If Canon makes a 35mm 1.4 as light as Sony, then I'll switch back to Canon. I prefer Canon's color science and ibis compared to Sony. Sony just has more affordable lenses and they're smaller and lighter which I like.
Sorry to shout, but guys, these patents are almost never about the example lenses shown in the patent, but about the higher-level design. There is NO indication in this patent that these particular lenses might possibly be manufactured.
This patent is over a specific set of lens group constraints that gives a result of minimizing the size of the focus group (to need a small motor and have low battery drainage and fast focus speed, one presumes) while satisfactorily correcting aberrations.
Considering focal length is only measured at infinity, and all lenses are either rounded up or down, how much difference do you thing there actually is between a 14mm lens and a 15mm lens or between 25mm and 24mm?This might sound odd, but I still want to put it out there in case Canon is spying on the forum. Why can't Canon make 25mm and 15mm just like the Zeiss Milvus? If you look at the EF prime line up, let's start from 200mm, 135mm, 100mm, 85mm, 50mm, 35mm. I just feel that 25mm and 15mm are the logical sequence and not 24mm and 14mm. This might just be my OCD kicking in, but I have contemplated buying Zeiss just to keep the numbers logical.
Right now I have the following Prime RF Lenses, 100 Macro, 85mm f/1.2, 50mm f/1.2. I am waiting for the RF 35mm f/1.2 (I have that covered for now with Tamron 35 f/1.4) and I will like to see 25mm f/1.4 and 15mm f/2.8 or even f/4 to complete the cycle.
Well.. these news brings up a serious problem that I have, it is called money in the bank, or in more specific way, the lack of it.... "So many lenses too little cash".
I just want that RF 35mm f1.2 in my hands ASAP! Don’t care about f1.4.
I already have the 35 f1.4 I want more shallow depth of field than that lens is capable of.And I don't care about 1.2, for me 1.4 is fine as long as the build and image quality is stunning. Some of us do travel and it's enough to carry a 600g lens, not need for 1kg lenses.
Do you think 1/3 stop less dof at 35mm is going to be that noticeable?I already have the 35 f1.4 I want more shallow depth of field than that lens is capable of.
Don’t you think that picture might have been better with a little more depth of field ?Here's a recent RF85 f1.2 (no DS - not needed) shot where the model crawled away from the good natural lighting, but it still pleases Daddy.
View attachment 199410
No. Why?Don’t you think that picture might have been better with a little more depth of field ?
For me the degree of blur / OOF overpowers an otherwise pleasing image.No. Why?
For me the degree of blur / OOF overpowers an otherwise pleasing image.
I hope so but I will rent it first to do a side by comparison of my 1.4 version first. If not I can save money and forget about it. I’ve seen many comparisons of the 50 1.4 vs 1.2 and there’s definitely a difference (I just upgraded to the rf 50 1.2 and it’s the best lens I’ve ever owned) but that a tele and not a wide angle lens so more compression to start with. It’s possible with a wide angle to only get negligible improvement but I want to upgrade all my lense to RF over time anyways and I’m sure it’ll be better optically as well.Do you think 1/3 stop less dof at 35mm is going to be that noticeable?
You got me. I took this just to irritate people who can't afford $3000 lenses to take baby pictures of their own kids. If I'd stopped down to F2.8 and gotten a pleasing image, everyone would think I was poor.For me the degree of blur / OOF overpowers an otherwise pleasing image.
I am no expert but I am pretty sure you do not have to justify artistic choices with strangers on the internet.Actually, the artist was going for this look that gives an almost abstract view of hairline, eye line, nose line and mouthline, with all else disappearing like certain vintage portraits of children.
There’s a comparison between Sigma’s 35mm f1.2 Art and Sony’s 35mm f1.4 GM by Julia Trotti on YT if you want to see DOF differences at this FL.I already have the 35 f1.4 I want more shallow depth of field than that lens is capable of.
ThanksThere’s a comparison between Sigma’s 35mm f1.2 Art and Sony’s 35mm f1.4 GM by Julia Trotti on YT if you want to see DOF differences at this FL.