For photographers, almost without exception, YES. For forum nerds, self appointed YouTube experts, ‘reviewers’, and people that just love to argue, no.
For photographers, almost without exception, YES. For forum nerds, self appointed YouTube experts, ‘reviewers’, and people that just love to argue, no.
Do designs that have worked well in the past still meet the demands and expectations required to be considered as working well to day ?
But what about lens design rot? I'm sure I've seen designs rot with age.For photographers, almost without exception, YES. For forum nerds, self appointed YouTube experts, ‘reviewers’, and people that just love to argue, no.
The classic 50 f1.8 optical formula is as old as the hills, and has been applied to/reused in multiple generations and iterations of this lowest-cost prime lens in the EF series, including the post-digital age. You could say, it is "well proven", and is probably VERY cost effective to produce.There are two reasons to change a design that's worked well in the past - one is to improve quality and the other is to reduce production cost. Or, very occasionally, both.
Well maybe. I think you might be giving Canon more praise for working a new optical variation of the classic double gauss than they deserve.The classic 50 f1.8 optical formula is as old as the hills, and has been applied to/reused in multiple generations and iterations of this lowest-cost prime lens in the EF series, including the post-digital age. You could say, it is "well proven", and is probably VERY cost effective to produce.Therefore, the low-cost option for a native RF mount version would have stopped at shifting the optics out, and fixing up the mount.
Canon didn't do that. Instead, here there is clear evidence of substantial work on the optical formula. That bodes well for improvement in the output, including both the image quality (aberrations, vignetting) at the edges, probably overall color/contrast, and I would guess minimum focus distance as well. (how many folks have inverted a 50 f1.8 to create an "instant" macro lens?)
In the end, I'm excited to see what this baby can do.
Reposting the original for easy reference. (I actually had one of those old Canonet cameras, by the way). The differences are still pretty significant. I'm sure it will chart, the question is, will this dog hunt? We'll see in a few weeks.Well maybe. I think you might be giving Canon more praise for working a new optical variation of the classic double gauss than they deserve.
If the block diagram at the beginning of this thread is correct it looks like Canon have reused their lens design from the 1964 Canonet rangefinder camera ( " the poor man's Leica") that has a 45mm f/1.7 lens, and replaced one element with the aspherical one. If you go to the wiki page for Double Gauss lens that PBD linked to at the beginning of this thread you can see the Canonet block diagram at the bottom of the first diagram page.
View attachment 193747
Canon have given the first doublet a curved matting which is much more expensive to do than the straight bond in the 1964 lens, and this should give a more pleasant rendering. However my guess would still be that the lens is going to be sharper at the expense of rendering / bokeh. In other words it will chart well.
True, but they put IS in the 35mm and 85mm. Granted, those were released before a body with IBIS, but this just leads to the question of why they decided to release low to mid-price 35mm and 85mm lenses before the 50mm.With IBIS now becoming a thing in Canon land that will dampen some of the demand for IS in the lenses.
FL is from the optical center of the lens to the optical center.I'm far from being an expert, but shouldn't it be the aperture, rather than the center of the lens elements?
My impression was the additional glass would not be needed for the FL range between RF's 20mm and EF's 44mm.
Probably because a significant percentage of upgraders already have an EF 50mm of one kind or another (I have four: 50mm f/1.8II, 50mm f/2.5 macro, Yongnuo 50mm 1.4 and the EF 50mm f/1.2L), and even with the EF-RF adaptor it's still a lightweight small combination.True, but they put IS in the 35mm and 85mm. Granted, those were released before a body with IBIS, but this just leads to the question of why they decided to release low to mid-price 35mm and 85mm lenses before the 50mm.
I'm using on a regular basis a 1969 Leica M 50mm f2 Summicron.Do designs that have worked well in the past still meet the demands and expectations required to be considered as working well to day ?