Are you saying a mirrorless camera will not be associated with Canon?Are you saying that brand recognition is not a priority for Canon anymore?
Upvote
0
Are you saying a mirrorless camera will not be associated with Canon?Are you saying that brand recognition is not a priority for Canon anymore?
This, from Sony IBIS, indicates that it is effective for long focal lengths. Of course there will be some implementation differences.Is IBIS effective for the focal length of 135mm (not the "135mm equivalent" for a tiny sensor, but the real 135mm)?
If it's a non-Canon mirrorless camera.Are you saying a mirrorless camera will not be associated with Canon?
Sure, the 50mm f/1.8 "Mk I" and the 35mm f/2.0 "non-IS" are what I'm talking about. Basically, the lens might as well be as deep as the R's grip; any shallower doesn't make the system as a whole shallower. The 35mm/1.8ISMac is twice the size I'd like in an every-day lens, in part from IS and in part from macro capability I think. Though of course AF and the control ring also make it bigger. (I'm using a Leica 35/1.4 ASPH as my "always in the backpack" lens until Canon comes up with something cheaper and native.)
(I tried my 50mm f/1.8 "Mk I" on an adapter but the combined size is the size of the RF 35mm, which is twice as big as I want.)
(I also tried the 45mm and 28mm pancakes on an adapter and while the resulting size is almost right, they're still a little too big, and also for the amount of space they take up they should be a 1-1 1/3 stops brighter than they are.)
For that with a front element at least 200mm you may need to sell both kidneys and may be your Liver as well.I would love to see a RF 400mm f/2.0 @ the same size/weight as current model.
DSLR is sun setting. No point in developing it further. Producing them up to 2028 , at most, makes sense.If it's a non-Canon mirrorless camera.
If it's a Canon DSLR, it will be assoicated with Canon.
By putting the lens about 3/4" closer to the sensor (film plane), they should be able to achieve better than the current f/2.8 aperture of the 400mm lens. I think f/2.0 is doable.For that with a front element at least 200mm you may need to sell both kidneys and may be your Liver as well.
Trey, I’d like to introduce you to Physics...it appears that you haven’t met.By putting the lens about 3/4" closer to the sensor (film plane), they should be able to achieve better than the current f/2.8 aperture of the 400mm lens. I think f/2.0 is doable.
I would, if I hadn't already sold my little brain for all my current lenses and cameras.For that with a front element at least 200mm you may need to sell both kidneys and may be your Liver as well.
ILC is sun setting.DSLR is sun setting.
No point in developing a new pro sports camera for release before 2020 Olympics?No point in developing it further.
I am happy to defend the 200 f2.8LII. I got one used a couple of months ago, and I love it. Reasonably small and light (just a little bit bigger than the 135L), fast to focus, sharp across the frame at f2.8, and beautiful bookeh! It made me sell the 70-200 f2.8LIII I got on sale on black friday last november without thinking twice.Never owned a 135 f2 but shot with one once. Nice focal length and fast AF. But big dopey aperture leaves gave angular bokeh. 70-200 II had much nicer bokeh.
Sharp? It was in the film era, but is outclassed now:
Canon EF 135mm f/2L USM Lens Image Quality
View the image quality delivered by the Canon EF 135mm f/2L USM Lens using ISO 12233 Resolution Chart lab test results. Compare the image quality of this lens with other lenses.www.the-digital-picture.com
And close it down to 2.8 and guess what is just as good? The 70-200 II again.
Yes, there are some old sharp lenses; Canon 200 1.8 and 300 2.8 and the Mamiya 300 5.6 being examples. But the mid-tier mid-90s lenses like the 135 were designed down to a budget. It's a disgrace that they're still in the catalogue.
So who's next up to defend the 200 2.8 II? Canon will still take a grand of your cash for that dinosaur.
+ hyper expensive^^
But I'm talking about RF flange, larger rear aperture.Trey, I’d like to introduce you to Physics...it appears that you haven’t met.
For any lens, the entrance pupil (which is the optica representation of the physical aperture) needs to be filled with light. For telephoto lenses, the entrance pupil is essentially at the front element, meaning you need a front element about the same size as the physical aperture, which is focal length / f-number. A 400mm f/2.0 lens would need a 200mm diameter front element. A shorter flange focal distance isn’t going to change that one bit.
I own the EF 135mm f/2L and the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II. In my experience the 135mm has better bokeh at f/2.8, and of course, the 70-200 is terrible at f/2.Never owned a 135 f2 but shot with one once. Nice focal length and fast AF. But big dopey aperture leaves gave angular bokeh. 70-200 II had much nicer bokeh.
Sharp? It was in the film era, but is outclassed now:
Canon EF 135mm f/2L USM Lens Image Quality
View the image quality delivered by the Canon EF 135mm f/2L USM Lens using ISO 12233 Resolution Chart lab test results. Compare the image quality of this lens with other lenses.www.the-digital-picture.com
And close it down to 2.8 and guess what is just as good? The 70-200 II again.
Yes, there are some old sharp lenses; Canon 200 1.8 and 300 2.8 and the Mamiya 300 5.6 being examples. But the mid-tier mid-90s lenses like the 135 were designed down to a budget. It's a disgrace that they're still in the catalogue.
So who's next up to defend the 200 2.8 II? Canon will still take a grand of your cash for that dinosaur.
Actually, I think the write up in the link helps prove IBIS from Sony is not very effective at all at long focal lengths. The very old Soligor lens he is using is manual focus, at f/5.6, and hand held. I'd like to see a controlled test with a Sony native AF lens and wide open. All of Sony's long lenses are image stabilized (OSS). All of them. I must wonder why that is? Sony also makes nothing longer than 400mm.This, from Sony IBIS, indicates that it is effective for long focal lengths. Of course there will be some implementation differences.
How effective is Sony IBIS with long lenses? - Dyxum - Page 1
On another thread various comments have been made implying that Sony in-body stabilisation is known...www.dyxum.com
By the time this lens arrives, I suspect Canon’s flagship R type body will be available with IBIS.
But...Physics. For a telephoto design, the exit pupil is irrelevant in determining overall lens dimensions. So is the image circle (it’s always big, which is why there are no long telephoto EF-S lenses). A 24mm lens, the RF flange matters. A 400mm lens, it just doesn’t.But I'm talking about RF flange, larger rear aperture.
Yes, it’s effective. But lens-based IS is more effective at longer focal lengths.This, from Sony IBIS, indicates that it is effective for long focal lengths. Of course there will be some implementation differences.
How effective is Sony IBIS with long lenses? - Dyxum - Page 1
On another thread various comments have been made implying that Sony in-body stabilisation is known...www.dyxum.com