I see no incentive for Canon to approve lenses that damage their cameras.Hi, I worry about almost everything so here it is
Could it be possible that third party RF mount lenses have slightly less quality of the RF mount itself? I mean, could it be possible that due to 'worse' third party tolerances the mount on the camera be 'damaged' because of third party RF mounted lenses? Just wandering about the RF mount (or any mount) tolerances of Canon versus third party fabricated lens mounts.
Please help me getting some sleep over this one
Well, we never had any problems of that sort with the canon EF mount and 3rd party lenses....and back then, they had to worry about a mirror slapping around behind it too.Hi, I worry about almost everything so here it is
Could it be possible that third party RF mount lenses have slightly less quality of the RF mount itself? I mean, could it be possible that due to 'worse' third party tolerances the mount on the camera be 'damaged' because of third party RF mounted lenses? Just wandering about the RF mount (or any mount) tolerances of Canon versus third party fabricated lens mounts.
Please help me getting some sleep over this one
Thanks for the reply. I did indeed try to explain that I was looking for this. I can imagine that the physical tolerances on the mount are extremely limited so therefore a third-party manufacturer would not be able to be compliant. (ie, too wide or too loose so there would be friction to the camera part of the mount). Guess my imagination runs too wild sometimes.
Adapted 11-24/4 can have advantages for CPL/ND filters in lieu of front filters but filters aren't an option for the 8-15/4 @8mm (180 degree).
)
The EF 8-15mm fish eye is an amazing lens, possibly the last word in fisheye lenses. I use the rear drop in filter adapter so that I can employ filters (and the same settings) across any and all of my lens collection. This includes my EF 24-70/2.8 II, EF 11-24/F L and EF8-15/4 L. I've not had the need for filters on my EF 8-15mm since I swapped out my TS-e 17L for a EF 11-24. However, I have used a 6 stop ND to slow down water in a landscape at the 15mm end and then defished the image. For some reason Adobe have walked back the defish capability in Lightroom somewhat compared to about 5 years ago when it was really good. These days the defish function seems to make a lot of mushy corners. Where as the EF 11-24mm is an amazing optic and needs almost no correction at all.Adapted 11-24/4 can have advantages for CPL/ND filters in lieu of front filters but filters aren't an option for the 8-15/4 @8mm (180 degree).
Is there a use case for filters on the 8-15/4? It has a rear filter gel option but I haven't used it. My experience with it (underwater, astro, quirky architecture, one-time big nose portraits) hasn't needed them. CPL should get artifacts if the sky is in it (and rarely wouldn't it be @8mm
ND filters for video use maybe?
I think mech tolerance it's pretty easy for anyone able to design a somewhat decent and relatively complicate optical system; what I was not entirely trusting in the EF era was actually the lens/accessory lock, and its release switch.Thanks for the reply. I did indeed try to explain that I was looking for this. I can imagine that the physical tolerances on the mount are extremely limited so therefore a third-party manufacturer would not be able to be compliant. (ie, too wide or too loose so there would be friction to the camera part of the mount). Guess my imagination runs too wild sometimes.
I use a Nisi 100mm filter set for CPL/ND/grad ND and the 77mm adaptor is fine for my EF16-35/4 and RF70-200/2.8. I don't use the 8-15/4 very much under water as it is so wide and even then only at 8mm or 15mm and it is tricky to get good compositions. If I ever go to Tonga for the humpback whales, I think I will upgrade to the RF14-35/4 and the fisheye will get even less use then. @14mm, it will be close to the same FoV as a defished 15mm fisheye.
I can't comment on filter use below the water line. However, with drop in filters where the filter is behind the lens, I'm seeing a lot less ghosting, flare and refelcted artifacts in my images. Particularly in direct sunlight or harsh lighting.
I've never seen any 3rd party lens on EF or RF mount do any physical damage to a Canon camera. Emotional damage on the user...that's a different subject! I've not touched a Sigma lens in over 10 years after for really good reasons. Canon gear is the best available on the Canon mount.Hi, I worry about almost everything so here it is
Could it be possible that third party RF mount lenses have slightly less quality of the RF mount itself? I mean, could it be possible that due to 'worse' third party tolerances the mount on the camera be 'damaged' because of third party RF mounted lenses? Just wandering about the RF mount (or any mount) tolerances of Canon versus third party fabricated lens mounts.
Please help me getting some sleep over this one
