So you come here...like a newbie....throwing your weight around and yet you contribute nothing in the way of your photographs or portfolio. I am not answerable to you and my opinions are forged from my real world professional experience. I've been here a long time and my voice carries weight because I have been known here. The only joke here is you. You are the one pointing the finger, taking offence where none was intended and the only bloating seems to come from your own over worded and rather personally directed posts. If you feel that this forum isn't worthy of you...it' probably isn't and I for one won't miss your attitude or your unspectacular 44 post. Got any good recent photos that might sway my opinion of you?What are you talking about? I didn't say you weren't allowed to have an opinion. Don't be disingenuous. I said that if you're going to make groundless, sweeping generalizations with no support you should be called out on them and asked to provide backup, support, and evidence. Otherwise what's the purpose of your post? Anyone can throw out an opinion, but if this forum is going to be anything other than a bunch of farts lost in a breeze, people need to provide support and evidence. The threads here are a joke-- baseless assertions, wild opinions presented as fact, just a bunch of bloviating. I'm asking you to support your statements with evidence, logic, and reason, which you have been entirely unable and unwilling to do.
This is not a dSLR. It's a mirrorless. And since you don't appear to be an engineer, why exactly should we take your claims about this "only affecting wide angle lenses" seriously?
Here's a question I doubt you'll be able to answer: If your claim is accurate that the new mount doesn't have any real advantages at 50mm, why is the RF 50mm so sharp in the corners, whereas other ultrafast 50s struggle there? Don't you think if Canon could update the optical formula of the EF 50 1.2 to improve corner performance they would have? The point is, the RF mount appears to allow engineers to make fewer compromises. The Sigma 50 1.4 Art is noticeably less sharp than the RF 50. Considering the only 50-ish lens that competes performance-wise with the RF 50 1.2 is the Zeiss 55mm 1.4 Otus (see side-by-side here), I don't think your claim really stands up.
On what do you base this claim?