Canon announcements coming at the end of August [CR2]

flip314

EOS 80D
Sep 26, 2018
176
203
Does Sony have a 15-35mm f/2.8?
I mean... devil's advocate here, but Sony does have a 16-35mm f/2.8 which is probably equivalent enough for a lot of people. IMO the EF 16-35 would work at least as well as the Sony lens (even adapted), but you're passing up IBIS and if you don't already own one I could see not wanting to buy for the older mount at this point in time.
 

PGSanta

EOS 80D
Sep 5, 2018
123
80
San Diego, CA
Does Sony have a 15-35mm f/2.8?
I made the choice to stick with Canon, and will take the risk of the 15-35 being available by trip time. I am not going to be investing in any EF lenses, but I might break down and rent one or two if I have to.

That said, I'd be more than happy with the FE 16-35 2.8 GM. When I had my A7III it was one of my favorite lenses; quiet frankly I'd be thrilled if the new Canon just matched its optical quality, let alone beat it. I doubt very much the 15-35 will be significantly better than Sony's GM in any way, save for consistency in manufacturing.
 

Antono Refa

EOS 7D MK II
Mar 26, 2014
799
102
That said, I'd be more than happy with the FE 16-35 2.8 GM. When I had my A7III it was one of my favorite lenses; quiet frankly I'd be thrilled if the new Canon just matched its optical quality, let alone beat it. I doubt very much the 15-35 will be significantly better than Sony's GM in any way, save for consistency in manufacturing.
I wasn't aware there was such a big difference between the Sony FE 16-35mm 2.8 GM and the Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L mkIII. I'll go and read some reviews.
 

tarjei99

I'm New Here
Dec 27, 2013
11
14
If a camera is coming at the end of August, Canon would be leaking like mad by now.

So unless Canon thinks that it is time for shock and awe, no camera in August.
 

tron

EOS 5D SR
Nov 8, 2011
3,979
290
I wasn't aware there was such a big difference between the Sony FE 16-35mm 2.8 GM and the Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L mkIII. I'll go and read some reviews.

Actually it seems that the opposite is true. Canon looks better than its Sony counterpart. And anyway certainly not worse.
 
Last edited:

PGSanta

EOS 80D
Sep 5, 2018
123
80
San Diego, CA

Actually it seems that the opposite is true. Canon looks better than its Sony counterpart. And anyway certainly not worse.
It certainly is. You can cherry pick images on different bodies on a web site like that, or you can adapt the canon to a Sony body and see how they both really perform, and the GM is simply sharper, especially at center.

33C434D5-D6DF-4EA9-AF02-7EB378608867.jpeg
EABEA9F5-BD48-4D86-89BA-0F220F7DCA74.jpeg
78FF0134-04C8-4157-B6C9-6F8CA01CD830.jpeg
01124B4E-12DC-44FC-B84A-8FB77554C96B.jpeg
 
Last edited:

tron

EOS 5D SR
Nov 8, 2011
3,979
290
It certainly is. You can cherry pick images on different bodies on a web site like that, or you can adapt the canon to a Sony body and see how they both really perform, and the GM is simply sharper, especially at center.

View attachment 185766View attachment 185767View attachment 185768View attachment 185769
TDP proves that Sony sucks at corners at 16mm for starters.

But lets check LensRentals:


Comparisons
Sony FE 16-35mm f/2.8 GM vs Canon 16-35mm f/2.8 L Mk III

The Canon 16-35mm f/2.8L Mk III is arguably the best 16-35mm f/2.8 lens, and therefore we consider it the standard at this focal length.

You can read the whole article and focal length comparisons yourself.
 
Last edited:

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
Jul 21, 2010
24,376
1,723
TDP proves that Sony sucks at corners at 16mm for startets.

But lets check LensRentals:


Comparisons
Sony FE 16-35mm f/2.8 GM vs Canon 16-35mm f/2.8 L Mk III

The Canon 16-35mm f/2.8L Mk III is arguably the best 16-35mm f/2.8 lens, and therefore we consider it the standard at this focal length.

You can read the whole article and focal length comparisons yourself.
Oh please. Don’t bother the guy with data, he has an opinion!
 

PGSanta

EOS 80D
Sep 5, 2018
123
80
San Diego, CA
TDP proves that Sony sucks at corners at 16mm for startets.

But lets check LensRentals:


Comparisons
Sony FE 16-35mm f/2.8 GM vs Canon 16-35mm f/2.8 L Mk III

The Canon 16-35mm f/2.8L Mk III is arguably the best 16-35mm f/2.8 lens, and therefore we consider it the standard at this focal length.

You can read the whole article and focal length comparisons yourself.
Again, you cherry pick. The Canon is better at the corners at literally one focal length, which is the weak area of the Sony.

I’ll say it again, you can cherry pick specific spots on different bodies, or you can look at both lenses on the same body. The Sony is the better overall.
 

tron

EOS 5D SR
Nov 8, 2011
3,979
290
Again, you cherry pick. The Canon is better at the corners at literally one focal length, which is the weak area of the Sony.

I’ll say it again, you can cherry pick specific spots on different bodies, or you can look at both lenses on the same body. The Sony is the better overall.
As neuro said whatever you like. Unless you want to check with lensrentals.
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
Jul 21, 2010
24,376
1,723
I’ll say it again, you can cherry pick specific spots on different bodies, or you can look at both lenses on the same body. The Sony is the better overall.
Apparently you either didn’t read the article, or you failed to understand it. Regarding Canon vs. Sony 16-35/2.8 Roger concludes they’re basically similar, which directly contradicts your claim that the Sony is better overall. Hopefully everyone (but realistically, probably everyone but you) will trust Roger’s conclusions over yours.

But speaking of cherry picking, while you probably don’t have a bunch of copies to choose from, Roger does...and he tested them all. One notable observation he made: “The FE 16-35 f/2.8 GM repeats a pattern we’ve seen fairly often, but it’s a bit more extreme than usual. At 16mm and 24mm it’s pretty consistent. At 35mm it’s a random crap shoot. How random? At 35mm, copy-to-copy variation is, well, going to cause some issues.” Hopefully you got lucky in the crapshoot.

I’ll say it again, you just stick with your opinion in spite of data to the contrary. Just like those Flat Earth Society fools.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Viggo and tron

Aussie shooter

@brett.guy.photography
Dec 6, 2016
371
364
I think it is a completely and utterly ridiculous argument/debate to even waste your time having. There is not a decent quality lens on the market that will not produce fantastic results even on large prints and nobody would ever notice the difference(barring the purchase of a seriously faulty copy). Unless of course you enjoy viewing fine art prints of test charts. In which case I would suggest you visit a psychiatrist.
 

PGSanta

EOS 80D
Sep 5, 2018
123
80
San Diego, CA
Apparently you either didn’t read the article, or you failed to understand it. Regarding Canon vs. Sony 16-35/2.8 Roger concludes they’re basically similar, which directly contradicts your claim that the Sony is better overall. Hopefully everyone (but realistically, probably everyone but you) will trust Roger’s conclusions over yours.

But speaking of cherry picking, while you probably don’t have a bunch of copies to choose from, Roger does...and he tested them all. One notable observation he made: “The FE 16-35 f/2.8 GM repeats a pattern we’ve seen fairly often, but it’s a bit more extreme than usual. At 16mm and 24mm it’s pretty consistent. At 35mm it’s a random crap shoot. How random? At 35mm, copy-to-copy variation is, well, going to cause some issues.” Hopefully you got lucky in the crapshoot.

I’ll say it again, you just stick with your opinion in spite of data to the contrary. Just like those Flat Earth Society fools.
Data like this? https://www.dxomark.com/canon-ef-16-35mm-f-2-8l-iii-lens-review/

It’s easy to play the review site game.

You’re still wrong. On the same body, the Sony is a sharper lens.
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
Jul 21, 2010
24,376
1,723
Data like this? https://www.dxomark.com/canon-ef-16-35mm-f-2-8l-iii-lens-review/

It’s easy to play the review site game.

You’re still wrong. On the same body, the Sony is a sharper lens.
Yes, another site that tests just one copy. That’s one thing that differentiates LensRentals – they average many copies, typically ~10. Another is that their tests are done on an optical bench, no camera required (dynamic range is a factor DxOMark’s Lens Score, and that’s obviously extrinsic to the lens).

Personally, I have no skin in the game – I sold my 16-35/2.8L II long ago, have a 16-35/4L IS, and have no interest in the Sony 16-35/2.8. However, I do have an interest in correcting the misinformation spouted by some people who’s opinions are clearly contradicted by reliable data.

Meanwhile, you go right on living in your fantasy world where your opinion is always right. Your earth can be flat there, because reality doesn’t apply.
 

YuengLinger

EOR R
Dec 20, 2012
2,358
382
Southeastern USA
I think it is a completely and utterly ridiculous argument/debate to even waste your time having. There is not a decent quality lens on the market that will not produce fantastic results even on large prints and nobody would ever notice the difference(barring the purchase of a seriously faulty copy). Unless of course you enjoy viewing fine art prints of test charts. In which case I would suggest you visit a psychiatrist.
What do you expect people spending lots of time on a GEAR website to be discussing? Art history? If anybody needs a little counselling, I'd suggest it is somebody who reads through pages and pages of threads debating the finest and silliest points about GEAR--all while despising the topic.

These debates are just as valuable as whether SOLO is true to the Star Wars canon ( ;) ) or should be excluded. Or whether Chris Pine was properly cast as Captain Kirk. Or whether Honda has a red paint job worth buying (or keeping as-is, once purchased). In fact, these debates are essential to the mental health of geeks throughout the galaxy!
 
Last edited:
  • Haha
Reactions: Aussie shooter

Aussie shooter

@brett.guy.photography
Dec 6, 2016
371
364
What do you expect people spending lots of time on a GEAR website to be discussing? Art history? If anybody needs a little counselling, I'd suggest it is somebody who reads through pages and pages of threads debating the finest and silliest points about GEAR--all while despising the topic.

These debates are just as valuable as whether SOLO is true to the Star Wars canon ( ;) ) or should be excluded. Or whether Chris Pine was properly cast as Captain Kirk. Or whether Honda has a red paint job worth buying (or keeping as-is, once purchased). In fact, these debates are essential to the mental health of geeks throughout the galaxy!
Not sure you can exclude SOLO entirely. Maybe exclude the 3 prequels though and execute the person who decided JaJa was a good idea
 
Last edited:

Quirkz

EOS 80D
Oct 30, 2014
131
49
It's a relatively affluent area in CA. There are quiet a few of them with nicer cars at 19-20 than I have at 39. Demographics aside, it's been my experience that Sony is winning the younger crowed by a LARGE margin; who knows how that translates to the wider market.
I wonder what it’s like in less affluent areas. Then there might be a lot more lowly aps-c cameras which are a lot cheaper.