it over say the 24-105 USM f/4.5-7.1? Consoomer RF lenses are all significantly slower and I hate it.>B-b-but IS! So light! Control ring!My old EF telephoto is a stop brighter than the RF equiv. Which is a joke. All I'm saying, is you probably did the right thing by getting that L if you use it enough. Buy once cry once.
>>4359274>I would rather use micro four thirds than a cannot POS R. at least the small zooms are weather sealed.I would rather nophoto nocamera shills stay off the board.
>>4360651>Nophoto bitches about other nophotoMany such cases
>>4359514Are you retarded or something? Literally every mount has variable aperture zoom lenses.
