What has the Samyang got to do with mirrorless vs DSLR?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
"Strong vignetting wide open" - actually, in the samples it shows vignetting to at least f/5.6. Are you sure you want to buy it?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
If it will become available in Canon EF-X mount I might buy it,yes. A bit of vignetting does not disturb me. It is the easiest of all potential lens problems to correct in post."Strong vignetting wide open" - actually, in the samples it shows vignetting to at least f/5.6. Are you sure you want to buy it?
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.I did read it and I don't understand. All that lens means is that someone can make lenses smaller than Canon does. That is nothing to do with being mirrorless.
Agreed. Unless it’s dropping so much it looks like an APS-C image circle on a 135-format, it’s pretty trivial to correct, especially with modern sensors and software.If it will become available in Canon EF-X mount I might buy it,yes. A bit of vignetting does not disturb me. It is the easiest of all potential lens problems to correct in post.
Kind of the opposite. Too busy taking photos to care.Some of you are asking why I keep writing about the biggest industry shake up since digital sensors. And this one could involve thousands of dollars lenses becoming obsolete within a few years.
I suppose ostriches with their heads in the sand aren't taking too many photos anyway.
So, how does it seem now, after another page of posts on this topic?I do not understand why Canon would make a different mount for 2 or 3 small lenses that combined with a smaller body would make a portable combination. All other lenses with new mount would be bigger (=longer) than their EF counterparts. The mentioning of this over and over (and over and did I mention over and over?) seems stupid to me....
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.I'm not sure which of Roger's articles you're referring to, but if it was the one linked above you need to read it again, hopefully you'll comprehend it this time.
No where does he mention focal reducers or speedboosters. In the opening he mentions, "One thing that has always bothered me, though, is the idea of doubling the number of lens-mount interfaces." He's not talking about adapters with optics, he's talking about tube adapters like the Nikon to NEX (he has Novoflex), Canon EF to NEX (he has Sony), etc. No glass in those, just air. He's talking about the effects of misalignment of the mount interfaces.
Agreed that the problems are evident with wide lenses, not telephoto. But that just further supports my point that the argument that adapters are not a problem because no one complains about teleconverters is a fallacious one.
https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/09/there-is-no-free-lunch-episode-763-lens-adapters/What Does It Mean in the Real World?
Like a lot of laboratory testing, probably not a lot. Adapters couldn’t all stink or people wouldn’t use them. Like a lot of tests, you can detect a very real difference in the lab that doesn’t make much difference at all in the real world.
These are not good analogies for those who believe that FF mirrorless will result, over time, in a paradigm shift.What happened to EF lenses when EF-S was phased in?
What happened to EF lenses when EF-M was phased in?
Standing on an ocean cliff and seeing the sails of a ship appear before the ship's deck is visible is not a good analogy for those who believe the Earth is flat.These are not good analogies for those who believe that FF mirrorless will result, over time, in a paradigm shift.
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.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.
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.