The 2020 RF lens roadmap, up to 8 new lenses coming in 2020

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
Jul 21, 2010
24,611
2,075
..new optical designs could absolutely smoke existing ones were they to use the new lens mount.
...less distortion, greater light transmission, more compact size,and better corner sharpness. The latest Canon lenses do a better job than the older models, but there's always room for improvement.
Sorry, but:
  • less distortion for lenses with only ~1% distortion
  • greater light transmission (unlikely to be more than a stop) for lenses which are commonly used stopped down
  • more compact size for lenses the size of a standard zoom that are usually used on a tripod, and
  • better corner sharpness for lenses which are already quite sharp in the corners
...sounds nothing like 'absolutely smoking' the existing lenses. Perhaps if a TS-E 17 for the RF mount could be made without the bulbous front element and thus take front filters, that would 'absolutely smoke' the current TS-E 17. But given the need to support an effective FoV of an 11mm rectilinear lens, I don't see that happening (and short of that, the ability to use the current TS-E 17 on an EOS R with an ND or CPL behind it far outweighs any minor improvements in distortion or sharpness in an RF version, at least for me).

The RF mount is nice and offers some interesting possibilities, but I think you're 'absolutely smoking' something if you believe it's some sort of miracle mount. ;)
 

uri.raz

EOS 80D
Jan 5, 2016
150
101
Yes, but only because I don't own the 11-24. I used the 17-40 for scale, but I did use the words "1/3 the size and weight of the nearest Canon lens." Considering that the 17-40 is an inexpensive featherweight, I figured it would be understood that the nearest Canon lens would be the one with the 11mm focal length.
Fair enough.

I think the two other points still stand - there's little point comparing a prime to a one stop faster zoom of the same age.
 

mk0x55

[5DsR]
Nov 16, 2018
55
52
Well, it can happen that I fail to see the visual evidence for what I claim (and I yet have to demonstrate that point here).
...
... let's see if I manage to find any discernible differences when I compare the lenses on a suitable scene in some reasonably stable weather & lighting conditions.
Although the conditions I mention didn't occur around me so far... I attempted a quick-ish comparison, below.

A short follow up on my 3D pop inquiry, folks.

I made an attempt (still sort of preliminary, mainly due to the lack of stable weather and lighting conditions when shooting). I briefly compared two pairs of lenses:
  • Canon 50mm 1.8 STM (plastic fantastic) vs. Zeiss Milvus 1.4/50mm ZE
  • Canon 70-200mm 2.8 L IS USM II vs. Zeiss Milvus 2/135 ZE
First I need to name the rather clear and surely expected:
  • The Zeisses resolve better and further out to the corners;
  • The Zeisses have smoother bokeh;
  • The Zeisses have higher light transmissivity than the Canons.
Then there is one minor observation relating to the gradations:
  • The Canons seem to stretch the histogram (in Capture One) a slight touch toward the edges (blacks, whites) as if they were more globally contrasty when compared to the Zeisses (no major difference though, slighly noticeable when just looking at the pictures using my 8-bit monitor (Eizo FlexScan)) - example histogram; I've seen this trend on several comparison exposures made:
    • Zeiss:
      184282
    • Canon:
      184281
Now the differences I was able to spot:
  • The 50mm lenses (please note that although the price difference between them is huge, both lenses are very sharp and render very well under normal conditions such as where flaring is not a problem... especially for the Canon, which is susceptible to that):
    • Globally (looking at the picture from a distance, necessarily viewed at far lesser resolution than the captured), I can't distinguish any noticeable difference in the 3D pop;
    • Zoomed in (pixel-peeping) at f/7.1, I can see differences in favor of the Zeiss - clearly due to its slightly higher resolving power, but also due to a slightly smoother bokeh quality; namely, the Milvus renders a slightly out-of-focus object (grill) more "3D pop"-py to my eyes than the Canon; but I attribute that mostly to the bokeh, as said:
      • Zeiss:
        184267

      • Canon:
        184266
    • Another example zoomed in at 400% at f/5.6, looking at a shadowy fissure of a rock with the exposure lifted by 2 stops, it appears to me that the Zeiss has a bit more shadow detail there, although it is extremely close (possibly because I had to adjust the exposure boosting the Milvus by 0.15 and taking down the Canon by 0.1 - this is a change in favor of the Canon though, from the perspective of texture detail and noise control!):
      • Zeiss:
        184280
      • Canon:
        184279
    • Conclusion: These two lenses seem to me to be very close, but I see a slight touch more shadow detail / gradation richness from the Zeiss (perhaps wishful seeing?). In any case, this is in contrast to what Yannick presents in his blog, where he trashed the Milvus 1.4/50 from the 3D pop perspective and scored the Canon 50 1.8 STM higher. I don't find supporting evidence for that here.
  • The 135mm comparison (at f/5.6):
    • Smiliarly to the 50mm comparison, I can't distinguish much difference from the scene I captured globally (at a distance);
    • Zoomed in, the Zeiss shows both more shadow detail and superior image quality otherwise (the latter is nothing unexpected, really, comparing a premium prime to a zoom, although a very good one).
    • Zoomed-in comparison at 400% close to the center of the frame:
      • Zeiss:
        184287
      • Canon:
        184286
    • To conclude this one, I'd say the Milvus 2/135 is the winner, but again, not by a very large margin.
  • Possible sources of error that I am aware of:
    • Different ambient lighting as I can't capture all shots in a single moment, especially in the evening when it stopped raining... resulting in an additional changing variable except the variable tested (lens), which can invalidate the results;
    • Slightly different focus in shots (due to my focusing error or slight focus shift of the lens)... purely a possibility; I haven't really found it though;
    • Slightly changing environment due to atmospheric conditions (humidity, rocks drying...);
    • My way of looking at my screen when comparing... as well as my screen being incapable of showing me the gradations well enough (as it's no photographic screen, really and just has a 8-bit per color channel).
The demonstration here is sort of preliminary and the method and sequence of doing the comparison is far from waterproof (the conditions outdoors didn't really allow for that yet); but it shows at least something - check it out and feel free to leave me any feedback based on what you see.

Lastly, all of the lenses I tested are considered pretty good on overall (I happen to not really own poor lenses). To really test the interesting stuff (something like a good Canon/Nikon/Sony/Zeiss lens vs. Sigma Art that is rumored to have famously low 3D-pop), I would have to own or rent a Sigma Art, which is not on my horizon really. If you own any such combination of lenses, feel free to test it and show something similar...

Full versions of one of the above scenes with the 50mm (more I can't attach here and don't want to spam this forum which is about the RF lens roadmap anyway!):
  • Zeiss 50:
    184288

  • Canon 50:
    184289
The end of it so far.

Update a day later: Jared Polin compared the Sony FE 135 with the Sigma 135:
He also provides RAW files to compare (NOTE: the first of Sigma had wrong number in the URL when I downloaded it, so to download them all you might need to correct that). I could clearly see that the Sony has a better depth to the images (more 3D pop) - one picture with the model sitting on a chair, there are multiple parts of the image (both on the model and elsewhere), where the difference is apparent.
 
Last edited:

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
1,062
514
did i say that sigma 85 is a better lens? when and where? why you are implying that I am a flat test chart warrior?
Sigma 85 1.4 Art is quite poor at closer distances - what is your point?

why are you attacking someone who asked a simple question? i trust my visual perception but am an open minded person enough to maintain a critical judgement.
Sorry if answering your question honestly was interpreted as an "attack." If a critique that mild sets off all of your alarms, any kind of serious photography is probably not the place for you.

As for which one of us is using their critical judgement and which one is in denial...

I'll let the other critiques above that echo mine speak for themselves.
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
1,062
514
There are also the f4 zooms and the variable max aperture zooms which are lighter and less expensive than the f2.8's. For a while now, there have been good quality zooms which a lot of people prefer to primes. This has really put a dent in the demand for light weight, lower cost primes. Canon put out the 24, 28 and 35 IS primes in 2012, but I wonder how many have actually been sold. I bought the 28mm the year before the 16-35 f4 came out, and I haven't used the 28 since I got the 16-35. If the 16-35 had been available, I would not bought the 28mm. The 28 weighs half as much as the 16-35, but having the 16-35 is like having a whole bagfull of very good wide angle primes.
Agreed.

That's also coupled with the likely reality that at the time the 24/28/35 IS primes came out in 2012, most of the shooters that would have been most interested in wide angle primes still were of the opinion that IS wasn't that important for lenses in tht focal length range. Many potential buyers probably kept the 24/28/35 non-stabilized primes they already had and passed on the newer lenses.

IBIS, though available in a handful of small format mirrorless cameras, had not yet really become widespread enough in 2012 for a lot of folks to become convinced of the usefulness of stabilization for wider angle lenses. For most Canikon shooters, it was just something the "minor" brands' shooters liked to tout that they had that Canokon did not.
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
1,062
514
Fair enough.

I think the two other points still stand - there's little point comparing a prime to a one stop faster zoom of the same age.
Not necessarily. Before around 2010 or so¹ good mid-range primes still outperformed most zooms, including those that cost a lot more. The primes were generally sharper, had less geometric distortion, and less transmission loss (f-number vs. T-stop).

¹ I consider the EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II the "watershed" in this respect. It was the first mass-produced lens that came close to beating most of the affordable primes in its focal length range. Even then, the out of focus background areas can be harsher with the 70-200/2.8 III that with an 85/1.8, 135/2, or 200/2.8 set at f/2.8. The 70-200/2.8 III has been surpassed many times over since 2010, but there wasn't really any other mainstream 3X+ zoom lens at the time that was that good all of the way from wide to long at every aperture.
 

SecureGSM

2 x 5D IV
Feb 26, 2017
1,321
315
Sorry if answering your question honestly was interpreted as an "attack." If a critique that mild sets off all of your alarms, any kind of serious photography is probably not the place for you.

As for which one of us is using their critical judgement and which one is in denial...

I'll let the other critiques above that echo mine speak for themselves.
What are you critical about? Those aren’t my photos even. I am a Canon shooter.
I do not understand what are you on about.
 

jd7

EOS 7D MK II
Feb 3, 2013
746
108
Yes, it does. The background blur is course and uneven. Put those shots side to side with the same model, scene, camera, and lighting using the EF 85mm f/1.2L II and you'll immediately be able to see the difference. But keep on believing that you're using a better lens because it does better shooting flat test charts at closer distances with no background to render.

The 85L would smooth out those cut-off bokeh balls that are fouling some of your edges and make that mistake hardly even noticeable, too.
Please accept this as a genuine question. Are you able to point me to any examples which show the difference you are talking about between the Art and Canon lenses?

I so often read things on the internet claiming the Art series lenses have poor bokeh, but I rarely see photos shot side by side of the same scene, etc, to provide a good comparison of an Art lenses with a comparable lens - and when I have, I haven't felt convinced the criticism of the bokeh of the Art lenses is justified. For example, this website http://willchaophotography.com/sigma-50mm-f1-4-art-review/ has comparison shots taken with the 50 Art and the 50L but it doesn't convince me the 50 Art's bokeh is poor (and in fact the author's opinion was it is not). When I look around on the internet at images shot with the 35 Art and the 35L II, I haven't seen anything to make me complain about the 35 Art's bokeh either - but I'm not sure if I've ever seen sets of images taken under the same conditions providing a good comparison between them. (I've seen test shots comparing things like sharpness, but I'm talking specifically about comparing bokeh.)

I do sometimes think the 85L II at f/1.2 may be able to produce slightly better bokeh (as subjective a concept as that is) than the 85 Art, but I put that down to its wider aperture, as a I think the same about the 85L II and any 85/1.4 I've seen images from. Again though, I'd like to see good comparison shots (taken under same conditions, etc) to really be sure.

Anyway, I'm not someone who values sharpness above all else in a lens - I am interested in the overall look of the image produced (again, however subjective a concept that may be), and sharpness is obviously only one factor - so if you can point me to any good bokeh comparison shots, I'd be genuinely interested to have a look.
 
Mar 14, 2012
251
6
There remains a lot of evidence that Sigma still has issues with the electronics in their lenses, I've owned 6 or 7 Sigmas. Only one didn't have a major failure: Canon mount 70-200 f/2.8. I have a friend whose ART no longer AF's correctly. Familiar story to me.

I use only use Canon lenses in the AF world. Never had a problem with one.
 
  • Like
Reactions: uri.raz
Aug 22, 2010
1,621
317
48
Uk
www.GMCPhotographics.co.uk
So you buy the EOS R to use ‘all these great lenses’ for now, then when the ‘pro body’ comes along, you buy that too. More ¥ for Canon.
Canon have been very cleaver here...they create a system that every one wants...but not the camera. So every one buys the camera they don't really want to get "into the system"....then Canon releases a slightly better camera (assuming here) and we all rush out and buy it because it's closer to what ewe all wanted in the first place...thus selling 2 cameras. The S/H resale of the 1st camera plummets which Canon don't make any money on any how....then they release the camera we all wanted in the first place....and we all do the same thing 3rd time around. Canon finally eclipse Sony sales in the Mirror-less full frame market and has sold us 2 cameras that we never really wanted in the first place...kudos to Canon...For me...I'll wait until the right camera comes along...lol...
 
Aug 22, 2010
1,621
317
48
Uk
www.GMCPhotographics.co.uk
There remains a lot of evidence that Sigma still has issues with the electronics in their lenses, I've owned 6 or 7 Sigmas. Only one didn't have a major failure: Canon mount 70-200 f/2.8. I have a friend whose ART no longer AF's correctly. Familiar story to me.

I use only use Canon lenses in the AF world. Never had a problem with one.
Like wise. Currently it's only their 50mm f1.4 art that could temp me to buy another Sigma. Only because Canon haven't bothered to fix the ef 50mm f1.2 L (and they really could have with a mkIII). The problem with Sigma for me (apart from saying I'd never buy another Sigma lens again) is 1) resale value is very poor. 2) Generally heavier. 3) less reliable. 4) Their Outer shells tend to wear more easily. 5) Sharp optics let down by poor flare control and coatings. 6) warm colour cast that's different to Canon lenses. 7) Hesitant and inconsistent AF lock...often seems to get it slightly wrong. 8) the AF and IS systems feel like a toy when compared to the best of Canon. 9) Why Do I have to buy and use a calibrator for every lens? Surely they should get this right in the factory? Only Sigma could make a sales feature out of Pi55 Poor production engineering and Quality Control. 10) Lastly...the pro dealership network isn't any where nearly as fast or as good as Canon or Nikon's.
They do make some interesting lenses and they have come a long way from their early HSM designs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Del Paso

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
1,062
514
Please accept this as a genuine question. Are you able to point me to any examples which show the difference you are talking about between the Art and Canon lenses?

I so often read things on the internet claiming the Art series lenses have poor bokeh, but I rarely see photos shot side by side of the same scene, etc, to provide a good comparison of an Art lenses with a comparable lens - and when I have, I haven't felt convinced the criticism of the bokeh of the Art lenses is justified. For example, this website http://willchaophotography.com/sigma-50mm-f1-4-art-review/ has comparison shots taken with the 50 Art and the 50L but it doesn't convince me the 50 Art's bokeh is poor (and in fact the author's opinion was it is not). When I look around on the internet at images shot with the 35 Art and the 35L II, I haven't seen anything to make me complain about the 35 Art's bokeh either - but I'm not sure if I've ever seen sets of images taken under the same conditions providing a good comparison between them. (I've seen test shots comparing things like sharpness, but I'm talking specifically about comparing bokeh.)

I do sometimes think the 85L II at f/1.2 may be able to produce slightly better bokeh (as subjective a concept as that is) than the 85 Art, but I put that down to its wider aperture, as a I think the same about the 85L II and any 85/1.4 I've seen images from. Again though, I'd like to see good comparison shots (taken under same conditions, etc) to really be sure.

Anyway, I'm not someone who values sharpness above all else in a lens - I am interested in the overall look of the image produced (again, however subjective a concept that may be), and sharpness is obviously only one factor - so if you can point me to any good bokeh comparison shots, I'd be genuinely interested to have a look.
It is getting harder and harder to find direct comparisons of how two lenses render "real world" scenes than it used to be. Although anecdotal, here's my take on why that is:

1 - Those who think some objective measure of "sharpness" using a flat test chart is the only way to measure the usefulness of a lens tend to dismiss types of lenses optimized for other characteristics offhand. They don't bother comparing how such lenses perform when photographing things other than flat test charts. In their minds the flat test chart has already closed any discussion about which lens is "better." Among those who are currently buying higher end lenses, this crowd seems to be increasing as a percentage of the total number of buyers.

2 - Those few who do tend to test both types of lenses side-by-side taking "real world" images and then publish their findings are folks more concerned with how many clicks their reviews can generate than with which lens produces real world images that are more sellable. So they play to the "my lens is 0.000137 sharper than your lens" crowd because that's who spend a lot of time on youTube and review sites. Those who are more worried about taking great images are out taking images and worrying about pleasing their clients, rather than about how many online clicks they can get or whether someone else may own a lens that can take a picture of a flat test chart with ever so slightly sharper corners than their current lens can.

3 - Those who have been in the image selling game long enough know that the most important thing is being able to create images that make clients willing to pay for them. What sets one image apart from another in the mind of a potential buyer is not as easy to objectively measure the way one can measure how sharp pairs of black and white lines on the corners of a flat test chart are rendered by a specific lens/camera combination. How a lens makes images of a 3D world rather than of a 2D test chart is far more important to many of those whose livelihoods depend more on what makes a client want to buy an image than on which lens makes better photos of flat test charts (unless, of course, the client is someone who needs lots of flat documents archived).

4 - As the numbers of full-time professional photographers in many segments of the photo producing market continues to dwindle, the upper end of the camera gear market is more and more being driven by the enthusiast crowd rather than by working pros. Camera and lens manufacturers have taken notice. Sony jumped on this trend when they started releasing "spec sheet" cameras that were more or less still in the "beta" stage of design as they entered the FF mirrorless market. The rock solid reliability where everything just works right out of the box on day one and can take a day-in-and-day-out pounding aren't considered near as necessary in the enthusiast crowd.

5 - This "spec sheet" mentality regarding camera bodies seems to go hand in hand with an "MTF" mentality with regard to lenses. If a lens is not the absolute best at that measurement which is most easy to measure and quantify (MTF), then it's not worthy of any consideration. It's just like if one camera has 0.05 stops less DR at base ISO than another, it's not worthy of consideration at all, even when the intended usage is for shooting something like sports/action in low light where that same "inferior" camera may have 0.33 stops better SNR at ISO 3200.

6 - Lensmakers are giving the market what sales numbers say the market wants: lenses optimized for shooting flat test charts.
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
1,062
514
Why Do I have to buy and use a calibrator for every lens? Surely they should get this right in the factory? Only Sigma could make a sales feature out of Pi55 Poor production engineering and Quality Control.
Because not every lens is made to be used on the same unique camera body. Lens design has gotten to the point that they are sharp enough that differences in manufacturing tolerances as small as 20 microns from one side of the camera/lens interface to the other can be measured in photographs. Mission critical medical equipment is manufactured to tolerances of 50 microns. That stuff is a lot more expensive than consumer cameras. (Even the top "Pro" models are considered consumer products here. They're not mission critical products in which life or death depends on reliability or precision.)

Roger Cicala has written a number of blogs over more than a decade discussing this.

"This lens is soft" and other myths
“This Lens Is Soft” and Other Facts
Optical Quality Assurance
 
Aug 22, 2010
1,621
317
48
Uk
www.GMCPhotographics.co.uk
Because not every lens is made to be used on the same unique camera body. Lens design has gotten to the point that they are sharp enough that differences in manufacturing tolerances as small as 20 microns from one side of the camera/lens interface to the other can be measured in photographs. Mission critical medical equipment is manufactured to tolerances of 50 microns. That stuff is a lot more expensive than consumer cameras. (Even the top "Pro" models are considered consumer products here. They're not mission critical products in which life or death depends on reliability or precision.)

Roger Cicala has written a number of blogs over more than a decade discussing this.

"This lens is soft" and other myths
“This Lens Is Soft” and Other Facts
Optical Quality Assurance
Well...I had three Sigma f2.8 zoom lenses that were bought new and all three had to go back fro calibrating for quite severe back focus. The 70-200 f2.8 I bought from them was nearly an inch out of focus at 4m @ 200mm. It'sP1ss poor QA...nothing else. In my entire back catalog of Canon lenses I've only ever had one that required calibration, a 17-40L that I bought S/H. Every other L lens has been pretty much perfect or at least properly QA'd in the factory. As I've said in other threads....I'm done with Sigma. They have always been a promising brand but unfortunately they never seem to deliver on their promises....certainly not compared to Canon L glass, which are in a different league as far as I'm concerned.
Sigma glass is cheap for a reason...so are their low resale values...which also speaks volumes of their market place reliability. No other lens marque needs a lens dock calibrator except Sigma...and on one else would have the cheek to charge for it either. It should have been done in the factory...if they have time to box and bag it up, they have time to run it though a calibration machine...commercial ones take seconds.
 

uri.raz

EOS 80D
Jan 5, 2016
150
101
Canon have been very cleaver here...they create a system that every one wants...but not the camera. So every one buys the camera they don't really want to get "into the system"....then Canon releases a slightly better camera (assuming here) and we all rush out and buy it because it's closer to what we all wanted in the first place...thus selling 2 cameras.
Not everybody.

I'd like to upgrade to the R system, e.g. to get 15-35mm f/2.8 and 24-70mm f/2.8 with IS. As the camera isn't out there yet, I'm holding on to my 5DmkIII for another year, waiting to see what Canon does.
 

jd7

EOS 7D MK II
Feb 3, 2013
746
108
It is getting harder and harder to find direct comparisons of how two lenses render "real world" scenes than it used to be. Although anecdotal, here's my take on why that is:

1 - Those who think some objective measure of "sharpness" using a flat test chart is the only way to measure the usefulness of a lens tend to dismiss types of lenses optimized for other characteristics offhand. They don't bother comparing how such lenses perform when photographing things other than flat test charts. In their minds the flat test chart has already closed any discussion about which lens is "better." Among those who are currently buying higher end lenses, this crowd seems to be increasing as a percentage of the total number of buyers.

2 - Those few who do tend to test both types of lenses side-by-side taking "real world" images and then publish their findings are folks more concerned with how many clicks their reviews can generate than with which lens produces real world images that are more sellable. So they play to the "my lens is 0.000137 sharper than your lens" crowd because that's who spend a lot of time on youTube and review sites. Those who are more worried about taking great images are out taking images and worrying about pleasing their clients, rather than about how many online clicks they can get or whether someone else may own a lens that can take a picture of a flat test chart with ever so slightly sharper corners than their current lens can.

3 - Those who have been in the image selling game long enough know that the most important thing is being able to create images that make clients willing to pay for them. What sets one image apart from another in the mind of a potential buyer is not as easy to objectively measure the way one can measure how sharp pairs of black and white lines on the corners of a flat test chart are rendered by a specific lens/camera combination. How a lens makes images of a 3D world rather than of a 2D test chart is far more important to many of those whose livelihoods depend more on what makes a client want to buy an image than on which lens makes better photos of flat test charts (unless, of course, the client is someone who needs lots of flat documents archived).

4 - As the numbers of full-time professional photographers in many segments of the photo producing market continues to dwindle, the upper end of the camera gear market is more and more being driven by the enthusiast crowd rather than by working pros. Camera and lens manufacturers have taken notice. Sony jumped on this trend when they started releasing "spec sheet" cameras that were more or less still in the "beta" stage of design as they entered the FF mirrorless market. The rock solid reliability where everything just works right out of the box on day one and can take a day-in-and-day-out pounding aren't considered near as necessary in the enthusiast crowd.

5 - This "spec sheet" mentality regarding camera bodies seems to go hand in hand with an "MTF" mentality with regard to lenses. If a lens is not the absolute best at that measurement which is most easy to measure and quantify (MTF), then it's not worthy of any consideration. It's just like if one camera has 0.05 stops less DR at base ISO than another, it's not worthy of consideration at all, even when the intended usage is for shooting something like sports/action in low light where that same "inferior" camera may have 0.33 stops better SNR at ISO 3200.

6 - Lensmakers are giving the market what sales numbers say the market wants: lenses optimized for shooting flat test charts.
You may well be correct as to why it isn't easier to find more direct "real world" comparisons of lenses. It's fine to know what the MTF of a lens is, how it performs when shooting a test chart, etc, but I feel like specs and the characteristics which get measured (eg sharpness on a test chart) often dominate the discussion of whether a lens is "better", without stopping to look at performance in real world use and the overall images created. (For that matter, intended use also makes a difference in assessing which lens is better. For example, as you say, if you are taking photos of documents, what you are looking for may be significantly different from what is important if you are taking photos of something else.)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Michael Clark

padam

EOS 7D MK II
Aug 26, 2015
599
217
Canon have been very cleaver here...they create a system that every one wants...but not the camera. So every one buys the camera they don't really want to get "into the system"....then Canon releases a slightly better camera (assuming here) and we all rush out and buy it because it's closer to what ewe all wanted in the first place...thus selling 2 cameras. The S/H resale of the 1st camera plummets which Canon don't make any money on any how....then they release the camera we all wanted in the first place....and we all do the same thing 3rd time around. Canon finally eclipse Sony sales in the Mirror-less full frame market and has sold us 2 cameras that we never really wanted in the first place...kudos to Canon...For me...I'll wait until the right camera comes along...lol...
It is part of marketing, similar to Fuji where only the X-H series get the sensor stabilization, they have a lot of other models and none of them are going to have it in the foreseeable future.

So no, the EOS R (at a discounted price) might not loose a significant amount of value, if the next camera with better video and image stabilisation will cost over 4000$.
Of course it will loose value when it finally gets replaced (any camera does that) and the some of the high-end camera's features will get introduced, but it is not going to be a short product cycle.

It does not make sense to start with 4000$+ cameras that even less people are going to buy, and the EF lenses are already there for those who want to get into RF (although the system was designed with these in mind).
 

Del Paso

M3 Singlestroke
Aug 9, 2018
560
537
It is getting harder and harder to find direct comparisons of how two lenses render "real world" scenes than it used to be. Although anecdotal, here's my take on why that is:

1 - Those who think some objective measure of "sharpness" using a flat test chart is the only way to measure the usefulness of a lens tend to dismiss types of lenses optimized for other characteristics offhand. They don't bother comparing how such lenses perform when photographing things other than flat test charts. In their minds the flat test chart has already closed any discussion about which lens is "better." Among those who are currently buying higher end lenses, this crowd seems to be increasing as a percentage of the total number of buyers.

2 - Those few who do tend to test both types of lenses side-by-side taking "real world" images and then publish their findings are folks more concerned with how many clicks their reviews can generate than with which lens produces real world images that are more sellable. So they play to the "my lens is 0.000137 sharper than your lens" crowd because that's who spend a lot of time on youTube and review sites. Those who are more worried about taking great images are out taking images and worrying about pleasing their clients, rather than about how many online clicks they can get or whether someone else may own a lens that can take a picture of a flat test chart with ever so slightly sharper corners than their current lens can.

3 - Those who have been in the image selling game long enough know that the most important thing is being able to create images that make clients willing to pay for them. What sets one image apart from another in the mind of a potential buyer is not as easy to objectively measure the way one can measure how sharp pairs of black and white lines on the corners of a flat test chart are rendered by a specific lens/camera combination. How a lens makes images of a 3D world rather than of a 2D test chart is far more important to many of those whose livelihoods depend more on what makes a client want to buy an image than on which lens makes better photos of flat test charts (unless, of course, the client is someone who needs lots of flat documents archived).

4 - As the numbers of full-time professional photographers in many segments of the photo producing market continues to dwindle, the upper end of the camera gear market is more and more being driven by the enthusiast crowd rather than by working pros. Camera and lens manufacturers have taken notice. Sony jumped on this trend when they started releasing "spec sheet" cameras that were more or less still in the "beta" stage of design as they entered the FF mirrorless market. The rock solid reliability where everything just works right out of the box on day one and can take a day-in-and-day-out pounding aren't considered near as necessary in the enthusiast crowd.

5 - This "spec sheet" mentality regarding camera bodies seems to go hand in hand with an "MTF" mentality with regard to lenses. If a lens is not the absolute best at that measurement which is most easy to measure and quantify (MTF), then it's not worthy of any consideration. It's just like if one camera has 0.05 stops less DR at base ISO than another, it's not worthy of consideration at all, even when the intended usage is for shooting something like sports/action in low light where that same "inferior" camera may have 0.33 stops better SNR at ISO 3200.

6 - Lensmakers are giving the market what sales numbers say the market wants: lenses optimized for shooting flat test charts.
You delivered an absolutely perfect description of the present situation, unfortunately!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Michael Clark
Aug 22, 2010
1,621
317
48
Uk
www.GMCPhotographics.co.uk
Not everybody.

I'd like to upgrade to the R system, e.g. to get 15-35mm f/2.8 and 24-70mm f/2.8 with IS. As the camera isn't out there yet, I'm holding on to my 5DmkIII for another year, waiting to see what Canon does.
Canon have played the same game with you too...they knew every one wanted a 24-70 f2.8 LIS...so they released an excellent but not quite what we all wanted non IS version on the EF mount. Only to introduce the lens we really wanted on the RF mount...causing us to buy the EF version...then change camera (EOS R) and lens (buying another 24-70)....to get where we always wanted to be...except the camera isn't as good as the 5D mk4. Lol.....
 

uri.raz

EOS 80D
Jan 5, 2016
150
101
Canon have played the same game with you too...they knew every one wanted a 24-70 f2.8 LIS...so they released an excellent but not quite what we all wanted non IS version on the EF mount. Only to introduce the lens we really wanted on the RF mount.
Yes, it is a bummer Tamron & Nikon have 24-70mm f/2.8 with IS, and Canon doesn't. I didn't thoroughly compare their IQ, but I've heard neither excel optically, even compared to Canon's mk II.

I've upgraded to the 24-70mm f/2.8L II when my 24-105mm f/4L mk I broke down, and before Canon announced the EOS R.