Smart people admit their mistakes and learn from them.
Fools don’t, nor do asshats. Those two categories aren’t mutually exclusive, as you effectively demonstrate.
Upvote
0
Canon RF 300-600mm Update…. Again
- Thread starter Canon Rumors
- Start date
Fools don’t, nor do asshats. Those two categories aren’t mutually exclusive, as you effectively demonstrate.
You’re confusing the guy running this site with one of the writers for the site.
Regardless, the R100 is a far more capable camera than the entry-level DSLR that was my first. For many people, it will be the best camera they can afford. It’s a capable camera that can deliver great results in the right hands, if not in yours.
Your opinion of it is irrelevant.
Upvote
0
I start to worry that you are right.
Sigma is building the best lenses for my area of interest (astro), and Canon seems to prefer heavy digital corrections to make it's lenses more video-friendly (were I'm not interested in). So I'm thinking about my way ahead, with or without Canon.
Upvote
0
Canon’s RF lenses aren’t ’modern lenses’? Oh, ok.
Who else makes a 24-105/2.8? Sigma’s ‘modern’ 14/1.4 is twice the weight and far larger than Canon’s RF 14/1.4*.
Question I’ve asked several times that no one has ever answered: Canon RF has a set of three full frame zooms that cover 15mm to 400mm for under $1700, what 3rd party or other OEM kit can cover that range for that cost or less?
* I know, you don’t like the need for distortion correction, that’s fine; I wouldn’t want to carry the Sigma beast along with my other lenses, it’s why the EF 11-24/4 often stayed home but the RF 10-20/4 usually goes in the bag, and that’s also fine. For all its bulk and weight, the Sigma 14/1.4 still has plenty of distortion and vignetting, enough that I’d use a lens profile to correct it anyway.
One could also argue that lenses designed to be smaller, lighter and cheaper by incorporating digital correction into their design are more modern than lenses that are larger, heavier and more expensive than they need to be in this current era where the lens output cannot be seen optically, only digitally.
Upvote
0
One thing I'll never quite get my head around is the status anxiety of Sony users specifically - I don't recall other brands' users spamming these boards with their cult-like devotion. I also find it strange how, if the competition is so inferior, why they feel so anxious to attack everyone else, as if deep down they're not convinced after all.
Upvote
0
Some serious conflation going on here. Maybe you don’t want smaller, lighter, and cheaper lenses…but I think that many photographers do. Lenses like the RF 16/2.8, RF 24/1.8, RF 24-240, and many others require digital correction of distortion and are not ‘hybrid’ lenses.
The hybrid lenses (VCM primes and Z zooms) are just that – hybrid, intended for both photo and video use. What makes you think photography use cases are being sacrificed?
The RF 10-20/4 is not a hybrid lens, has STM for AF, and compared to the EF 11-24/4 is much smaller, less than half the weight, and significantly cheaper. All of those are significant benefits to photographers (and videographers).
The 24-105/2.8 Z is a hybrid lens, and would probably have been prohibitively large and expensive without needing correction at the wide end (Canon never made one for EF). The 70-200/2.8 Z is a hybrid lens and is among the sharpest zoom lenses available from any manufacturer. Sacrifices for video there? Nope.
As I suggested above, the requirement for a lens to ‘fill the image circle’ was imposed by the optical viewfinder and by film as a recording medium. In this modern era, those requirements are passé.
Upvote
0
@neuroanatomist addressed this, but I suggest you take a look at their catalog.
The EF mount had new lens creations for approximately 31 years. Are you expecting the RF mount to be fully fleshed out in just 7-8 years?
As has been mentioned numerous times, it would appear Canon's sales do not reflect that.
Upvote
0
Doesn't matter. Everyone knows that if Canon doesn't meet the various demands of randos on the internet, their sales will suffer. YAPODFC.
Upvote
0
As much as I like aspects of EF lenses, I think that the RF catalog is growing at a sufficient clip. It is also very innovative in terms of speed (both aperture and focus), weight, size, motors, and material.
Any concerns that anyone has expressed about RF lenses vs EF will probably be addressed anyhow. For example, I do see improved MF options and AF is constantly improving. Old lenses are getting firmware updates for FTMF. More balanced options are appearing (more on that in a moment).
Canon is letting third parties with AF on-board, just right now for crop. Crop is not the crown jewel, so it’s low risk for everyone: any issues such as contract disputes, build quality issues, competition to Canon’s own work, etc. can be dealt with more pragmatically by Canon. This is just good business sense and all good businesses address risk.
In terms of full frame options and broader appeal, the fact of the matter is Canon does have a huge inventory of EF options (depending on the model also third party) so there’s just no pressure for a full catalog. Instead, Canon can use this Goldilocks decade caused by the RF reset to rapidly prototype and recoup R&D costs from more eager or new adopters. As that innovative rush calms down and EF stocks dwindle Canon can increasingly turn its attention to any remaining gripes and gaps.
And we are seeing evidence of this:
A quick examination of the EF catalog shows a similar evolution, subject to the industrial capabilities of the times:
I don’t see anything in Canon’s playbook beyond brand premiums (and R&D reclamation) that suggests they aren’t informed in their strategy.
I have no doubt the 300-600 in whatever form will continue the above.
Any concerns that anyone has expressed about RF lenses vs EF will probably be addressed anyhow. For example, I do see improved MF options and AF is constantly improving. Old lenses are getting firmware updates for FTMF. More balanced options are appearing (more on that in a moment).
Canon is letting third parties with AF on-board, just right now for crop. Crop is not the crown jewel, so it’s low risk for everyone: any issues such as contract disputes, build quality issues, competition to Canon’s own work, etc. can be dealt with more pragmatically by Canon. This is just good business sense and all good businesses address risk.
In terms of full frame options and broader appeal, the fact of the matter is Canon does have a huge inventory of EF options (depending on the model also third party) so there’s just no pressure for a full catalog. Instead, Canon can use this Goldilocks decade caused by the RF reset to rapidly prototype and recoup R&D costs from more eager or new adopters. As that innovative rush calms down and EF stocks dwindle Canon can increasingly turn its attention to any remaining gripes and gaps.
And we are seeing evidence of this:
- First only esoteric and ultra-remarkable lenses appeared, like the 28-70 f/2
- Next coverage essentials appeared, but with informed experiments: like the tiny but zooming 70-200 range; cheap by long-reaching 800 f/11 prime
- Next a broad set of entry or casual but convenient lenses like pancakes but with experimental lens material like plastics
- Next a suite of like primes that meet photography needs and include essentials for the (larger) video curious market. New motor technology that brings the best of all worlds is further refined.
- Next we see a lot of lessons learned, and gripes like the loss of internal zoom, return for popular ranges.
A quick examination of the EF catalog shows a similar evolution, subject to the industrial capabilities of the times:
View by series – Lens Hall - Canon Camera Museum
Search Canon's lenses by product series and release period.
global.canon
I don’t see anything in Canon’s playbook beyond brand premiums (and R&D reclamation) that suggests they aren’t informed in their strategy.
I have no doubt the 300-600 in whatever form will continue the above.
Upvote
0
I agree with your position if you are simply showing a clinical evaluation of a lens, but there is also the option of showing what is possible with that same lens and that is where our approaches differ. This is particularly true with mirrors, since the central obstruction inherently reduces contrast pretty dramatically, so any kind of natural-looking image requires a contrast boost in post at the very least.
Upvote
0
Yup. Just to add:
Back in the olden days we had lenses with mechanical focus rings and a mechanical aperture rings. As lenses became more "modern", we first lost mechanical aperture control. Then came focus-by-wire. Then came mandatory distortion corrections.
None of these developments were to appease videographers. If anything, aperture rings have made a comeback to appease videographers, to the joy of old-school stills shooters.
Personally speaking I'm amazed that we still have mechanical zoom rings. You'd think that zoom would go fly-by-wire to allow videographers to do programmable zoom pulls. So IMO it is stills photographers who are being appeased.
Upvote
0
When I started taking pictures more seriously (not counting 'playing' with an Argus TLR as a child), mechanical focus rings had only me for the motor, and the camera's frame rate was determined by how fast my thumb could move the film advance lever. Getting my first auto-aperture lenses was a treat.
There is one such ILC lens from Canon, the RF-S 14-30mm F4-6.3 IS STM PZ (PZ = power zoom). The two L-series Z zooms get power zoom functionality with an attachment.
Upvote
0
Yes, and for astro (which is what the Sigma is specifically designed for) the Sigma is by far the superior lens, while being 30% less expensive. If you want a lens for video on a gimbal, the Canon is the right lens and the Sigma would be ridiculous if not impossible.
So, from Canon we have:
RF 15-30 f4.5-6.3 IS STM at $539
RF 24-105mm f/4-7.1 IS STM at $459
RF 100-400mm F5.6-8 IS USM at $699
$1697 (current prices on B&H)
On E mount you can get:
Tamron 17-50mm f/4 Di III VXD at $599
Tamron 50-400mm f/4.5-6.3 Di III VC VXD at $1199
$1798 (current prices on B&H)
So, the Tamron pair is a hundred bucks (6%) more expensive and 2mm narrower on the wide end. However, they are actual legit premium lenses, both of which have extremely fast magnetic linear drive motors. And there's only two of them which means less lens swapping and less to carry.
The Canon lenses meanwhile are decidedly entry level, have much MUCH smaller apertures, and two of them use slow STM for AF. On the plus side, while the f7.1 is IMO atrocious, 24-105 is a convenient daily carry range.
I would take the Tamron pair every time as the Canon glass is just too slow (both in aperture and STM...) I suspect if the Tamron glass was available on RF, many RF users would make exactly the same choice. Of course, they are not permitted to have that option.
I'm not personally against corrected lenses. Sony does it too, and it makes sense. It's really the Nikon fanboys who freak out about it the most, but the trade-off is that their lenses (especially the f1.2 primes) are HUGE and very expensive. IMO it's not a good trade.
Upvote
0
Sony users aren't anxious. Personally I hate that Canon has stopped pushing things forward with large scale R&D spending & innovation and instead is coasting with things like yet another revision of the ancient FSI sensor in the R6 III and selling rebadged EF super teles as RF glass. The 800 and 1200 in particular are abominations that would have been absolutely unthinkable for Canon to do in days gone by.
I want the Canon of 20 or 30 years ago to return.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
