If the EF Mount Is Phased Out, What to Do With Quiver?
- Thread starter YuengLinger
- Start date
look at the Samyang 24/2.8 also included in the comparison i posted. Now show me a Canon (or Nikon) 24mm/2.8 for FF that is smaller or shorter.
ØxL 61.8 x 37mm, 120 grams, Filter thread: 49mm
And again, despite sub-optimal Sony mount choice, a lens like this is possible and real and available at a very affordable price [ starting around € 290 in Germany].
PS: in case you want to dispute optical quality of the Samyang next ... it seems to be at least as good as the Canon EF 24/2.8
https://www.ephotozine.com/article/samyang-af-24mm-f-2-8-fe-review-32367#Verdict
ØxL 61.8 x 37mm, 120 grams, Filter thread: 49mm
And again, despite sub-optimal Sony mount choice, a lens like this is possible and real and available at a very affordable price [ starting around € 290 in Germany].
PS: in case you want to dispute optical quality of the Samyang next ... it seems to be at least as good as the Canon EF 24/2.8
https://www.ephotozine.com/article/samyang-af-24mm-f-2-8-fe-review-32367#Verdict
PS: in case you want to dispute optical quality of the Samyang next ... it seems to be at least as good as the Canon EF 24/2.8
https://www.ephotozine.com/article/samyang-af-24mm-f-2-8-fe-review-32367#Verdict
https://www.ephotozine.com/article/samyang-af-24mm-f-2-8-fe-review-32367#Verdict
Of course it does. I am not aware of any 24mm/2.8 prime FF lens with AF for any DSLR system - Canon, Nikon, Pentax, SOny A-mount - that is as compact than the new Samyang AF 24/2.8 for mirrorless.
If you would care to read all posts, not only mine (in order to feverishly try to somehow challenge/criticize/refute/obfuscate), you would understand what this is all about.
I continue to be convinced that it is possible to build more compact lenses for mirrofrfree FF throughout the most frequent focal length range. Especially, but not only moderately fast glass. The new Samyang AF primes 24, 35 are the first proof of this. Even more so, since they are for Sony E-mount which is not especially conducive to short, compact FF lens designs.
If you would care to read all posts, not only mine (in order to feverishly try to somehow challenge/criticize/refute/obfuscate), you would understand what this is all about.
I continue to be convinced that it is possible to build more compact lenses for mirrofrfree FF throughout the most frequent focal length range. Especially, but not only moderately fast glass. The new Samyang AF primes 24, 35 are the first proof of this. Even more so, since they are for Sony E-mount which is not especially conducive to short, compact FF lens designs.
Last edited:
Sorry, I thought the reference was to this blog entry. It's been a while since I read both of them, seeing as how they were published about the same time in 2013.
Metabones Magic?
As to supporting your point (whatever it was - I didn't see anything in your comment to which I was responding that said anything about the validity of an argument that adapters are not a problem because no one complains about TCs - all I saw is that you seemed to only consider the reference to alignment by brad-man was to the internal alignment of lens elements and not to lens/TC/camera mount alignments): I was acknowledging that there are more concerns at wider fields of view than what is typically yielded when using TCs or extenders. If you'd reread the comment hopefully you'd understand that this time.
Metabones Magic?
As to supporting your point (whatever it was - I didn't see anything in your comment to which I was responding that said anything about the validity of an argument that adapters are not a problem because no one complains about TCs - all I saw is that you seemed to only consider the reference to alignment by brad-man was to the internal alignment of lens elements and not to lens/TC/camera mount alignments): I was acknowledging that there are more concerns at wider fields of view than what is typically yielded when using TCs or extenders. If you'd reread the comment hopefully you'd understand that this time.
The Roger Cicala article was just referenced in the context of our threads on possible new Canon mirrorfree mount to create FUD/obfuscate the non-issue of a possible Canon EF to Canon "EF-X" mount adapter. I do not consider the article really relevant here, since the problems Roger found in optical bench tests were with 3rd party [Metabones et al.] cross-company mount adapters with very different mount geometries - both factors present much more risk for mis-alignment than a original Canon-to-Canon adapter.
Unless I see clear evidence on the existing original Canon EF-/EF-M adapter I do not believe there will be "misalignment problems" with original Canon-to-Canon mount adapters that have real-life relevance. IF there were significant detrimental effects in practice, there would undoubtedly be numerous complaints and possibly subsequent tests regarding Canon EF-/EF-M adapter.
As Roger himself concludes at the end of his article
https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/09/there-is-no-free-lunch-episode-763-lens-adapters/
But maybe Roger and other reviewers will re-visit the topic once the Nikon F-to-Z-Mount adapter is out. I am sure there will be "various problems with many Nikon F lenses", but don't expect simple mechanical, geometrical mis-alignment issues to be amongst them.
Unless I see clear evidence on the existing original Canon EF-/EF-M adapter I do not believe there will be "misalignment problems" with original Canon-to-Canon mount adapters that have real-life relevance. IF there were significant detrimental effects in practice, there would undoubtedly be numerous complaints and possibly subsequent tests regarding Canon EF-/EF-M adapter.
As Roger himself concludes at the end of his article
https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/09/there-is-no-free-lunch-episode-763-lens-adapters/
But maybe Roger and other reviewers will re-visit the topic once the Nikon F-to-Z-Mount adapter is out. I am sure there will be "various problems with many Nikon F lenses", but don't expect simple mechanical, geometrical mis-alignment issues to be amongst them.
Last edited:
All adaptors will add error into a system. Period!
The real question is, will it be significant enough to be noticeable?
These errors will be in two broad categories, the first being flatness and the second being distance. For flatness, as long as you have a clean and tightly fitting mount, there should be no more misalignment than mounting a lens. On a mirrorless camera, focusing is done on the sensor instead of an AF unit, so distance errors will be compensated for by the AF system and not detectable....
So, in the real world, unless you have a garbage or damaged adaptor, no problem!
The real question is, will it be significant enough to be noticeable?
These errors will be in two broad categories, the first being flatness and the second being distance. For flatness, as long as you have a clean and tightly fitting mount, there should be no more misalignment than mounting a lens. On a mirrorless camera, focusing is done on the sensor instead of an AF unit, so distance errors will be compensated for by the AF system and not detectable....
So, in the real world, unless you have a garbage or damaged adaptor, no problem!
Likes:
YuengLinger
My bad. I assumed you would have actually clicked the link in the post you quoted, and also that you'd have read the thread to understand the context of your reply. Silly me.
But in my defense, my assumption preceded your response in the other thread where you claimed that the USA comprises half of the global ILC market. After reading that utterly ridiculous assertion, your total miscomprehension of your own response and the context in this thread is unsurprising.
But in my defense, my assumption preceded your response in the other thread where you claimed that the USA comprises half of the global ILC market. After reading that utterly ridiculous assertion, your total miscomprehension of your own response and the context in this thread is unsurprising.
