The new RF 50mm f1.2 is evidence of what an R lens mount system can do.
Yet Sigma got 99% of the way there with the wider 40mm 1.4 Art on the ancient and useless EF mount, and with a lot less vignetting to boot.
Oh, and at half the price.
Upvote
0
The new RF 50mm f1.2 is evidence of what an R lens mount system can do.
Yet Sigma got 99% of the way there with the wider 40mm 1.4 Art on the ancient and useless EF mount, and with a lot less vignetting to boot.
Oh, and at half the price.
Stopping the RF 50 f1.2 lens down to f1.4 so I can compare apples to apples, the image quality of the Zeiss 55 f1.4 lens is very slightly better, but the Zeiss is $1,000 more at B&H, does not have autofocus, and does not open up to f1.2. I would like to see what a Zeiss f1.2 would cost if they made one. The Sigma 40mm f1.4 Art is phenomenal, but it might be a bit unfair to compare a lens designed at f1.4 with a lens designed to open up to f1.2. That being said, Sigma is amazing, and really forces the other manufacturers to up their game.Compare it to the Zeiss Otus 55mm for the EF mount.
Stopping the RF 50 f1.2 lens down to f1.4 so I can compare apples to apples, the image quality of the Zeiss 55 f1.4 lens is very slightly better, but the Zeiss is $1,000 more at B&H, does not have autofocus, and does not open up to f1.2. I would like to see what a Zeiss f1.2 would cost if they made one.
In other words, a lens for the EF mount offers equivalent image quality to a similar lens for the RF amount. As I keep saying, I’m still waiting to see (not hear marketing talk about) actual benefits from the short flange distance.Stopping the RF 50 f1.2 lens down to f1.4 so I can compare apples to apples, the image quality of the Zeiss 55 f1.4 lens is very slightly better, but the Zeiss is $1,000 more at B&H, does not have autofocus, and does not open up to f1.2. I would like to see what a Zeiss f1.2 would cost if they made one. The Sigma 40mm f1.4 Art is phenomenal, but it might be a bit unfair to compare a lens designed at f1.4 with a lens designed to open up to f1.2. That being said, Sigma is amazing, and really forces the other manufacturers to up their game.
Not when a lens vignettes like the 50mm RF.The Sigma 40mm f1.4 Art is phenomenal, but it might be a bit unfair to compare a lens designed at f1.4 with a lens designed to open up to f1.2.
Doesn't look underexposed to me. It looks like the photographer has exposed to keep the colour in the sunset and avoid blowing highlights and then pushed the shadows after. I think I'd make the same choice.Also the final sample image (antelope or bighorn sheep grazing in a field) is underexposed and IMO a bad photo - certainly they could have used a better nature photo?
I thought the EF and RF mounts are both 54mm diameter? Have I missed something? Is "throat diameter" something different from what I'm talking about?In other words, a lens for the EF mount offers equivalent image quality to a similar lens for the RF amount. As I keep saying, I’m still waiting to see (not hear marketing talk about) actual benefits from the short flange distance.
Incidentally, despite the Canon RF 50 mm being f/1.2 and the Zeiss Otis and Milvus 50 mm (-ish) lenses being f/1.4, all three of them deliver the same amount of light, 1.5 T-stops.
I also find it amusing that Canon keeps talking about the ‘larger mount’. The throat diameter of the RF mount is 1 mm larger than that of the EF mount…a whole millimeter, wow, that’s almost a 2% difference!
My take is that the RF 50 f/1.2 is evidence of what a large, heavy and expensive 50mm lens can do these days. Whether it is evidence of what the RF lens mount can do, I'm not so sure. It doesn't seem to be blowing away lenses such as the EF mount Zeiss Otus 55 and the Sigma 50 Art, and as others have said above, optically the Sigma 40 Art seems even better than the RF 50 at a substantially lower price.The new RF 50mm f1.2 is evidence of what an R lens mount system can do. Check out its image quality here https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=1225
It’s very unlikely any ILC coming down the pipe will have “bad dynamic range.” None has from any major vendor in years.i hope it doesnt mean next R camera got that bad dynamic range
I don't see Canon talking about a 'larger mount'. I see Canon talking about a 'large mount' allowing to put a large glass element closer to the sensor.I also find it amusing that Canon keeps talking about the ‘larger mount’. The throat diameter of the RF mount is 1 mm larger than that of the EF mount…a whole millimeter, wow, that’s almost a 2% difference!
Nope, I’ve missed something. Thanks fir the correction! You’re right, same diameter for EF and RF. (I was recalling that the Nikon Z mount is 1 mm larger in diameter.)I thought the EF and RF mounts are both 54mm diameter? Have I missed something? Is "throat diameter" something different from what I'm talking about?
Not Canon. Forum members.I don't see Canon talking about a 'larger mount'. I see Canon talking about a 'large mount' allowing to put a large glass element closer to the sensor.
The challenge for the M lenses is that they were designed for film. On digital sensors other than Leica M series cameras the IQ at the edges suffers. If Canon were to make tiny little manual focus lenses with no IS they would still have the hurdle of edge smearing.The evidence: the exceptional quality achieved by Leica with wide -angle lenses, the Leica R lenses were always far behind (corner sharpness, contrast, etc...)
I've never had a DSLR lens that was as good as the 18, 21, 24, 28 & 35 mm Asph. M lenses, not even a Zeiss or a Canon. (Yes, I know, this isn't scientific).
Is the short flange distance the main reason ? I tend to believe it has at least a part to play, according to the Leica opticians, it definitely has!
Nope, I’ve missed something. Thanks fir the correction! You’re right, same diameter for EF and RF. (I was recalling that the Nikon Z mount is 1 mm larger in diameter.)
Makes the discussion of the ‘larger mount’ more ridiculous, as it pertains to ‘advantages’ over the EF mount, as some here claim (without evidence). Obviously the RF mount is larger than Sony’s E-mount.
The contact area seems to protrude about the same distance into the mount on my R and 1D X. The no-mirror box on the R definitely looks spacious, though.ISTR that Canon said things like the electronic contacts were smaller so that the RF has more useable space while keeping the same diameter. I can't check that myself since I don't have a FF EF mount camera.
Canon talks about the mount permitting larger diameter lens elements closer to the lens, which would be the result of the shorter flange distance, since the RF mount opening is the same size as the EF. One effect is that the front lens can be smaller than that of comparable EF lenses. The difference between the front lens size of the RF 35 f1.8 and the EF 35 f2.0 is striking.Not Canon. Forum members.
Even this main forum post (and thread) by CRguy started with, “Canon once again talks about the benefits of the bigger diameter RF mount...”
Yes, with the RF version of the 35mm, Canon has managed to dramatically reduce the size of the front element compared to the EF 35/2 IS. In fact, they’ve managed to make the front element about as small as the one on the old EF 35/2 non-IS...Canon talks about the mount permitting larger diameter lens elements closer to the lens, which would be the result of the shorter flange distance, since the RF mount opening is the same size as the EF. One effect is that the front lens can be smaller than that of comparable EF lenses. The difference between the front lens size of the RF 35 f1.8 and the EF 35 f2.0 is striking.
I would like to see Canon do like they did with many EFS lenses. There are some very sharp ones but inexpensive (10-18mm) and this could be translated into the RF mount. Most of us do not need the built like a tank lens just a good quality optically. Take out the IS once the IBIS is available in all the lenses that do not fully benefit from IS and IBIS is just fine. I would then like to see the lenses come down substantially in size and weight. Look at the old FD lenses for size inspiration, the FD 80-200mm is petite compared to the EF equivalent today. I have no problem with f4 lenses as we have insanely high ISOs available now. How did we ever survive with Kodachrome 64 and the slow lenses of the same period? Great shots were made then through real skill and talent.
Bottom line I would like smaller very sharp not super large aperture lenses to match the RF mount.