New Cinema Lenses To Be 20-50mm and 45-135mm
- Thread starter [email protected]
- Start date
25-50 is only a 2x zoom. That’s worst in class. This thing better T1.5. Seems a shame not to morph the 28-70RF F2 at the very least. I’ll reserve final judgement till the final specs are released. But at the 35k price point these will be the cheapest high end full frame zooms (and fastest) I look forward to NAB.
Upvote
0
I'd be all about a 20-50mm full-frame lens in a T2 if it's kept relatively lightweight. The Sigma 18-35 T2 is a great lens, but it doesn't quite have enough length on the long end of the range and it's only an S35 lens.
Upvote
0
This is cinema glass, not the "regular" photo lenses. Most C-branded cameras are EF mount and still actively being sold. Other camera manufacturers also work with EF mount natively. Lens is easily adapted/switched to PL which is used by even more cinema and ENG camera bodies.
I'd love to start seeing RF cinema glass, but think we're several years away.
Upvote
0
For people like me who like to use the same glass on EOS RP and EOS M50 - just kidding - more or less (see last sentence).
I think the real reason is that the cinema industry is running with PL mount and EF mount and if you design a lens for PL mount the flange distance is large enough for EF mount.
Use an EF - EOS R adapter with e.g. R5c is (1) cheap and (2) gives you the flexibility to use ND filters (variable or filter revolvers).
I bought the EF 16-35 to be backwards compatible with M50 (ii) and maybe to use it on the classic 5D while paying roughly 55% of the price of the EF 14-35 which has more range and maybe the sharper optics AND to use ND filters in an adapter!
Upvote
0
Yep. Canon doesn’t even have a full collection of L series primes in RF yet. I imagine we won’t see RF cinema glass until they can at least get their photo glass fully released.
Upvote
0
Why does anyone in the world want RF cinema glass over an EF version? You're stuck with a lens with a short flange distance and basically zero adapting capabilities. If I invest in a cinema lens I'm going to want to the option to put it in front of an Alexa, Venice, RED, or an S1H....not just a C70.
Is it size? Canon has made it obvious that RF lens designs on average don't save any weight and size over EF versions.
I can see a niche market of solo operators who'd like AF/servo lenses that are parfocal with zero focus breathing (myself included). Targeting the R5/C70 crowd. But still, an EF version just gives the owner so much more flexibility with camera packages and ND adapters.
Canon should simply state that RF is it's still/photo line of lenses and that EF/PL will remain it's cinema line. And then release a line of very robust cinema-grade adapters for future RF mount cinema cameras akin to the 0.71x reducer. A passive mount, ND option, etc. all with 4x bolt-in points to quell any fears about adapter play.
RF cinema glass = great idea if Canon doesn't want to sell many.
Is it size? Canon has made it obvious that RF lens designs on average don't save any weight and size over EF versions.
I can see a niche market of solo operators who'd like AF/servo lenses that are parfocal with zero focus breathing (myself included). Targeting the R5/C70 crowd. But still, an EF version just gives the owner so much more flexibility with camera packages and ND adapters.
Canon should simply state that RF is it's still/photo line of lenses and that EF/PL will remain it's cinema line. And then release a line of very robust cinema-grade adapters for future RF mount cinema cameras akin to the 0.71x reducer. A passive mount, ND option, etc. all with 4x bolt-in points to quell any fears about adapter play.
RF cinema glass = great idea if Canon doesn't want to sell many.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
