For many people that I know who chose Sony.for you??
35 mm is crucial to some people.
Upvote
0
For many people that I know who chose Sony.for you??
Worth noting the RF 35L is smaller and lighter than its EF predecessor, and takes a smaller filter size. I suspect that means we will see some degree of digital correction required, but time will tell.A 35mm 1.4 prime the size of this lens shouldn't need that much distortion correction. The RF 35 1.8 Macro doesn't have much, so I'm not expecting it here on this L lens either.
would they migrate to Canon based on the new lens?For many people that I know who chose Sony.
35 mm is crucial to some people.
No, you can only switch away from Canon. It is possible to do that multiple times, however.would they migrate to Canon based on the new lens?
That's pretty self explanatory, it's an excessive amount of lens corrections that was previously not seen by any L-series lens before it. My full quote in context is "This was the first lens I encountered from Canon that leaned on ridiculous distortion corrections to generate a usable image. After I got over that, there was no denying that the photos looked spectacular and somehow remain very sharp." Meaning I was surprised at how significant the corrections were, but there was no denying the final results looked excellent.What's ridiculous about this?
To my mind, lens design is always a big tradeoff game: improve one spec and another gets worse. Distortion is one aberration that can be totally corrected in software and I believe undetectably so, so any time you can improve any other aspect of the lens--be it size, weight, cost, autofocus speed, out of focus highlight shapes and disk contours, lateral chromatic aberration, or any other, and make distortion worse... and then correct the distortion perfectly in software--you're far ahead, no? Would you prefer less distortion and more of other aberrations that cannot be easily and perfectly corrected?
Canon is DOOMED™No, you can only switch away from Canon. It is possible to do that multiple times, however.
I read your whole post several times. I'm still at a loss what's ridiculous about it? It seems like the smartest possible move to me.it's an excessive amount of lens corrections that was previously not seen by any L-series lens before it. My full quote in context is "This was the first lens I encountered from Canon that leaned on ridiculous distortion corrections to generate a usable image.
He means a lot. That's it.I read your whole post several times. I'm still at a loss what's ridiculous about it?
They left early because there was no mirrorless 35 L option at all.would they migrate to Canon based on the new lens?
Yes, IS would have been nice. I can't imagine anyone not happy with the EF 35mm f1.4L II.They left early because there was no mirrorless 35 L option at all.
They did not leave now.
This lens would have made most of them happy.
They did not like either the EF 35 L or the RF 35 f/1.8.
I love the RF 35 f/1.8 but it has issues in the corners.
The way I use it, the corners do not matter much.
IS does, so I will not be getting this lens.
I am disappointed but I am not angry.
I agree.. but an interesting article on non-optical lens solution ieWhat's ridiculous about this?
To my mind, lens design is always a big tradeoff game: improve one spec and another gets worse. Distortion is one aberration that can be totally corrected in software and I believe undetectably so, so any time you can improve any other aspect of the lens--be it size, weight, cost, autofocus speed, out of focus highlight shapes and disk contours, lateral chromatic aberration, or any other, and make distortion worse... and then correct the distortion perfectly in software--you're far ahead, no? Would you prefer less distortion and more of other aberrations that cannot be easily and perfectly corrected?
My guess would be weight.I'd like to understand why the new RF lens has more space between the lens elements and the outer shell of the lens barrel, yet Canon chose not to include IS. I've never missed IS with my current ef 35mm f/1.4L II with the R5's IBIS, but I'd just like to understand this new lens's design a little better. (Sorry I couldn't find a direct, side by side comparison of both lenses straight on.)
Thanks.
I suspect that adding IS to one of the lensgroups would have changed the barrel designs significantly, increasing the diameter significantly (1cm/half an inch) and needing more material to strengthen the construction.Does the IS mechanism really weigh so much?
Not much room between the lens elements of the current design.I'd like to understand why the new RF lens has more space between the lens elements and the outer shell of the lens barrel, yet Canon chose not to include IS.
I frankly don't know if IS focus groups can simply be added to any lens design, or whether it requires compromises to the overall design in order to make it possible to stabilize images with such a group. I'm leaning towards the latter though. I'd guess the same lens with IS would be bigger, heavier, and more expensive, but ALSO not as sharp, have worse aberrations, distortion, OOF highlight shapes, slower AF, focus breathing, etc. etc.My guess would be weight.
Actually I meant to add a note to that effect.No doubt Canon could have designed it with IS, but evidently it wasn’t a priority.