RF 24-240mm: No full frame cover at 24mm

SteveC

M6 mk II
Sep 3, 2019
570
400
That’s because you are relatively new to this game and you have admitted that earlier. Have merely expressed my opinion and di not want to engage in meaningless conversation. That’s all.
For someone not wanting to engage in this conversation, you sure seem determined to have the last--albeit empty of meaningful information--word.

And, as someone who IS indeed new to this game, I can still draw from my experience dealing with people in other fields. I recognize when someone is being a blowhard claiming to know things but refusing to justify them, claiming it's because he just doesn't feel like it (not worth the effort, don't you see), but willing to put effort into trying to assert he just knows and I should just shut up and accept his authority.
 
Last edited:

Mt Spokane Photography

I post too Much on Here!!
Mar 25, 2011
15,710
880
Are there RF TCs?
Good point. I wonder when they will be coming. With the 70-200 arriving, they should arrive soon. They are relatively simple lenses, so they should be coming. This might be a opportunity for a 3rd party lens maker.
 

SecureGSM

2 x 5D IV
Feb 26, 2017
1,752
678
For someone not wanting to engage in this conversation, you sure seem determined to have the last--albeit empty of meaningful information--word.

And, as someone who IS indeed new to this game, I can still draw from my experience dealing with people in other fields. I recognize when someone is being a blowhard claiming to know things but refusing to justify them, claiming it's because he just doesn't feel like it (not worth the effort, don't you see), but willing to put effort into trying to assert he just knows and I should just shut up and accept his authority.
can you please go back to my original post ans see what I actually said. I did not claim anything. here for your convenience:
Not typical of Canon. Something is not adding up here. I do not have a lens to play with but I am sure that this issues will be explained.
i selectively choose what to respond and what to not respond. I respond to your aggressive post referencing some of your experience dealing in with people in other field, which is nothing to do with optics or photography obviously therefore you have evidently no enough experience or knowledge to do a judgement.
sorry you asked for it.
 

Optics Patent

Former Nikon (Changes to R5 upon delivery)
Nov 6, 2019
310
248
i'm curious of one thing though: has anyone tried mounting the lens and then twisting back a bit so that it doesn't get recognized by the camera anymore so that it doesn't apply any corrections? that would be the simples and most objective test i can think of, eliminating any raw converters and such..
Ask and ye shall receive. Corrected in camera:
IMG_3539.JPG


With lens disconnected enough to decouple electronics:
IMG_3540.JPG


This looks like it is cropping about 7-8% of the sensor width. I didn't measure whether the resulting image size correctly reflects what an ideal 24mm lens would show, but I presume so. This image subject (bonus points for identifying the object on the tripod) is dark in the corners, and on a bright-cornered subject I observed zero evidence of vignetting as shown in the racetrack photo.

This 24-240 cost me only $500 as the kit lens with a recent RP purchase, and I consider it a technical miracle that as an imagine system this and a modern body can generate such distortion and aberration free images for this package at this price. I scratch my head at the reviews that show what aberrations you can get if you use a lens like virtually no one ever will.

The 24-240 isn't getting much use, as I use the new 70-200 for most things, or the noisy 35mm f1.8. If I get a mid-range f2.8 zoom I might let the 24-240 go.
 

Optics Patent

Former Nikon (Changes to R5 upon delivery)
Nov 6, 2019
310
248
Good point. I wonder when they will be coming. With the 70-200 arriving, they should arrive soon. They are relatively simple lenses, so they should be coming. This might be a opportunity for a 3rd party lens maker.
I don't see a big demand for a RF-RF TC on the shorty 70-200. I'll speculate that the lightened 300mm f2.8 IS III that brings all the lightening of the 400 will be an RF/EF model, using my patent pending concept of a removable adapter that makes it cheaper than if they stocked two models. As the first RF super-telephoto this will include the launch of the first RF TC. And I will then retire on the royalties.

A better notion in the meantime is an EF-RF TC and adapter that lets us put existing super-teles on the R - with appropriately integrated styling. That might include a 1X "TC" that is a better-styled adapter for white lenses.
 

Optics Patent

Former Nikon (Changes to R5 upon delivery)
Nov 6, 2019
310
248
:ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO: Good luck - I actually like that idea, so hope it works out!
Thanks. One key concept is that the TC detach from the lens is internal or otherwise avoids accidental disconnection. Must remove lens and TC combo from body before separating TC from lens. And one would certainly want to see clean visual integration with the lens and with the body, which most TCs and RF adapters fail at.
 
  • Like
Reactions: StoicalEtcher