Five Canon RF lenses show up for certification

[Ozarker]

Canon's, in recent years, has proved they can lay an egg.

Today I took possession of the Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III ($12 pawn shop find). It will be the "birding" lens for my wife's Olympus. If we'd like to talk about rotten eggs being laid, I think that lens is a good start. Somehow I don't believe the upcoming RF 100-500mm will be in that category by a long shot. On the other hand a photo is what we make it. No amount of money or lens design expertise can fix a rotten photo. A good photographer will do well most times, when he's trying.

 

[KeithBreazeal]

Offering affordable lenses with appealing focal lengths is the only way to attract that portion of prospective mirrorless buyers that don't have the ability to throw down 10-15K for a couple of the amazingly good RF lenses. These lower cost lenses will also help compete with third party RF mounts. Slower lenses on a DSLR results in a dim image through the viewfinder whereas the EVF remains bright, making them the equivalent brightness of a faster lens, resulting in easier subject tracking and using manual focus. This is what I experienced when I mounted my 100-400L on my M5 and is one of the major factors in my decision to move to the R series mirrorless.

 

[slclick]

Everything to do with the 7.1 be it on the 24-105 or the 100-500 is a load of nothing until they get tried and tested. 98% of all posts could use a good dose of 'might be' and "I'm guessing that..." instead of the ignorant determination and soothsaying we are experiencing.

 

[AlanF]

Today I took possession of the Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III ($12 pawn shop find). It will be the "birding" lens for my wife's Olympus. If we'd like to talk about rotten eggs being laid, I think that lens is a good start. Somehow I don't believe the upcoming RF 100-500mm will be in that category by a long shot. On the other hand a photo is what we make it. No amount of money or lens design expertise can fix a rotten photo. A good photographer will do well most times, when he's trying.

I see from your signature you have sold the RF 50/1.2. Any particular reason?

 

[slclick]

I see from your signature you have sold the RF 50/1.2. Any particular reason?

 

[Ozarker]

I see from your signature you have sold the RF 50/1.2. Any particular reason?

It is a great lens. I think, though, my 28-70 covers that focal length more than well enough for me. A good friend is always telling me I need a 50mm fast prime for portrait and fashion work. I tried, but I just don't like 50mm for portraits. So, I sold the 50 and hope to hang onto the cash for when a 135mm gets issued. Nothing against the lens at all.

 

[AlanF]

It is a great lens. I think, though, my 28-70 covers that focal length more than well enough for me. A good friend is always telling me I need a 50mm fast prime for portrait and fashion work. I tried, but I just don't like 50mm for portraits. So, I sold the 50 and hope to hang onto the cash for when a 135mm gets issued. Nothing against the lens at all.

Thanks.

 

[David - Sydney]

This makes me think of the presumed 100-500 as a 100-400 with a built in 1.25x extender!

but hopefully sharper @ 500mm! As long as it is close to f5.6 @400mm, people won't complain too much.

 

[Deleted member 381342]

but hopefully sharper @ 500mm! As long as it is close to f5.6 @400mm, people won't complain too much.

This is the lens they did a development release for, I think it is going to be rather exceptional. At least Canon seem to think it is a big deal, more so than what the teleconverters are getting shoved on.

 

[uri.raz]

The real question is whether this applies to Canon's camera department, or to the collective hive mind here? ;-)

That depends on how many people are there in each of those groups.

 

[scyrene]

The 50 L is a “no compromise lens”?? No, the 200 f2.0 L is a no compromise lens, it’s nearly flawless in every aspect, but it is very heavy and very expensive. Same goes for the 28-70 f2.0 and RF85 etc. Same goes for the Otus range. To me the EF 50 L is all about compromise.

There's no such thing as no compromise. The 200L f/2's chief compromises are its size and cost.

 

[derpderp]

Yes and none of that disagrees with my point that 'image IQ' is a subjective term that we should not fall into the trap of narrowing down to sharpness and contrast. It might seem unbelievable but the aberrations in the EF 50mm f1.2L are deliberate, they wanted it to look like that so should that be judged as a fault or just a lens you don't like because Canon's idea of rendering for that one lens isn't the same as yours. For sure other lenses have compromises for cost, features etc etc, but the EF 50 f1.2L, the EF 85 f1.2L and the EF 200 f1.8 L were no compromise lenses.

There are countless working pros who love the EF 50 f1.2L and the look it gives them, indeed as time moves on I think image character will be a bigger and bigger defining aspect between pro and non pro images, after all anybody can buy sharp lenses and good AF, but you can't post process the look an EF 50 f1.2L gives a portfolio.

Whatever drug you're taking, I want some of that.

'IQ', or image quality, has always been primarily about sharpness and contrast. It is quantifiable and objective. Aberrations often arise because of (1) technical capabilities at the time, (2) as a result of compromises made between weight, price and other salient considerations, or (3) limitations due to physics. So please don't try to confuse others by suggesting that IQ is not mostly about sharpness and contrast, or as if the presence of aberrations that lends 'character' to the resultant image means that u can place a lens that is not as sharp to be on equal footing with a sharper lens.

Image character, however, is certainly subjective. The combination of aberrations, sharpness, contrast and all of the other optical qualities will certainly change the rendering of the same image by different lenses.

I'm glad you like your EF 50 f1.2L, but no one in the right mind would say that the IQ of that lens is on par with the RF 50 f1.2L, because it certainly isn't by a mile.

 

[privatebydesign]

.... EF 50 f1.2L, but no one in the right mind would say that the IQ of that lens is on par with the RF 50 f1.2L, because it certainly isn't by a mile.

In your subjective opinion. Personally it sounds to me like you have fallen into the trap I outlined....

Now from a usability point of view I might agree with you but from a detached IQ point of view I don't see it, and given the fact the street price puts the RF 50 at twice the price of the EF version I'm sure there will be many EF 50 f1.2 owners for many years.

 

[SecureGSM]

“Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him” (26:4)

Or

“Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit” (26:5)

hmmmm... confusing