p.2 #3 · Canon RF vs. EF lenses: Lens Size, 50mm L and 28-70mm L
Uhhh
The 28-70mm is F/2. It's...a unique lens and of course it's going to be enormous. It's pricy but I expected about 2500 for it... I think it'll be about that in a year or so.
The 50mm is like the Sigma 50mm 1.4... only the Canon is 1.2 ... SO....yeah. It's going to be big, but amazinggggg.
The 24-105 is like the old 24-105 (will prolly be better on the wide end though). It's smaller, about what you'd expect. A good bit smaller!
The 35 is nice and small and has useful macro, what's not to like? The price is also fair.
p.2 #5 · Canon RF vs. EF lenses: Lens Size, 50mm L and 28-70mm L
MintMar wrote:
Did I?
All you can really chop off is the rear elements which have to solve the problem of the long flange distance in DSLR for your wide angles.
Well that is not how you get a lens like the Sony 12-24. It’s a clean sheet design if you have short flange distance and large mount diameter. Canon explains it in detail in the white paper. We will have to wait and see what Canon can do with UWA, alas they don’t even bother giving us a roadmap.
p.2 #7 · Canon RF vs. EF lenses: Lens Size, 50mm L and 28-70mm L
johnctharp wrote:
It isn't really. Try comparing like lenses: the RF 24-105/4L lands between the I and II EF versions. Or the 35/1.8 IS Macro, which comes in under the size of the less versatile 35/2 IS USM.
The RF 28-70/2 has no direct comparison point. Not only is it a stop faster than the 24-70/2.8L II, but Canon hopefully has aimed higher in terms of optical performance. Fast is easy, but fast and sharp and well corrected with good rendering is not.
And the RF 50/1.2L, while following the EF 50/1.2L, should probably be compared to Sony's FE 50/1.4 and Sigma's 50/1.4 | Art too. You know, if those lenses were hypothetically f/1.2 .
Last, we should also run comparisons with the adapters attached when that becomes possible....Show more →
Very well said. 50 1.2 & 28-70 are dream lenses for many and not available for any other system. This is where Canon excels.
p.2 #8 · Canon RF vs. EF lenses: Lens Size, 50mm L and 28-70mm L
woos wrote:
The 35 is nice and small and has useful macro, what's not to like? The price is also fair.
It remains to be seen how useful the macro is, magnification or working distance alone doesn't say much. Calling it a "macro" lens doesn't mean much either.
Some of my Canon zooms like the 10-18 and 15-85 have terrible IQ at MFD, everything outside the center has an ugly rough/stretched/blurred look (whether full open or stopped down) that makes them unsuitable for anything else than low quality web images. I don't like the "macro" qualities of the 100-400II at MFD either, very compromised IQ unless stopped down at least two stops and that's even without taking potential AF problems into account (hopefully those are gone with a mirrorless camera, but you could still have issues due to field curvature, spherical aberration etc.).
p.2 #9 · Canon RF vs. EF lenses: Lens Size, 50mm L and 28-70mm L
Pixel Perfect wrote:
Well that is not how you get a lens like the Sony 12-24. It’s a clean sheet design if you have short flange distance and large mount diameter. Canon explains it in detail in the white paper. We will have to wait and see what Canon can do with UWA, alas they don’t even bother giving us a roadmap.
Of course it is a clean sheet design, at least the rear part. But from the dimensions/weight point of view, you simply get less glass (most probably the main UWA elements are similar to DSLR lens), because you don't need to work around the big flange distance of the DSLR.
p.2 #10 · Canon RF vs. EF lenses: Lens Size, 50mm L and 28-70mm L
I think Canon is going in the opposite direction of what I would like to see a ML system to be. I'd prefer a smaller, lighter system while still maximizing IQ. I suppose Canon would say they have the G series cams for that but I would disagree.
p.2 #11 · Canon RF vs. EF lenses: Lens Size, 50mm L and 28-70mm L
Adam Au wrote:
Why are the mirrorless lenses bigger? Isn't the point of a smaller system smaller lenses? Does this have to do with their flange distance or something else?
p.2 #12 · Canon RF vs. EF lenses: Lens Size, 50mm L and 28-70mm L
MintMar wrote:
Of course it is a clean sheet design, at least the rear part. But from the dimensions/weight point of view, you simply get less glass (most probably the main UWA elements are similar to DSLR lens), because you don't need to work around the big flange distance of the DSLR.
Well, no. The new RF 24-105/4L IS design has a larger rear element (more glass) to help deal with the close proximity of the short-register sensor. Being closer to the sensor is a negative feature for wide angle lenses, not a positive feature, unless the lens is designed for the type of sensor stack (cover glass) in the taking camera. For example, Leica LM and LTM lenses work well on Leica sensors (thin glass), while the same lenses have smeared edges and corners on Sony sensors (thick glass). For telephoto lenses, it's a push (i.e. IQ is independent of register), as the image cone projected from the rear of the lens is more-or-less a parallel stream.
p.2 #13 · Canon RF vs. EF lenses: Lens Size, 50mm L and 28-70mm L
jcolwell wrote:
Well, no. The new RF 24-105/4L IS design has a larger rear element (more glass) to help deal with the close proximity of the short-register sensor. Being closer to the sensor is a negative feature for wide angle lenses, not a positive feature, unless the lens is designed for the type of sensor stack (cover glass) in the taking camera. For example, Leica LM and LTM lenses work well on Leica sensors (thin glass), while the same lenses have smeared edges and corners on Sony sensors (thick glass). For telephoto lenses, it's a push (i.e. IQ is independent of register), as the image cone projected from the rear of the lens is more-or-less a parallel stream....Show more →
Oh well, so instead of the "retrofocus" purpose of the rear group in UWA lenses we get them again, this time we could call it "telecentric group"
p.2 #15 · Canon RF vs. EF lenses: Lens Size, 50mm L and 28-70mm L
technic wrote:
It remains to be seen how useful the macro is, magnification or working distance alone doesn't say much. Calling it a "macro" lens doesn't mean much either.
Some of my Canon zooms like the 10-18 and 15-85 have terrible IQ at MFD, everything outside the center has an ugly rough/stretched/blurred look (whether full open or stopped down) that makes them unsuitable for anything else than low quality web images. I don't like the "macro" qualities of the 100-400II at MFD either, very compromised IQ unless stopped down at least two stops and that's even without taking potential AF problems into account (hopefully those are gone with a mirrorless camera, but you could still have issues due to field curvature, spherical aberration etc.)....Show more →
p.2 #17 · Canon RF vs. EF lenses: Lens Size, 50mm L and 28-70mm L
Pixel Perfect wrote:
I had hoped the new RF 24-105 would improve on the EF version and be a good match for the Sony 24-105, but looks basically identical in performance to the EF mk II and not up to the Sony IQ.
p.2 #18 · Canon RF vs. EF lenses: Lens Size, 50mm L and 28-70mm L
milkod2001 wrote:
Some of them are done using: RF 24-105. I'd say it is at least as good as Sony 24-105 and def. better than old Canon 24-105 or Nikon 24-120.
It should be better than those lenses- and better than the 24-105/4L II- I hope that it is an improvement all around, especially wide-open
Both Canon 24-105L lenses are great at f/8 up to 30MP, but a hypothetical 50MP+ RF body is going to need a bit more, and as well, the 1.7x crop for 4k video is going to strain it a bit too as it needs to be pin-sharp behind the AA filter.
On the topic of that 1.7x 4k crop: I watched a Youtuber using the 18-35 | Art and 10-18 IS, and I have to say that I really don't find it to be as 'offensive' in that context. There are plenty of great APS-C lenses from Canon, Sigma, and Tamron, with and without stabilization, that will run great on it optically while providing class-leading follow focus.
My God if Canon can put IBIS in a camera next...
Sep 13, 2018 at 12:14 PM
Guest
Guest
p.2 #19 · Canon RF vs. EF lenses: Lens Size, 50mm L and 28-70mm L
p.2 #20 · Canon RF vs. EF lenses: Lens Size, 50mm L and 28-70mm L
Snopchenko wrote:
Of course it is. 15 elements in 9 groups with some aspherical and UD glass, instead of 8/6. Should be a lot sharper.
Nice. Also hopefully they eliminated/reduced the focus shift issue which the 50/1.2L was known for... Too bad they most probably won't make this lens into the EF mount, I feel I am using obsolete mount, sigh
.