Canon RF lenses are outrageously priced, even amongst other outrageous ILC brands, because they lock out third parties. So yeah, this lady got ripped off.
It’s not the IS that makes them expensive, it’s the locked out ecosystem and the monopoly they have. I’m not saying they’re not good - they are (from what I’ve seen), but healthy competition, if it existed, would’ve driven the prices down a bit.
As for IS itself, since the move to IBIS, it makes sense that some lenses drop the IS and only rely on the body’s. IMO it used to matter in the DSLR days when IBIS was not really a thing. Nowadays it’s sensible to only put it into the longer lenses that physically need it (the longer the lens, the more physical movement required to compensate and so on).
The APS-C lenses are awful. And the FF ones with IS, especially the zooms, have outrageous barrel distortion that crops the sensor a ton… on $2K lenses.
This is the brand new 20-50mm F/4 for instance, and its not even the worst offender. It’s $1400:
The Thypoch 24-50 2.8, for comparison, on Sony E. This is $650, often less on sale:
I’m speaking as someone who mistakenly bought into Canon APS-C. I loathe it, as a hobbyist with a Canon SLR for years.
I’m selling out, as soon as I see with what Fuji/Panasonic/Sony cook up within the year.
How great that there is still EF. I just got myself an r10 since Sony dosent currently have a current aps-c (want that because I throw up from the laggy ones like the 6400 had when I tried it) for around the 600-800€ range.
Also with tamron and others canon also confirmed that they are already licensing third parties.
But if you look at half recent ones like the Canon 70-300 is II USM or even a canon 18-55 is II (or Tamron 17-70 f/2.8, which I currently run, they’re perfectly OK for what I’m using them for at least.
I don’t like EF-S on my R50V, same sensor as your R10.
I mean, I have what are supposed to be some great ones. The Tamron 10-20 VC, the sigma 30mm 1.4, the Canon 50-250, the 18-55. They’re great on old bodies, they haven’t changed, but on modern ILCs the optics, VC, autofocus and weight does not hold it up at all…
And they’re all too loud for video.
A Viltrox Air will run circles around them, for less money. Basically any mirrorless lens will. Honestly I’d rather have an old Sony body + a modern Viltrox or Sirui lens now.
(want that because I throw up from the laggy ones like the 6400 had when I tried it)
With Sony bodies, I believe you can change the display refresh rate in the settings, so it doesn’t feel so sluggish. The R50/R10 can as well, but I believe the default is just higher.
I’m not trying to simp for Sony or anything though, the prices on their bodies are outrageous. But at least they have an open lens ecosystem.
Looks like a Canon?
Canon RF lenses are outrageously priced, even amongst other outrageous ILC brands, because they lock out third parties. So yeah, this lady got ripped off.
Ehh, They’re more expensive, but most of them come with IS.
I’d still rather shoot Nikon.
It’s not the IS that makes them expensive, it’s the locked out ecosystem and the monopoly they have. I’m not saying they’re not good - they are (from what I’ve seen), but healthy competition, if it existed, would’ve driven the prices down a bit.
As for IS itself, since the move to IBIS, it makes sense that some lenses drop the IS and only rely on the body’s. IMO it used to matter in the DSLR days when IBIS was not really a thing. Nowadays it’s sensible to only put it into the longer lenses that physically need it (the longer the lens, the more physical movement required to compensate and so on).
The APS-C lenses are awful. And the FF ones with IS, especially the zooms, have outrageous barrel distortion that crops the sensor a ton… on $2K lenses.
This is the brand new 20-50mm F/4 for instance, and its not even the worst offender. It’s $1400:
The Thypoch 24-50 2.8, for comparison, on Sony E. This is $650, often less on sale:
I’m speaking as someone who mistakenly bought into Canon APS-C. I loathe it, as a hobbyist with a Canon SLR for years.
I’m selling out, as soon as I see with what Fuji/Panasonic/Sony cook up within the year.
Yes, rf did take a nosedive
How great that there is still EF. I just got myself an r10 since Sony dosent currently have a current aps-c (want that because I throw up from the laggy ones like the 6400 had when I tried it) for around the 600-800€ range.
Also with tamron and others canon also confirmed that they are already licensing third parties.
But if you look at half recent ones like the Canon 70-300 is II USM or even a canon 18-55 is II (or Tamron 17-70 f/2.8, which I currently run, they’re perfectly OK for what I’m using them for at least.
I don’t like EF-S on my R50V, same sensor as your R10.
I mean, I have what are supposed to be some great ones. The Tamron 10-20 VC, the sigma 30mm 1.4, the Canon 50-250, the 18-55. They’re great on old bodies, they haven’t changed, but on modern ILCs the optics, VC, autofocus and weight does not hold it up at all…
And they’re all too loud for video.
A Viltrox Air will run circles around them, for less money. Basically any mirrorless lens will. Honestly I’d rather have an old Sony body + a modern Viltrox or Sirui lens now.
With Sony bodies, I believe you can change the display refresh rate in the settings, so it doesn’t feel so sluggish. The R50/R10 can as well, but I believe the default is just higher.
I’m not trying to simp for Sony or anything though, the prices on their bodies are outrageous. But at least they have an open lens ecosystem.