The down time is here, when is the Canon momentum coming?
- Thread starter Canon Rumors
- Start date
The lens roadmap needs completely renewing no point in showing 2/3rd that are production lenses. Where are the f1.4L lenses? In terms of Canon lens line-up it’s lags both Sony and Nikon without even adding third party lenses.
Canon appears asleep at the wheel.
Canon appears asleep at the wheel.
Upvote
0
My 24-105 L F4 wasn't bad.
It just was OK, unless compared to primes or my EF 27-70 L F4...
So, whenever I wanted to take along just one lens, the "winner" was always the EF 24-70 or the Summilux 35.
That's why I sold it and, just like you, I'm waiting for a 24-105 F4 II (which I'm afraid won't come...) or for the F 2,8 version I'll certainly test prior to buying...
It just was OK, unless compared to primes or my EF 27-70 L F4...
So, whenever I wanted to take along just one lens, the "winner" was always the EF 24-70 or the Summilux 35.
That's why I sold it and, just like you, I'm waiting for a 24-105 F4 II (which I'm afraid won't come...) or for the F 2,8 version I'll certainly test prior to buying...
Upvote
0
"It seems Nikon has had the momentum over the last 6 months"
In their financial documents, Nikon still forecasts that their ILC market share this fiscal year will be (700/5500) 13%, so it's not like they are taking the world by storm. They are profitable though, so they will definitely stay in the camera business.
In their financial documents, Nikon still forecasts that their ILC market share this fiscal year will be (700/5500) 13%, so it's not like they are taking the world by storm. They are profitable though, so they will definitely stay in the camera business.
Upvote
0
L
Loswr
Guest
Just because they’re not going in the direction that you personally think they should, doesn’t mean they’re ‘asleep at the wheel’.
I’m certain the company that has led the ILC market for 20 years has better maps and directions guiding them to their desired destination (profit and continued market leadership) than a guy who managed a rental outfit.
Upvote
0
unfocused
Photos/Photo Book Reviews: www.thecuriouseye.com
@Canon Rumors Guy are you purposely trying to torpedo this forum? Over the last year every change you’ve made has been worse than the previous one.
Upvote
0
For £4000 i would buy the Nikon Z8 without thinking. And the R7 needs some lenses first, we only have dark plastic kit zooms so far.
Upvote
0
My mom was provost at the college St. Michael's in Vermont that had a history intertwined with Mont St. Michel. She got an all-access, no-door-locked, three day retreat there, dined with abbot, did prayers six times a day, got to practice her Latin as some of the people had no English. We were planning on going while I lived in London but she passed away, so I haven't seen it yet. Care to share a link to your photo?
Upvote
0
I agree with your general thrust. Rather than focus on what lenses that aren't available, there's legitimate projects to be done with the lenses that ARE available. We have to be creative in various ways. "Can't always get what you want, but you might find you get what you need." Buy used, and sell for what you paid.
> you can probably find deals on EF 50 f/1.4 primes if you don't mind the adapter, I certainly don't as long as the AF works well
Looking at the MTF charts the RF 50/1.8 wasn't much improved, but for some reason I'm getting MUCH better results with it than with any of the EF's (and I owned the 1.8 MkI pro-build version, 1.0, 1.4, 1.2). And for many lenses I don't care about size/weight (135/1.8, 100-500 can be as big as they need to be) but the 50/1.4 especially needs to be as portable as possible. And while I can give up zoominess and f1.2 apertures, I don't want to also settle for less than the best sharpness. The RF50/1.8 really does a good job. Even the worst of ten shots each at 1/2 to 1/15 sec is sharper the 24-105 EVER is at ANY shutter. I used the EF1.4 a lot for 25 years, and wouldn't have sold it but I really would never use it now.
> you can probably find deals on EF 50 f/1.4 primes if you don't mind the adapter, I certainly don't as long as the AF works well
Looking at the MTF charts the RF 50/1.8 wasn't much improved, but for some reason I'm getting MUCH better results with it than with any of the EF's (and I owned the 1.8 MkI pro-build version, 1.0, 1.4, 1.2). And for many lenses I don't care about size/weight (135/1.8, 100-500 can be as big as they need to be) but the 50/1.4 especially needs to be as portable as possible. And while I can give up zoominess and f1.2 apertures, I don't want to also settle for less than the best sharpness. The RF50/1.8 really does a good job. Even the worst of ten shots each at 1/2 to 1/15 sec is sharper the 24-105 EVER is at ANY shutter. I used the EF1.4 a lot for 25 years, and wouldn't have sold it but I really would never use it now.
Upvote
0
There's two that I can readily note.
1. 15-70/4, this would be the 24-105L equivalent and match the Fuji 16-80/4 and ZA16-70/4. Mostly for R7 & R10 shooters looking for a wide-range zoom that's a step up from the 18-150
2. 15-45/2.8 - fast normal zoom for the R7 shooter, landscape & event work lens.
None of the RF zooms really match up well with crop factor for folks looking to take advantage of the R7's performance for landscape work in the normal range.
The R7 is an outstanding landscape body, arguably the best do-everything crop body for the landscape-primary shooter (the 40MP Fuji's have more resolution, but not the AF and speed of the R7), but lack the UWA's and the normal zooms to match.
1. 15-70/4, this would be the 24-105L equivalent and match the Fuji 16-80/4 and ZA16-70/4. Mostly for R7 & R10 shooters looking for a wide-range zoom that's a step up from the 18-150
2. 15-45/2.8 - fast normal zoom for the R7 shooter, landscape & event work lens.
None of the RF zooms really match up well with crop factor for folks looking to take advantage of the R7's performance for landscape work in the normal range.
The R7 is an outstanding landscape body, arguably the best do-everything crop body for the landscape-primary shooter (the 40MP Fuji's have more resolution, but not the AF and speed of the R7), but lack the UWA's and the normal zooms to match.
Upvote
0
A couple RF-S normal zooms are also needed. 15-70/4 and 15-45/2.8 would be the ranges I am looking for. Adapting FF wide zooms doesn't work that well in practice and the current pair of normal zooms are solid consumer lenses but the R7 needs some faster options.
Upvote
0
L
Loswr
Guest
@mawz Canon does not seem very interested in supporting the 'high end APS-C lens' segment. They released the EF-S 17-55/2.8 early on and never updated it. They did update the EF-S 17-85 to the 15-85, but those were variable aperture f/5.6 zooms that if made as RF-S lenses would be f/6.3 or f/7.1 at the long end, not f/4. Even the very nice and not very slow EF-S 10-22 f/3.5-4.5 was updated to the slower, plasticy EF-S 10-18.
Upvote
0
The RF 50STM seems to perform like the EF 50STM to me. But I find the 50STM decidedly better than the earlier EF 50/1.8's.
Upvote
0
I thought I already replied but don't see the comment.
I don't have a super-sharp memory for this stuff any more but what I think I remember is that the EF MkI was really not sharp at all, but the size, IS and build quality allowed lots of shots especially on travel. The EF MkII was substantially improved image quality but substantially bigger and heavier. Then the RF combined the EF MkI size with the EF MkII image quality.
Well, the R5 is so small and shallow compared to my 1Ds MkIII, I could get excited for an improved EF24-105MkII-sized lens now even though I ultimately never got it on the EF.
Of course you're totally right that higher quality would cost more (and be bigger and heavier). But I'm thinking there might be a market for it. The AF is always nailed, and the high-ISO noise is very low. The IBIS is fantastic. A decade or two ago, my shots were never perfectly focused, were noisy, had hand-shake and subject movement, and I figured that often a better lens wouldn't yield better photos due to these other challenges. Shots might be over- or under-exposed too. But now I can do a burst of a running target and eye focus is pixel-perfect in every shot, the noise is low, and lots of lenses are at their sharpest at 1/2-1/15 sec (eg RF50/1.8). Every pixel is within the DR. Now, EVERYTHING ELSE IS LINED UP and the lens image quality is the weakest link, whereas in say 2000 it wasn't necessarily even one of the top five factors in a fuzzy photo. And while the new lens would surely be bigger, the cameras are so much smaller I think people wouldn't mind. (And the people most concerned about size are using their smart phones.)
I don't have a super-sharp memory for this stuff any more but what I think I remember is that the EF MkI was really not sharp at all, but the size, IS and build quality allowed lots of shots especially on travel. The EF MkII was substantially improved image quality but substantially bigger and heavier. Then the RF combined the EF MkI size with the EF MkII image quality.
Well, the R5 is so small and shallow compared to my 1Ds MkIII, I could get excited for an improved EF24-105MkII-sized lens now even though I ultimately never got it on the EF.
Of course you're totally right that higher quality would cost more (and be bigger and heavier). But I'm thinking there might be a market for it. The AF is always nailed, and the high-ISO noise is very low. The IBIS is fantastic. A decade or two ago, my shots were never perfectly focused, were noisy, had hand-shake and subject movement, and I figured that often a better lens wouldn't yield better photos due to these other challenges. Shots might be over- or under-exposed too. But now I can do a burst of a running target and eye focus is pixel-perfect in every shot, the noise is low, and lots of lenses are at their sharpest at 1/2-1/15 sec (eg RF50/1.8). Every pixel is within the DR. Now, EVERYTHING ELSE IS LINED UP and the lens image quality is the weakest link, whereas in say 2000 it wasn't necessarily even one of the top five factors in a fuzzy photo. And while the new lens would surely be bigger, the cameras are so much smaller I think people wouldn't mind. (And the people most concerned about size are using their smart phones.)
Upvote
0
Similar threads
