Are new dream lenses coming for the RF mount? [CR1]

[takesome1]

You can consult U.S. Labor Department statistics that include how many full time photographers are employed in the U.S. as their primary profession. The numbers have been steadily decreasing for over a decade. They've pretty much fallen off the cliff in the past five years, to the point there's no longer a separate category for still image photojournalists distinct from the one that includes TV camera operators. Since the U.S. buys an extremely disproportionate amount of the total number of interchangeable lens cameras sold worldwide (that's also a documented fact, you can look it up), as the U.S. goes, so goes the world in this case.

That does not demonstrate that you have an understanding of the internal plans of Canon or Nikon, or that you know what they are thinking or planning.
At best what you stated was your opinion, or a poorly informed guess.

 

[shawnc]

14 years of EF-S with no L lens. Don’t hold your breath. APS-C is aimed at the consumer market. L-lenses aren’t.

For sure. It would be nice if Canon realized they can put some weather sealing in a lens and a f2.8 aperture without it having to be an "L".

 

[Michael Clark]

Appending a ridiculous and mathematically inappropriate number of significant digits to numbers does not change the fact that you stated an 800/5.6 lens has a 150mm front element, which is wrong.

By the way, your ‘point’ was that a 500/2.8 lens would be expensive. Quite the pithy observation, there.

View attachment 204291

Oh for heaven's sake. So I rounded to the nearest "common" number by ≈5% and you act like the world is going to end. My apologies for triggering you.

Whatever would you do if lens manufacturers tried to pass off lenses that were more than 5% shorter in focal length than the focal lengths with which they're marketed? (Oh, wait...)

 

[Michael Clark]

You should have read the comment to which I was replying. Now, where have I heard that before?

Again, let’s review, shall we?


The discussion started off talking about the R7.

Please try to pay attention.

So six words about the R7 followed by fifty words about lenses? Is that about right? 89% of the comment in question was about LENSES.

 

[Michael Clark]

That does not demonstrate that you have an understanding of the internal plans of Canon or Nikon, or that you know what they are thinking or planning.
At best what you stated was your opinion, or a poorly informed guess.

Where did you ever get the idea that I said anything about Canon or Nikon's internal plans? They've gone on public record in quarterly report after quarterly report about what target markets they're aiming for in the future. All you have to do is read them. They've been discussed almost ad nauseum in this forum in the past, so surely you're aware of their existence?

 

[neuroanatomist]

Oh for heaven's sake. So I rounded to the nearest "common" number by ≈5% and you act like the world is going to end. My apologies for triggering you.

Whatever would you do if lens manufacturers tried to pass off lenses that were more than 5% shorter in focal length than the focal lengths with which they're marketed? (Oh, wait...)

People with even a rudimentary knowledge of mathematics would round 143 down to 140, not up to 150. My kids knew better than that in first grade.

As I said before, worms gonna wiggle. Even if the attempts to avoid admitting one’s error grow progressively more pathetic post after post.

 

[neuroanatomist]

So six words about the R7 followed by fifty words about lenses? Is that about right? 89% of the comment in question was about LENSES.

When discussing segmentation of the ILC market, it makes little sense to discuss only lenses and not cameras. I’m sorry if that’s too difficult a concept for you.

Actually, though, it’s clear you get the concept. For example, you said:

There's not a whole lot of market left for UPPER TIER GEAR other than the consumer market. That is, enthusiasts/amateurs/weekend warriors with lots of money to spend who aren't being paid much of anything for their work are the primary target of today's and tomorrow's TOP LEVEL GEAR, including L lenses.

So you were discussing ‘gear, including lenses'…not just lenses (and in this context, the primary other relevant category of gear is CAMERAS).

At least, when it suited you. But when you’re trying to wiggle out of being wrong, you’d rather restrict the discussion to make yourself appear correct.

Wiggle, wiggle, wiggle.

 

[takesome1]

Where did you ever get the idea that I said anything about Canon or Nikon's internal plans? They've gone on public record in quarterly report after quarterly report about what target markets they're aiming for in the future. All you have to do is read them. They've been discussed almost ad nauseum in this forum in the past, so surely you're aware of their existence?

Your comment:
"But make no mistake about it. The high end consumer market is what Canon, Nikon, and Sony are banking on to keep them in business. The true professional market doesn't have the number of buyers to do it any more."

I read every one of Canon's quarterly reports. They are often good quote material when people claim to have an understanding of why Canon does what it does. I just never read this particular statement from Canon. Apparently you have so maybe you can look it up in one of their reports.
Share holders would be a bit skittish if they thought one sector of Canon's business determines whether they stay in business or not.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Your comment:
"But make no mistake about it. The high end consumer market is what Canon, Nikon, and Sony are banking on to keep them in business. The true professional market doesn't have the number of buyers to do it any more."

That's a pretty ridiculous comment, anyway. Certainly Sony is not banking on the high end consumer camera market to keep them in business. Cameras comprise a small fraction of Canon's business, a meaningful fraction of Nikon's business, and a tiny fraction of Sony's business. Of the 'big three', Nikon would come closest to 'banking on high end consumer cameras' to keep them in business, since their imaging business unit comprises only cameras, and accounts for >30% of their overall corporate revenue. For Sony, still and video cameras together account for 4% of their total revenue. For Canon, it's ~12%. With the exception of Nikon, recent currency fluctuations have resulted in a greater change in corporate valuation than would result from the complete cessation of camera sales.

 

[mb66energy]

Isn't that what putting the camera's Av setting to f/4 does?

I just have tried EF-S 15-85 f/3.5-5.6 to check this - you are right: If I set it to e.g. f/8 it works well - maybe I misinterpreted the AF noise as aperture noise and my brain (not my eye) has "seen" some brightness changes. While the AF (despite being USM) is really low in movie mode, during zooming it behaves a little bit rougher. This lens is presumably not a parfocal design while the EF 70-200 f/4 L IS USM is very close to parfocal.

 

[mikhail]

I would love to see consumer 28-75/2.8 at a cost below 1k. Something Nikon Z has.
And a mod class 50/1.4. With IBIS coming to new bodies, both lenses may be without OIS to save weight and price.

 

[danfaz]

For sure. It would be nice if Canon realized they can put some weather sealing in a lens and a f2.8 aperture without it having to be an "L".

The EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 is pretty close. f/2.8, very good image quality, just missing the weather sealing.

 

[Michael Clark]

People with even a rudimentary knowledge of mathematics would round 143 down to 140, not up to 150. My kids knew better than that in first grade.

As I said before, worms gonna wiggle. Even if the attempts to avoid admitting one’s error grow progressively more pathetic post after post.

People with a rudimentary knowledge of photography would either round down to 135mm or up to 150mm, because those numbers are both much more commonly used in photography than 140mm is. But keep wiggling yourself while you point fingers at others.

 

[Michael Clark]

That's a pretty ridiculous comment, anyway. Certainly Sony is not banking on the high end consumer camera market to keep them in business. Cameras comprise a small fraction of Canon's business, a meaningful fraction of Nikon's business, and a tiny fraction of Sony's business. Of the 'big three', Nikon would come closest to 'banking on high end consumer cameras' to keep them in business, since their imaging business unit comprises only cameras, and accounts for >30% of their overall corporate revenue. For Sony, still and video cameras together account for 4% of their total revenue. For Canon, it's ~12%. With the exception of Nikon, recent currency fluctuations have resulted in a greater change in corporate valuation than would result from the complete cessation of camera sales.

Any thinking person who's being honest would recognize that it was referring to their respective consumer camera divisions, not their umbrella corporations.

But go ahead and totally ignore the context of the comment when it suits your argument while also criticizing others for doing the same thing when that serves your argument.

 

[Michael Clark]

I just have tried EF-S 15-85 f/3.5-5.6 to check this - you are right: If I set it to e.g. f/8 it works well - maybe I misinterpreted the AF noise as aperture noise and my brain (not my eye) has "seen" some brightness changes. While the AF (despite being USM) is really low in movie mode, during zooming it behaves a little bit rougher. This lens is presumably not a parfocal design while the EF 70-200 f/4 L IS USM is very close to parfocal.

Re: parfocal. Read Roger Cicala's take on that at this blog entry. He pretty much says there are no parfocal photographic zooms. You might find one copy of a particular model that appears to be close at a specific focus distance, but nine other copies of the same lens model will vary wildly in both directions.

In the comments to the blog linked above someone asked him if he was going to test zoom cine lenses and do a similar blog entry about them. In response he says, "Lee, we've done that (I touched on it in the article). They are so parfocal that if I graphed them there wouldn't be any bars. They'd all be within 0.05mm or less, mostly much less."

 

[neuroanatomist]

People with a rudimentary knowledge of photography would either round down to 135mm or up to 150mm, because those numbers are both much more commonly used in photography than 140mm is. But keep wiggling yourself while you point fingers at others.

Lol. So your justification is that you don’t know the difference between front element diameter and focal length? Or is it that your knowledge of photography is so vast that it has subsumed your knowledge of basic math? Tell me, if I asked you the sum of 3 + 3, would your answer be rounded up to 6.3 or rounded down to 5.6?

I suggested that your attempts to wiggle out of simply admitting you made a mistake would become progressively more pathetic. In that regard, you’ve exceeded expectations.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Any thinking person who's being honest would recognize that it was referring to their respective consumer camera divisions, not their umbrella corporations.

But go ahead and totally ignore the context of the comment when it suits your argument while also criticizing others for doing the same thing when that serves your argument.

So you were talking about more than only LENSES. Thanks for clarifying.

 

[Stuart]

RF 100+mm f4 PANCAKE

 

[shawnc]

The EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 is pretty close. f/2.8, very good image quality, just missing the weather sealing.

And the RF mount. Since it's a wish list I'd want weather sealing and RF mount. With the R7 being smaller and lighter, what I'm wanting is a hike/ride/ski lens that is small(ish) and can stand some rain, snow, and dust. Otherwise I can take my R6 with my RF24-70. Nice kit but a fairly substantial chunk of camera, by mirrorless standards anyway.

 

[DBH]

Continue reading...

You left off the price for the 1mm-1000mm. It is certain the price will be $19.99, and the lens hood will be $64,000. The lens will only be sold as a kit with lens and hood. My sources will be reliable. Hey, can you pour me another glass of wine?