Hopefully we can have all this goodies soon, third party glass in RF mount is really needed.
Upvote
0
The State of RF – 5 Years of Lenses
- Thread starter Canon Rumors Guy
- Start date
Hopefully we can have all this goodies soon, third party glass in RF mount is really needed.
I have been using my EF8-15/4 with my Ikelite setup since I got my R5 3.5 years ago.
What system are you using? Do you mean that you would need a new port to handle the lens length (R mount adaptor + EF8-15/4)?
I am not sure that a replacement will be available in 6 months if you have a deadline.
PS: it is summer here in Sydney already
I am uncertain what advantages a RF version would have over the EF mount. The colour fringing @ 8mm is pretty harsh and I need to remove it each time but besides that...
I think that I when eventually replace my EF16-35/4 with the RF14-35/4 then the number of times that I will use the fisheye will be much smaller.
Upvote
0
That's true, I'd also recommend people to move to FF, APS-C only makes sense if you want a high MP density in a smaller image circle for special purposes (supertele and macro shooting). 15 years ago, when FF sensor tech still was expensive, APS cameras were a good option to jump into digital ILC photography. That's why I regard DPR's complaints about not enough RF-S lenses available as only a strategy to dump their ratings for Canon cameras. But sales numbers show that most people don't care about DPR and the likes anyway.
Upvote
0
Their only drawback is their inconsistent AF due to the reverse engineering done by Sigma, Tamron and other 3rd party lens makers. This is in particular a problem with very fast lenses.Any Sigma Art is as good as the Canon counterpart, and they're built as good or often way better, at least in dslr mount (never had an e-mount Sigma in my hand); can't really agree with you, sorry
Upvote
0
On mirrorless bodies the AF, because the different way it functions compared to a DSLR, it's always spot on with basically any lens on any system (given the compatibility). It may of course be faster or slower, but in terms of sheer precision, if the lens is not faulty per se, the AF lock is basically always precise, as it's done directly on the image sensor, rather then mirrored on a separate af sensor as it was in dslr days.
And consider many recent EF third party lenses (surely all the Sigma's in Art/Sport series) benefit from in camera corrections both on Canon dslr's and ML's bodies, so the reverse engineering (after 30yrs of Eos system knowledge) is done pretty good.
Upvote
0
APS-C still makes sense if it allows you to have a meaningfully smaller and lighter setup that provides IQ up to your standards. Fuji has been making their stuff bigger over the past few years, negating most of the size advantage they had, but some of their older gear like an X-T20 and 35/1.4 is absolutely tiny but provides excellent IQ, and this has nothing to do with the pixel density itself. You can still stay reasonably smaller than FF with a Fuji setup using their newer lenses, but an X-T5 + 23/1.4 is about the same size as an R8 + 35/1.8, so not really smaller. At least with the Fuji lens you'll get improved aberration control and contrast, but the pixels are 4x larger on the R8 so you'll have much improved low light performance, albeit less croppability compared to the Fuji, and you lose IBIS as well.
The fact that Canon FF shooters think APS-C is only good for pixel density/crop shooting to get more reach is a testament to how bad Canon's RF-S lens lineup is. But as some have said, it seems like they don't actually want to keep APS-C alive, with the hilariously gimped RF-S lenses they've launched. Will they take sharp photos, oh I'm sure! Sharpness isn't the only factor in a quality photo though. You gotta crank the ISO to get reasonable image brightness, or use the much larger FF lenses which negate any size advantage you might have had. There really is no reason to use RF-S at this point besides getting more reach from your telephotos. But it's not the only reason to use the APS-C format in general.
Upvote
0
Okay, I should have added something like "time to AF lock". On my R7, when it gets to birding action, my Tamron 150-600mm G2 is still critically slower focusing than my vintage EF 500mm f74.5 L USM, even when I use Canon's 1.4x TC III. So, if you do not shoot any action, a 3rd party lens is fine, I frequently use my Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 G1 since many years with my DSLRs for social shooting, the lens is good enough for that.
Upvote
0
I recommend Terry Pratchett's disc world novels... in fact some of them explain in a poetic way why today's silicon tech is so ineffective: Pratchett's fantasy trolls have silicon brains and therefore their reasoning slows down in warm environments due to overheating issues
Upvote
0
I have both lenses and despite their mediocre performance in lab tests in terms of sharpness and other optical parameters, in particular the 85 II suffers from severe lateral CA, I love the way they render images. The EF 85 II/1.2 is one of my fav lenses since many years because it is more a sort of photographic painting tool than a lens. Photography is not always about best optical performance, but also about the character of a lens and the unique images you can get with it. That's why many photographers love to use vintage lenses e.g. adapted to modern digital cameras.
Upvote
0
Never done birding, sport or anything speed related, so can't comment on that. I just did some beach volley (plenty of daylight) like more then 15 years ago with 10D and the old 80-200 L, and that rig was good enough for the sport.
My actual experience, limited to weddings and portraits, is:
DSLR: all Canon EF and (recent) third parties works good in one shot, while all of them works bad in Servo (but my most advanced AF was on 6D, so never had a sport oriented body with advanced AF to test the difference in Servo and tracking)
Mirroless: all Canon EF and (recent) third parties works perfectly fine both in One Shot and Servo on R6 and R10. On RP One Shot is good for all, Servo decent enough (bur certainly not "good") for all.
Upvote
0
Did you say your newest Canon lens was 24-70mm f2.8l ii? It's over ten years old. I think you aren't making reasonable comparisons when you say recent Sigma lenses, you should also test recent Canon lenses.
Upvote
0
TBH post-2010 there's not much newer standard zooms from EF. That lens is still good enough for modern use. It beats Sony's 24-70 GM1 and the Sigma 24-70 E/L mount.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
I think what you say is true.
However, @Walrus has been trying to say that there are no benefits with Canon's higher priced lenses in comparison to the third parties to support his insistence that Canon is wrong to not want third party autofocus lenses on the R mount. My point is, at best, it is biased to suggest there have been no improvements with Canon's designs over ten years. Even worse, the ef 80-200 L is from 1989. He wants the third party lenses available for Sony α mount and that is fine, but attempting to make points by comparing older designs with recent designs leads me to infer the opposite of what he wants:
As time goes by, it is natural for designs improve. Therefore, one can make the conjecture, if a manufacturer's old design is equal to another manufacturer's recent design, the first manufacturer's recent design is likely to be superior.
Of course, one should use all three designs for long enough to know each lenses attributes to make accurate comparisons.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
- Contains 2 staff post(s)
