Exactly. Some people have the belief that optical correction of geometric distortion is the best way, but it’s just one way. There are trade offs with that way, and with the digital approach.
Upvote
0
Canon Eyes a Canon RF 50-150mm F2.8
- Thread starter Richard CR
- Start date
On an APS-C body this will be pretty close (80-240mm) to the 70-200mm telephoto range commonly used in indoor sports and events. Paired with a R7 or R10 this would be a great lens for parents to photograph their kids' sports and aspiring young photographers to learn how the pros do it without spending several thousand dollars. And for pros in less affluent countries who could never afford the top-of-the-line gear.
Upvote
0
Assuming that the IQ is comparable to the existing non-L f2.8 zooms, this would be a most interesting lens for me. For travel and hiking, I usually go with a 2 lens solution, carrying the 14-35 f4 and 70-200 f4, thus missing a good range of focal length in between. As I mostly do not use the telephoto end too much, having the 50-150mm f2.8 instead of the 70-200 f4 would make good sense for me. This way, the 50-150 f2.8 can work as an indoor/dim light portrait lens as well.
Upvote
0
On the one hand, this isn't all that different from a 70-200 2.8 L. On the other hand, if the price point is very low, like the 45/1.2, then it's bound to be a winner. People want some aperture, but don't necessarily have a lot of $$$ to spend on it.
Upvote
0
Gentlemen, maybe you are to much focused on the fullframe cult.
This lens is so far only a patent and the optical dimensions make it look like a full frame lens but I believe that fact to be a byproduct.
50-150 slots very nice into the 10-18 and 18-50 row currently occupied by Sigma/Tamron
With any APSC advantages diminishing rapidly after 100mm it makes sense to build a lens which is seen as good quality supplement for poor non pro APSC children of a lesser god like me, while also feeding the cheap R8 clients who jumped for whatever reason onto the fullframe train.
The full frame pros will shun such a non L product so cannibalizing the wrong herd of cash cows will be kept to a minimum .
Sigma tried three times to get such a lens right. I fell in love with their 2nd attempt but not many did. Their 3rd attempt resulted in a lens as big as their 70-200 2.8 and failed to make any impression.
Now Canon comes along and puts lightweight, stabilization, value and no RFS limit for future upgraders into one product. Sounds sexy or?
This lens is so far only a patent and the optical dimensions make it look like a full frame lens but I believe that fact to be a byproduct.
50-150 slots very nice into the 10-18 and 18-50 row currently occupied by Sigma/Tamron
With any APSC advantages diminishing rapidly after 100mm it makes sense to build a lens which is seen as good quality supplement for poor non pro APSC children of a lesser god like me, while also feeding the cheap R8 clients who jumped for whatever reason onto the fullframe train.
The full frame pros will shun such a non L product so cannibalizing the wrong herd of cash cows will be kept to a minimum .
Sigma tried three times to get such a lens right. I fell in love with their 2nd attempt but not many did. Their 3rd attempt resulted in a lens as big as their 70-200 2.8 and failed to make any impression.
Now Canon comes along and puts lightweight, stabilization, value and no RFS limit for future upgraders into one product. Sounds sexy or?
Upvote
0
It can't meaningfully be done with the equipment we have available because you can't use the same lens to do both at the same time, meaning that there will always be differences in the image created.
The best you could do would be to take a lens such as this and create a system where you can alter the position of the sensor relative to the back of the lens so that when it is at 50mm, the position of the sensor is further back allowing the spread of light to cover more area. that assumes that the photos coming out the back of the lens are coming out at an angle.
It would also require custom firmware to record what comes out of the sensor because I think Canon do the stretching very early so you can never see an unstretched image. And custom software to measure the differences (better than pixel peeping by humans.)
Summary: proper comparison is as good as impossible to do for "normal" people so holding your breath for it to be done would not be healthy.
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
I thought I'd ask Gemini for some numbers on the image circle...
| Feature | 19.96 mm Lens | 21.63 mm Lens | Difference |
| Image Circle Radius | 19.96 mm | 21.63 mm | +1.67 mm |
| Image Circle Diameter | 39.92 mm | 43.26 mm | +3.34 mm |
| Total Projected Area | approx 1251.6 mm^2 | approx 1469.8 mm^2 | +218.2 mm^2 |
Upvote
0
From the EVF to processing, you never have to see the uncorrected image. You don't have to change the way you shoot, you don't have to move anything.
I completely respect people that don't want digital correction, which is why Canon makes lenses for those people (wide fast primes aside).
This is the innovation that is leading to smaller and smaller lenses, which was one of the complaints with mirrorless systems. The cameras were small, but fast lenses were still big.
Upvote
0
At first look, my feeling was the same. This lens would complement Sigma's 10-18mm and 18-50mm very nicely. But it seems to be too large. I would actually expect (or, perhaps hope) that Sigma would come out with something more like a 50-115mm F2.8 that is more compact.
When I look at the table in the article it lests the lens length as:
176.15 (W) and 236.15(T)
I'm assuming these are in mm. When I look at the spects for the RF 70-200 F2.8 (non-Z) & F4 it lists the lens length as:
F4 : 119 (W) and 181(T) (https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Lens-Specifications.aspx?Lens=1529)
F2.8 : 146 (W) and 212(T) (https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Lens-Specifications.aspx?Lens=1417)
Which suggests that the 50-150mm would be longer than both of the current RF L non-z 70-200mm. Am I missing something? Is it just the diameter and weight improvements? Lower price? More versatile focal length range? It really doesn't seem to complete the "non-L f/2.8 trinity".
Upvote
0
The length in the patent application is from the front of the lens to the image plane, so it includes the 20mm flange distance. So you need to substract 20mm from the lens length in the patent application. The lens size would be almost the same as the RF70-200mm f2.8.
See: https://www.canonrumors.com/canons-new-patent-ultra-compact-body-cap-lenses-for-the-rf-mount/
Upvote
0
Similar threads
