Canon explains RF lens technology and why bigger is better (sometimes)

[Canon Rumors]

Canon once again talks about the benefits of the bigger diameter RF mount over the older, and smaller lens mounts in the video above.
So why’ll we wait for more RF lenses, we can at least learn a bit about them.
From Canon Imagine Plaza:
Canon proudly introduces a new imaging system, the EOS R System, with RF lenses at its core. But what makes these lenses so outstanding? This video introduces the innovative features of RF lenses that open up new possibilities in photographic expression.

Continue reading...

 

[Deleted member 378875]

so there are three options ..

cheaper lenses at the same quality
same price lenses at better quality
even more expensive lenses at much better quality

wonder which one we're going to get ... hmmm ...

 

[Loswr]

I hear the words. I don’t see the evidence. Maybe someday.

 

[Del Paso]

I hear the words. I don’t see the evidence. Maybe someday.

The evidence: the exceptional quality achieved by Leica with wide -angle lenses, the Leica R lenses were always far behind (corner sharpness, contrast, etc...)
I've never had a DSLR lens that was as good as the 18, 21, 24, 28 & 35 mm Asph. M lenses, not even a Zeiss or a Canon. (Yes, I know, this isn't scientific).
Is the short flange distance the main reason ? I tend to believe it has at least a part to play, according to the Leica opticians, it definitely has!

 

[hmatthes]

If you have troubles viewing it, go directly to

 

[aquagene]

I really hope we start seeing the smaller lenses this video references. While having the unique L lenses is nice, it would be ideal if they expanded to have more lenses like the 35mm.

 

[MrFotoFool]

Video won't play - give an error message. I will try the alternate link above.

 

[Maximilian]

I really hope we start seeing the smaller lenses this video references. While having the unique L lenses is nice, it would be ideal if they expanded to have more lenses like the 35mm.

100% same opinion here.

 

[BillB]

100% same opinion here.

A small mid range zoom would be good too.

 

[MrFotoFool]

Ok now I could see it. So (according to video) the advantage of RF (shorter back distance) is less refraction but the disadvantage is more ghosting and flaring. They go to lengths to explain how they correct for this, but they also say how they correct for refraction in EF lenses. So both mounts have a problem and solution, it's just a different problem.

Also the final sample image (antelope or bighorn sheep grazing in a field) is underexposed and IMO a bad photo - certainly they could have used a better nature photo?

 

[docsmith]

Uh oh....Canon is trying to keep our attention on RF lenses with fancy videos....not fancy newly released lenses. I wonder if they've hit a hitch it releasing the lenses announced in February.

 

[Pape]

Ok now I could see it. So (according to video) the advantage of RF (shorter back distance) is less refraction but the disadvantage is more ghosting and flaring. They go to lengths to explain how they correct for this, but they also say how they correct for refraction in EF lenses. So both mounts have a problem and solution, it's just a different problem.

Also the final sample image (antelope or bighorn sheep grazing in a field) is underexposed and IMO a bad photo - certainly they could have used a better nature photo?

i hope it doesnt mean next R camera got that bad dynamic range

 

[BillB]

Ok now I could see it. So (according to video) the advantage of RF (shorter back distance) is less refraction but the disadvantage is more ghosting and flaring. They go to lengths to explain how they correct for this, but they also say how they correct for refraction in EF lenses. So both mounts have a problem and solution, it's just a different problem.

Also the final sample image (antelope or bighorn sheep grazing in a field) is underexposed and IMO a bad photo - certainly they could have used a better nature photo?

Canon has a long tradition of putting out unpersuasive photographic examples what their new products can do

 

[magarity]

Also the final sample image (antelope or bighorn sheep grazing in a field) is underexposed and IMO a bad photo - certainly they could have used a better nature photo?

Maybe the antelope were just photobombing the sunset shot?

 

[KirkD]

The new RF 50mm f1.2 is evidence of what an R lens mount system can do. Check out its image quality here https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=1225

 

[unfocused]

The takeaway: Those R lenses have got to be high quality because the narrator speaks with a British accent. (Standard American reaction).

 

[Loswr]

The evidence: the exceptional quality achieved by Leica with wide -angle lenses, the Leica R lenses were always far behind (corner sharpness, contrast, etc...)
I've never had a DSLR lens that was as good as the 18, 21, 24, 28 & 35 mm Asph. M lenses, not even a Zeiss or a Canon. (Yes, I know, this isn't scientific).
Is the short flange distance the main reason ? I tend to believe it has at least a part to play, according to the Leica opticians, it definitely has!

How many of your DLSR lenses cost $3K and up? I tend to believe that the Zeiss Otus lenses offer excellent IQ, equal of better to lenses with short flange distances. But like Leica ASPH lenses, they aren't cheap. The evidence definitely supports that more expensive lenses can deliver better IQ. But shorter flange? Not so much.

 

[Loswr]

The new RF 50mm f1.2 is evidence of what an R lens mount system can do. Check out its image quality here https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=1225

Compare it to the Zeiss Otus 55mm for the EF mount.

 

[Adelino]

Canon has a long tradition of putting out unpersuasive photographic examples what their new products can do

The ones form the RF 85 1.2 are nice though.

 

[Del Paso]

How many of your DLSR lenses cost $3K and up? I tend to believe that the Zeiss Otus lenses offer excellent IQ, equal of better to lenses with short flange distances. But like Leica ASPH lenses, they aren't cheap. The evidence definitely supports that more expensive lenses can deliver better IQ. But shorter flange? Not so much.

Leica lenses cost more because they are produced in ridiculous quantities compared to Canon and Cosina made Zeiss lenses.
Price doesn't explain everything...but getting wide-angle lenses closer to the sensor can (mustn't) be an advantage.
This certainly doesn't apply to teles (Canon's big whites are at least as good as the discontinued Leica Apo teles, most certainly even better).
PS: I too prefer DSLR over mirrorless...