Upvote
0
Tamron 20-40 for Sony FF, Hmmmmmmm
- By jd7
- Third Party Lenses
- 1 Replies
Certainly an interesting option! Would I pick that over the Tamron 17-28 f/1.8 or the Sigma 16-28 f/2.8? I might. Will be interseting to see reviews of the 20-40 f/2.8 in due course.
I could get excited about this glass in an RF mount. But then again, I was a positive vocal minority about the Sigma 24-36 too. We've all got our focal length favs, some of us conventional other not. It's all good.
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
Canon Europe - Canon Redline Challenge
- By danfaz
- Canon General
- 1 Replies
Yeah, I was bummed to see it's not open to North America.Redline Challenge: Photography Competition - Canon Europe
Join the Canon Redline Challenge, a photography competition for enthusiasts. Win the chance to get a pro-ready kit and a pro shoot with a Canon Ambassador.www.canon-europe.com
Looks like an interesting contest with a chance to win an R5 and 24-70. Not open to North America
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
Is the image circle of RF L lenses larger than any EF lens?
- EOS Bodies
- 4 Replies
I suspect that EF format full-frame lenses would be insufficient for use on MF, and RF full-frame format would be a complete disaster.
Lenses are designed to provide adequate coverage across the sensor on their respective camera mount formats, producing a sharp image with minimal vignetting. Making the image circle much larger would cost more money for no gains, so camera companies avoid that, there's very little extra tolerance built in unless it's a tilt-shift lens which needs a larger image circle of decent quality to work properly.
The image quality and brightness of FF lenses drops off drastically beyond the 24×36mm sensor area, and to make matters worse the vignetting of RF lenses is way higher than on EF equivalents, it's a design limitation of the RF mount. Due to Canon being able to cut corners in optical design to a greater extent on the mirrorless format to save manufacturing costs and increase profits, quite a few entry level RF lenses can't even cover the whole FF sensor. The vignetting on many RF lenses is considerable, as I understand that's a result of the shorter flange distance - remember you can't get something for nothing in engineering, there's always a cost...
Whether the Canon lenses can resolve sufficient detail for high MP (such as 100MP) medium format sensors is another matter.
Almost half of Canon's older EF lenses were outresolved by the 5DSr and R5 camera body, and Canon released a list of lenses that were up to scratch.
The focal lengths of RF full frame lenses would be all wrong on MF too. The crop factor for a Fujifilm GFX system is 0.79. The focal lengths all change due to crop factor, so all the MF equivalents to their 35mm counterparts will be longer, a MF 110mm lens (87mm FF equivalent) is closer to an FF 85mm portrait lens.
The wide apertures needed on FF would be unnecessary and add extra cost for no purpose on lenses used on MF.
Also, Canon L series lenses are only a big deal in the stills photography works, and in amateur video, but relatively speaking they're a joke in the world of cine lenses where they have a different set of criteria to gauge what a decent lens is. Canon L glass is a master in its own domain, but not absolutely awesome (as marketing hype would have you think) that it can work effectively outside of that. Tools are designed and optimised for specific functions. In the same way that they don't compare to the cine lens range, they're most likely sub-standard for MF also.
Incidentally, the size of the MF sensor is a fair bit wider and taller than a FF, so a FF lens would need to project a decent quality of image 20% beyond its boundaries. Looking at lens MTF charts, the image quality of many lenses barely holds up on the FF sensor periphery.
Lenses are designed to provide adequate coverage across the sensor on their respective camera mount formats, producing a sharp image with minimal vignetting. Making the image circle much larger would cost more money for no gains, so camera companies avoid that, there's very little extra tolerance built in unless it's a tilt-shift lens which needs a larger image circle of decent quality to work properly.
The image quality and brightness of FF lenses drops off drastically beyond the 24×36mm sensor area, and to make matters worse the vignetting of RF lenses is way higher than on EF equivalents, it's a design limitation of the RF mount. Due to Canon being able to cut corners in optical design to a greater extent on the mirrorless format to save manufacturing costs and increase profits, quite a few entry level RF lenses can't even cover the whole FF sensor. The vignetting on many RF lenses is considerable, as I understand that's a result of the shorter flange distance - remember you can't get something for nothing in engineering, there's always a cost...
Whether the Canon lenses can resolve sufficient detail for high MP (such as 100MP) medium format sensors is another matter.
Almost half of Canon's older EF lenses were outresolved by the 5DSr and R5 camera body, and Canon released a list of lenses that were up to scratch.
The focal lengths of RF full frame lenses would be all wrong on MF too. The crop factor for a Fujifilm GFX system is 0.79. The focal lengths all change due to crop factor, so all the MF equivalents to their 35mm counterparts will be longer, a MF 110mm lens (87mm FF equivalent) is closer to an FF 85mm portrait lens.
The wide apertures needed on FF would be unnecessary and add extra cost for no purpose on lenses used on MF.
Also, Canon L series lenses are only a big deal in the stills photography works, and in amateur video, but relatively speaking they're a joke in the world of cine lenses where they have a different set of criteria to gauge what a decent lens is. Canon L glass is a master in its own domain, but not absolutely awesome (as marketing hype would have you think) that it can work effectively outside of that. Tools are designed and optimised for specific functions. In the same way that they don't compare to the cine lens range, they're most likely sub-standard for MF also.
Incidentally, the size of the MF sensor is a fair bit wider and taller than a FF, so a FF lens would need to project a decent quality of image 20% beyond its boundaries. Looking at lens MTF charts, the image quality of many lenses barely holds up on the FF sensor periphery.
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
Review: Canon RF 100mm f/2.8L IS USM Macro
I made some test shots at mfd and 1:1 mag which I posted here:
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
Canon EOS R3 and Canon EOS R5 to receive new firmware next week
- By koenkooi
- EOS Bodies
- 165 Replies
Upvote
0
Post R3 deliveries in Europe here
Interesting, but I'd pass on that even if I didn't have an R3: I'd only save 2.4% vs buying a new camera (47.138 vs 48.295 DKK) with full warranty from a genuine Canon dealer here in Denmark.If you're in europe
CANON R3 BODY ONLY - MINT IN BOX | eBay
Find many great new & used options and get the best deals for CANON R3 BODY ONLY - MINT IN BOX at the best online prices at eBay! Free shipping for many products!www.ebay.com
Upvote
0
Filter
Forum statistics
Gallery statistics
- Categories
- 1
- Albums
- 29
- Uploaded media
- 372
- Embedded media
- 1
- Comments
- 25
- Disk usage
- 1 GB