And it’s all about IQ. Even Kodachrome 25 was, according to Kodak, no more than about 18MP in resolution. I agree. Even a 24MP camera NEEDS a better lens than film. Move to over 30Mp and the requirements are much stricter.Like the tiny M42 screw mount manual lenses. All my f/1.4s are tiny tiny. Even the 200mm (not f/1.4) is tiny compared to what there is now... but the IQ isn't as good, depending on personal taste.
Absolutely. My problem is my old eyes. The focus peaking on the R has really helped with that as opposed to my 5D Mark III. Both are good cameras.And it’s all about IQ. Even Kodachrome 25 was, according to Kodak, no more than about 18MP in resolution. I agree. Even a 24MP camera NEEDS a better lens than film. Move to over 30Mp and the requirements are much stricter.
35mm is a studio lens for a number applications being: boudoir, large studio editorials, commercial being some amongst others. the utility of F1.2 for such applications and in a controlled light settings is questionable in my opinion.I know. This 1.8/35 macro is nothing special optically and it is no L lens. The Canon RL primes strategy is wrong, just wrong: 35mm is no studio FL, it is the most used FL when it comes to primes. Will we take a set of 1.2 primes with a trolley around the house? Hiking with f1.2? These extrafast primes feed pride of ownership and are fascinating techwise, but be honest, the majority of excellent pictures are shot at around f5.6-f8. Excellent small primes for 'small mirroless' is a lost chance by Canon. I really am disappointed. Sorry.
.... or, when in very low light situation, because DoF even At F1.2 will be quite deep, you can set distance to subject manually and switch to manual focusing. Takes care of the focusing delay, happy days.As an events photographer, i'd expect this to focus at f1.2 in difficult low light conditions then step down to say f4 for the actual shot.
Agreed! I need a 35/2-non-macro-non-IS and a 50/1.8 to choose between to have my R in my backpack every day of the week.Kudos to Canon for pushing lens design to dizzying heights, but I just want an excellent set of small modest primes for the RF: f/1.4 to f/1.8 is fine, and a 20mm f/2.8.
I'd like to see a 135mm f/1.0 DS. Basically, stopped down to f/1.4, it'd give entirely round highlights center to corner, then the DS would turn those into fluffy cotton balls. The front would be about the size of a 400/2.8 or 600/4 so I imagine an $8000 specialty lens. Yet they're already asking (and getting!) $2500 for the 50 and 85 1.2's.And how about a pair of telephotos: RF 100mm f/1.4 and a 135mm f/1.4?
I think the conceit of smaller lenses for mirrorless has been dispensed with. I have seen almost no new lenses that are smaller than their predecessors. The RF 24-105 is slightly smaller and lighter but scarcely a revelation in packaging. In addition the IQ requirements of the newest sensors (not to mention the fanboy peepers) demand lens formulae that are much larger as first evidenced by the Zeiss Otus line.Let’s not forget that lenses have been getting bigger for years. How many people here remember whn 50mm f1.8-2.0 lenses had 6 elements, and f1.4 had 7? These days are long gone. now a 1.4 is as large as a 135 f2.8 used to be, and often, heavier. Mirrorless supposedly gets these lenses slightly smaller and lighter. So I imagine Canon is thinking that they can make f1.2 that’s not that much bigger than DSLR f1.4 lenses.
My...aren't we delightful. Welcome to the forum. We are so lucky to have someone of your caliber here to enlighten all the starving penny pinchers and bargain basement lens buyers.Did you run a study on Zeiss after they released the $4500 Otus lenses .. the manual focus ones?
Canon's new lenses are not uber expensive. And I doubt they need to make low price budget lenses right now. The starving penny pinchers can merely adapt the nifty fifty to an RF body, and that's likely what the bargain basement lens buyers will do.
Personally, I like great glass, so I enjoy what they are making. And it's nice being able to select from EF or RF glass.
I've certainly been around enough to understand the shrinking market. And, no, the professional market is not growing.You need to understand the market segment that is shrinking. The shrinking segment by far is the consumer market. The Pro market is actually growing (or at the very least, flat). So who is Canon targeting with the early RF lens line-up? Pro's and well-heeled advanced amateurs/hobbyists. People denigrate the 2 early bodies that Canon released for this reason or that but most that do so, have not actually used either body and played around with the files, etc.
By also implementing 2 different types of adapters for EF/EF-S to RF they've actually managed to improve performance and functionality of the older lenses when one chooses the adapter that has the control ring on it...
That would be great. The Sigma 20mm 1.4 is the only non L lens in my Canon kit. It misses focus a bunch and takes a bit of post-work to color match but until Canon makes something like that, it's the only fast superwide prime option I know of.I hope they make a 16mm f1.2 as well.
Yes, agreed! I own the M5 and also have previously had the M10. The EF-M 22mm (actually an f/2, not a f/2.8 as written above) - is a great lens on both cameras. It's so small and light, a handy focal length, and yet has great image quality. It would also shine even more on a Canon mirrorless with in-body-image-stabilisation (IBIS) if Canon would come produce camera bodies with that technology. I love my EF-M 22mm f/2, great as a casual street lens, and lens to capture 'people within their environment'.You need a M5 or M6 with the EF-M 22mm f2.8. That is your light-weight, hiking/all-day use kit that still provides excellent IQ in a very compact but still 35mm FOV equivalency (on these APS-C bodies).
I really disliked focus peaking with my Leica M 240, poorly implemented with the accessory EVF.Absolutely. My problem is my old eyes. The focus peaking on the R has really helped with that as opposed to my 5D Mark III. Both are good cameras.