If you are talking about RF 70-200mm then in case of that lens which uses two separate motors for AF firmware can help in better synchronization of those two motors so they will focus correctly.Or possibly via firmware?
Upvote
0
If you are talking about RF 70-200mm then in case of that lens which uses two separate motors for AF firmware can help in better synchronization of those two motors so they will focus correctly.Or possibly via firmware?
So here’s the problem with this lens: most of the focus adjustment is spent at macro distances.
In manual mode there is one full rotation of the focus ring from closest to distant. Fully one half of this rotation is used to adjust from about 3” to 5” from the front of the lens. Another quarter of a turn gets you to 12”. That leaves 1/4 of the focus range in the useful world beyond 12”.
If they had a switch to lock out closer than 12” I’d glue it down. This lens spends 75% of its efforts noisily and slowly hunting where I don’t shoot with a wide normal lens. In fact it’s not noisy or slow, it’s just that it spends so much time hunting where I’m not looking.
I will in the future consider “macro” not as an occasional added benefit but as a handicap if it can’t be locked out.
Camera-controlled focus range limit firmware update desperately desired. Or maybe just send it back as I’m within the Adorama VIP 60-day period.
So here’s the problem with this lens: most of the focus adjustment is spent at macro distances.
In manual mode there is one full rotation of the focus ring from closest to distant. Fully one half of this rotation is used to adjust from about 3” to 5” from the front of the lens. Another quarter of a turn gets you to 12”. That leaves 1/4 of the focus range in the useful world beyond 12”.
[..]
Mine arrives Monday, AF be damned. Merry Christmas all!View attachment 187912
Why not the EF 35 2.0 IS?It is a little too expensive for what I have always wanted, an APS-C normal to be the equivalent of the 50mm 1.8 for full frame, in EF mount. Guess that dream is probably dead.
Why not the EF 35 2.0 IS?
Right, but that was in response to NetMage who seemed to be looking for an EF lens unless I am misunderstanding their post:I was looking at that, but bristle at paying $100 more for a lens requiring an adapter. To go from the $99 40mm f2.8. IS isn't a big difference because soon I'll have it on an IBIS body.
Might borrow it though CPS. Or buy from Adorama and send back if I don't love it.
The RF focuses smoother and a lot quieter during video, and has better IS, too.Why not the EF 35 2.0 IS?
Absolutely.The RF focuses smoother and a lot quieter during video, and has better IS, too.
I made this video to show what I hate about this lens I otherwise love. My bold claim at the end (start at 3:45 if impatient) is that the lens takes 10x as long and makes 10x the noise focusing closer than 12" than it does from 12" to infinity. The macro feature makes this an irritating lens to use for normal subjects.
The irritation arises any time I’m doing normal subjects and it has a little trouble focusing. It ends up hunting far from its target. Like it lost its car keys under the lamppost but searches all the way around the block before finding them.
And it’s irritating when you set down a live camera on a table and it hums and strains to focus on something next to it. Same when you pick it up and it makes point and shoot noises.
Ah. I believe the alternative is that the AF wakes up and operates when the shutter releases is touched. I’ll try it. Not related to servo.
You just may have solved 80% or my irritation, which may well
Make me happily keep this lens. I’m happy to buy the 24-70 F2.8 and or the 50 1.2. But this might make both unnecessary given my love for my compact 70 f2.8 (that happens also to zoom to 200).
Since when did a 1:2 become a true macro lens. My understanding is that macro lenses are 1:1 on a full frame sensor or greater. I've seen 5:1 but never 1:2 considered macro. Sounds like a marketing ploy using cheaper materials than the L line