As usual, you make a lot of sense. I have never had a full frame digitgal camera. I like my 7DMKII, enough to have two of them as a matter of fact. And have enjoyed the EF-S 17-55 2.8 I bought several years ago. I have a R7 which I'm really enjoying, mostly with EF glass or the RF 100-400, which is super light weight. But your R8/24-105/4L sounds tempting. I may need to quit reading your messages for a while...or put more money into my GAS fund.,I see comments like this frequently, and I wonder if people who make them have a requirement for APS-C sensors (e.g. they also shoot birds with a 400mm lens). Consider the following two points:
Taken together, what that means is that an EF/RF 24-105mm f/4 lens on a FF camera is wider, longer and faster than the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 lens on an APS-C camera.
- The FF equivalent of the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 is a hypothetical 27-88mm f/4.5 lens, in terms of field of view and depth of field for the same subject framing.
- While exposure is determined by light per unit area (i.e., f/2.8 is the same regardless of sensor size), image noise is proportional to total light gathered, so the larger full frame sensor will have noise levels equivalent to 1.3-stops lower ISO on APS-C (e.g., ISO 1600 on FF looks like ISO 640 on APS-C).
The RF 24-105/4L on an R8 is a smaller and much lighter (400 g / 14 oz) package than the EF-S 17-55/2.8 on the 7DII, and the MILC price is actually slightly lower than the DSLR price if considering launch pricing (largely because the 17-55/2.8 launched at $1160), but even comparing what someone would have paid for the DSLR kit when the 7DII came out (~$2400), the MILC setup today is not much more ($2750) and you get a better kit. The R8 has a faster frame rate and better AF performance, and the IQ of the RF 24-105/4L is better than that of the EF-S 17-55/2.8.
The bottom line is that Canon has given you something even better than what you're asking for, for not much more money. Why haven't you bought it why?
Upvote
0