Canon High End Mirrorless Camera Talk [CR2]

[SecureGSM]

firstly, do not embarrass yourself making such an unwarranted statements as you have just made.
what Mt. Spokane Photography said is perfectly correct UNLESS we are talking UWA lenses. there you have it. The example you have made is about UWA lenses. yes, Sony 12-24 is a good example of short flange distance advantage in UWA range. but now let's see what happens in 85mm+ focal range. or even look at 24-70 GM and 70-200 GM, compare to Canon similar lenses and see for yourself.
this is what I was told many many years ago: listen, learn, gain knowledge and only then speak out.

If Canon need new mount, Canon make it.

EF & EF-S on mirrorless is not perfect. Like square peg in round hole.

Canon has already patented a ff mount for mirrorless. So, yes, it can be made. The real issue is that pro level users know that high end lenses do not get any smaller for mirrorless bodies, so any overall size reduction is minimal.

Both Canon EF 11-24 and Sony 12-24 pro level, yes?
What is size difference?

Size not make lens "high end." "High end" lens not need be big. F-number and focal length determine size. Leica have high end lens. Leica lens not big. Are Leica lens for pro?

See lens on front large format camera? This for pro? How big?

Lens size result of many things. Size not requirement for pro.

 

[snoke]

firstly, do not embarrass yourself making such an unwarranted statements as you have just made.
what Mt. Spokane Photography said is perfectly correct UNLESS we are talking UWA lenses. there you have it.

No! Assumption for pro lens = big lens. Next you say "oh, exception here".

How you define "pro" for lens?

Canon have no "pro" lens, only "Cinema", "EF" and "Broadcast"

https://www.usa.canon.com/internet/portal/us/home/products/groups/lenses

"pro" is the person, not lens/camera.

 

[SecureGSM]

oh, I love definitions!
Any Canon lens with "L" designation can be considered a "Pro" quality lens.

Incorrect definition of Pro Lens can be found here :

https://www.outdoorphotographer.com/photography-gear/cameras/whats-in-a-pro-lens/

Correct definition:

The lens that was designed to withstand regular operation in commercial environment, regular heavy use cycles, neglect and abuse, is highly serviceable and built to standards and requirements of professional photographers and videographers.

Now, tell me this: looking at the definition what PRO lens or BODY is, do you believe any of SONY E-Mount MILC bodies are of PRO grade? If yes, then think again.
Can a pro photog shoot with non-pro body or lens? oh, absolutely so and with a little bit of luck that lens or body may survive for certain period of time. How long for thought? that depends on how lucky that photog is

firstly, do not embarrass yourself making such an unwarranted statements as you have just made.
what Mt. Spokane Photography said is perfectly correct UNLESS we are talking UWA lenses. there you have it.

No! Assumption for pro lens = big lens. Next you say "oh, exception here".

How you define "pro" for lens?

Canon have no "pro" lens, only "Cinema", "EF" and "Broadcast"

https://www.usa.canon.com/internet/portal/us/home/products/groups/lenses

"pro" is the person, not lens/camera.

 

[snoke]

oh, I love definitions!
...
Correct definition:

The lens that was designed to withstand regular operation in commercial environment, regular heavy use cycles, neglect and abuse, is highly serviceable and built to standards and requirements of professional photographers and videographers.

Where this from?

Look like you want define pro to match what in your head.

Now, tell me this: looking at the definition what PRO lens or BODY is, do you believe any of SONY E-Mount MILC bodies are of PRO grade? If yes, then think again.

Talk was about lens now about camera? When change?

Maybe you use word "pro" as adjective for special meaning that not anything to do with professional photographer?

 

[SecureGSM]

the question was: How you define "pro" for lens?
so I have defined the way I understand PRO lens designation.
to your knowledge the word PRO is short for Professional, it is an adjective and should be used accordingly.
Professional lens, Professional body, professional quality, professional photographer, you get the gist anyway.
The Pro designation has nothing to do with the shape, colour, weight, taste, age, race or gender of the subject.
But that is ok to disagree

oh, I love definitions!
...
Correct definition:

The lens that was designed to withstand regular operation in commercial environment, regular heavy use cycles, neglect and abuse, is highly serviceable and built to standards and requirements of professional photographers and videographers.

Where this from?

Look like you want define pro to match what in your head.

Now, tell me this: looking at the definition what PRO lens or BODY is, do you believe any of SONY E-Mount MILC bodies are of PRO grade? If yes, then think again.

Talk was about lens now about camera? When change?

Maybe you use word "pro" as adjective for special meaning that not anything to do with professional photographer?

 

[snoke]

the question was: How you define "pro" for lens?
so I have defined the way I understand PRO lens designation.
to your knowledge the word PRO is short for Professional, it is an adjective and should be used accordingly.
Professional lens, Professional body, professional quality, professional photographer, you get the gist anyway.
The Pro designation has nothing to do with the shape, colour, weight, taste, age, race or gender of the subject.
But that is ok to disagree

Ah! Clarity. Yes, you define "pro" your way If you happy with your use, cannot argue. Everyone not think same.

BUT.

That your definition. Must remember it Not everyone have same definition.

 

[Loswr]

No! Assumption for pro lens = big lens. Next you say "oh, exception here".

How you define "pro" for lens?

Canon have no "pro" lens, only "Cinema", "EF" and "Broadcast"

https://www.usa.canon.com/internet/portal/us/home/products/groups/lenses

"pro" is the person, not lens/camera.

How does Canon define it? L-series = professional.

[quote author=Canon in EF Lens Work III: The Eyes of EOS]
The Canon EF lens L series possesses a level of quality sufficiently high to be called professional,
designed to include groundbreaking image performance, outstanding operability, and resistance to weather and aging.
[/quote]

[quote author=Inside Canon’s 2010 L-series lenses]
In August 2010 Canon enhanced its L-series range of professional lenses with the announcement of four lenses – the EF300mm f/2.8L IS II USM, the EF400mm f/2.8L IS II USM, the EF8-15mm f/4L Fisheye USM and the EF70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS USM – plus the EF1.4x III and EF2x III Extenders.
[/quote]

 

[snoke]

How does Canon define it? L-series = professional.

Ha!

Lens not need be big, just red ring.

 

[jolyonralph]

And repeat Sony's mistake? No thank you. With that short of a flange distance you have problems for the new native lenses. Unless, like Sony realized, you need to make the lenses even larger to add distance in the back of the lens to make up for the too short flange distance. Check out reviews of their kit lenses if you aren't sure about the poor IQ away from the center.

Well, you only selected one lens, the less-than stellar FE 24-70 f/4 to back up your argument. How about comparing some of the primes?

http://www.imaging-resource.com/lenses/sony/fe-55mm-f1.8-za-carl-zeiss-sonnar-t-sel55f18z/review/
http://www.imaging-resource.com/lenses/sony/fe-35mm-f2.8-za-carl-zeiss-sonnar-t-sel35f28z/review/

These are the two lenses that I use practically all the time on my A7RII. In fact, I've been away overseas before travelling light with just the A7RII and the 35mm lens and was delighted with what I could do with such a light combination.

A FF mirrorless allows you to use different kit in a different way to a DSLR. Now, I'm the first to admit I use the 5DSR about five times more than I use the A7RII - but I am very glad that I have both (and yes, I know I'm lucky!)

 

[Loswr]

How does Canon define it? L-series = professional.

Ha!

Lens not need be big, just red ring.

Need not be big. But usually are. Also, generally bigger than their non-professional counterparts.

 

[jolyonralph]

Plus, and I hate to have to say this every single time someone raises the flange distance thing. Having a shorter flange distance allows you to make lenses where the rear element is closer to the sensor, but it also allows you to have lenses with the rear elements further back. You have more flexibility in lens design which you don't have with the EF mount.

So, it's up to lens designers to decide whether you want something that has maximum quality regardless of size and weight, or something that is maybe a little more limited in aperture, but is more compact. Exactly as Sony has done (35mm f/1.4 vs 35mmm f/2.8 for example)

The Mirrorless mount gives you MORE flexibility, and does not put any limits on what the quality of such lenses will be.

Just pointless fearmongering.

 

[Loswr]

The Mirrorless mount gives you MORE flexibility, and does not put any limits on what the quality of such lenses will be.

Just pointless fearmongering.

True...the limits are imposed by optical physics. If you prefer to think of that as 'pointless fearmongering', that's your choice.

 

[Khalai]

The Mirrorless mount gives you MORE flexibility, and does not put any limits on what the quality of such lenses will be.

Just pointless fearmongering.

That is correct only to an extent of wide angle lenses. For telephoto, you can't beat physics, if you want a fast lens. 70-200/2.8 will have to have an iris opening of approx 72 mm in diameter. How exactly are you going to shrink that will shorter flange distance is honestly beyond me.

And look at Otus lenses. They are not small, nor light to provide ultimate optical performance.

Now, don't get me wrong. I'm mighty envious of Zeiss Loxia lenses that only Sony users have access to. And those two lenses you mentioned from Zeiss (55 and 35) are also very desirable. But as long as you reach for telephoto, you lose any mirrorless advantage. Look at 135 Batis. They had to go with f/2.8 (instead of f/2 as DSLR counterpart lens from Zeiss) to keep it manageable in size. There is no free lunch...

 

[Don Haines]

Plus, and I hate to have to say this every single time someone raises the flange distance thing. Having a shorter flange distance allows you to make lenses where the rear element is closer to the sensor, but it also allows you to have lenses with the rear elements further back. You have more flexibility in lens design which you don't have with the EF mount.

So, it's up to lens designers to decide whether you want something that has maximum quality regardless of size and weight, or something that is maybe a little more limited in aperture, but is more compact. Exactly as Sony has done (35mm f/1.4 vs 35mmm f/2.8 for example)

The Mirrorless mount gives you MORE flexibility, and does not put any limits on what the quality of such lenses will be.

Just pointless fearmongering.

There is this "minor" problem of chromatic aberration. This is caused by different frequencies of light refracting a different amount as they go through the interface from air to lens material, or from lens material to air. As a result, the prism effect happens and light of different frequencies changes from a point to a rainbow. Good lens design counters this problem, and in some cases, makes it almost disappear. This is the main reason why your prime lenses have 13 to 19 lens elements and not just two.

One of the characteristics of chromatic aberration is that the sharper you bend the light, the greater the problem. A sharper bend requires more curvature, which requires a thicker chunk of glass. The thicker the chunk of glass, the more distance there is for different frequencies to separate, and the greater the chromatic aberration becomes. This is why lenses like the 600F4 are so long. It is a trivial problem to make the lens shorter for a single frequency of light, but as we open the passband to allow light from red to violet, we end up with chromatic aberration, and as a result, to keep it to an acceptable level, we end up with a lens with 16 elements and almost a half meter long.

The same holds true for all lenses, zoom or prime, from any manufacturer. We end up with the problem of the shorter the flange distance, the sharper you have to bend the light, and the more complex (and worse behaving) the lens becomes.

This is physics.... and this is just one small factor in why modern lens design is done on computers and has become mind-blowingly complex.

 

[jolyonralph]

We end up with the problem of the shorter the flange distance, the sharper you have to bend the light

As I mentioned earlier, the flange distance is irrelevant. It has absolutely nothing to do with the optics of the lens.

All the flange distance does is put a minimum restriction on the distance between the rear element of the lens and the sensor.

Now, I will say this again.

This is a minimum distance. It is not a maximum distance. You can build a lens with a 10cm gap between the sensor and the rear element should you wish.

I have the Sony FE 28-70 3.5-5.6 cheap zoom here. When you look inside the rear element way inside the lens, far from the mount (probably means it was a recycled A mount design)


But the shorter flange distance does give designers the ability to produce lenses that are unique for this system. Will they have to be more complex because of the limitations of optics? of course. Does that mean that they are inevitably terrible lenses? NO.


For all those saying that this isn't possible, go out and try the Sony FE 35mm 2.8 and 55mm 1.8 lenses - use them and then tell me that full frame lenses for an EF-M mount are pointless.

 

[dak723]

We end up with the problem of the shorter the flange distance, the sharper you have to bend the light

As I mentioned earlier, the flange distance is irrelevant. It has absolutely nothing to do with the optics of the lens.

Sorry, you can mention it all you want, but as others have pointed out, there are problems with short flange distances. Yes, it is not the flange distance itself that is the problem, but when camera makers have used the short flange distance, it is to create a smaller camera/lens package. So they will make lenses as small as possible and NOT always create more space in the back of the lens to offset the problems caused by the short flange distance. If Canon (or any other camera maker) guarantees that they will add distance to the back of the lens - and let us know the distance, well, then I guess there is no problem. Since I think that possibility is zero to none, there will be an issue if Canon elects to use the EF-M flange distance with a FF camera. It seems much easier for them to just use a larger flange distance and make lenses as small as possible.

 

[Don Haines]

We end up with the problem of the shorter the flange distance, the sharper you have to bend the light

As I mentioned earlier, the flange distance is irrelevant. It has absolutely nothing to do with the optics of the lens.

Quite sorry, but you are wrong. Flange distance is a parameter of lens design. All parameters affect each other. Some choices are best for long lenses, some are best for wide angle lenses, but there is no such thing as a flange distance which is the best choice for all lens types. Everyone has chosen the flange distance that (on average) fits their intended system best,

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS ONE DESIGN OR ONE DISTANCE THAT IS THE BEST FOR ALL CASES!

 

[snoke]

How does Canon define it? L-series = professional.

Ha!

Lens not need be big, just red ring.

Need not be big. But usually are. Also, generally bigger than their non-professional counterparts.

Size determine by focal length and aperture. Cannot make 300/2.8 small. If must be big, want customer to think they get value for money.

Leica is for pro and Leica lens small. Small can be pro too.

 

[jolyonralph]

Sorry, you can mention it all you want, but as others have pointed out, there are problems with short flange distances. Yes, it is not the flange distance itself that is the problem, but when camera makers have used the short flange distance, it is to create a smaller camera/lens package.

And yet Sony/Zeiss seem to have achieved the impossible with their 35mm f/2.8 and 55mm f/1.8 lenses then.

Have you actually tried these lenses?

 

[Don Haines]

Sorry, you can mention it all you want, but as others have pointed out, there are problems with short flange distances. Yes, it is not the flange distance itself that is the problem, but when camera makers have used the short flange distance, it is to create a smaller camera/lens package.

And yet Sony/Zeiss seem to have achieved the impossible with their 35mm f/2.8 and 55mm f/1.8 lenses then.

Have you actually tried these lenses?

Wide angle lenses benefit from a short flange distance, just as long lenses suffer..... it's back to that problem of design compromises.....