p.25 #1 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
Eruditass wrote:
Completely agree. Then again, there are some days and shoots where I wouldn't mind the extra weight: it would be nice to have the option. Right now the RF mount is lacking all the nice small and light primes of the FE mount, maybe one day that will change.
The other nice thing about the RF mount is the diameter for IBIS, but hopefully Sony can prove me wrong on that.
I'm sure one day they will complete their light primes but if we look at the Sony 85/1.8 which is 370 grams and Canon's new 85/2 at 500 grams. Quite a difference, maybe not an apples comparison, different aperture and magnification level. On the other end of the spectrum, it boils down to 1.2 vs 1.4, which for me, a very good performing 1.4 lens is enough (24 GM). If Canon could manage to make 1.2 lenses that weighs not far off Sony's equivalent 1.4 lenses then thats another story
p.25 #2 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
All the video-centric/cinema people are saying the same thing (it's not usable for pro video work), but I think the R5 is more of overall stills with rare burst video options. Shame because I do like the dual-pixel AF with video, I'm still hopeful for 4 days later lol
p.25 #4 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
AlphaPhotography wrote:
Speculation has it that the R5/R6 IBIS is better (stronger) than Sony’s due to the wider diameter mount (more room to shift without revealing edges). We also haven’t seen any lenses from Sony like the 28-70 f2 which is one of the reasons I’m planning on switching to Canon (along with the R5 specs). I’m curious if a lens like that is a mount diameter limitation or if they just haven’t decided it’s worth adding into the lineup. The 12-24mm f2.8 GM does look impressive so I’m glad they’re still pushing the envelope with other lenses like that. My A7RIV + 12-24 GM along with a Canon R5 + 28-70 f2 actually sounds pretty good right now 😅. Only ~$13,500 😭
I haven't yet checked out that RF 85 f1.2 review above but from what I've seen everywhere else it seems to be the best 85mm lens available for any system with almost zero CA. The GM at f1.4 now falls far behind in comparison with worse sharpness, terrible green fringing, and slow AF. I'm hoping Sony come out with some f1.2 primes and f2 zooms in the future. I also wonder if Canon could do a 135mm f1.4...
...Show more →
Your post makes me wonder whether you have any ideas about size and weight of lenses like a 135/1.4, a halo lens in the 3500$-4000$ realm, only a minority would buy.
By now you should know, too, that the Sony lens mount is be able to sustain fast lenses easily (I forgot the minimum f-stop, but it was around 0.8 I think). So only because Sony is not making a halo lens like the 28-70/2, which is extremely expensive (3200 Euros), that doesn't mean it is the lens mount preventing that.
Sony's general manger Kenji Tanaka “Yes we could, but there is no market demand" ... “Maybe some demand exists for an f/1.2, but an f/1.0? Technically we could produce an f/1.0, but it would not make business sense.”
The Canon 85 is a very good lens. but I don't see big differences, not some leaving it "far behind", see that video, too https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1624897/0#15066877
The Canon 85/1.2 DS is furthermore more than twice the price, the standard "almost" twice the price of the GM, here. So wouldn't be worth that money for *me*. CAs are exaggerated by you here, similarly to AF, which is absolutely fine, albeit not the fastest. I use the lens at weddings for years now and AF performance is not an issue.
In my personal opinion there are more than enough options now with Sony, esp. when including Sigma, an 85 f1.2 doesn't make one's images better compared to an f1.4. I find large apertures for WA make a much bigger visual impact. The 24GM and 35/1.2 Art fill the gap nicely.
p.25 #5 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
Holger wrote:
Your post makes me wonder whether you have any ideas about size and weight of lenses like a 135/1.4, a halo lens in the 3500$-4000$ realm, only a minority would buy.
By now you should know, too, that the Sony lens mount is be able to sustain fast lenses easily (I forgot the minimum f-stop, but it was around 0.8 I think). So only because Sony is not making a halo lens like the 28-70/2, which is extremely expensive (3200 Euros), that doesn't mean it is the lens mount preventing that.
Sony's general manger Kenji Tanaka “Yes we could, but there is no market demand" ... “Maybe some demand exists for an f/1.2, but an f/1.0? Technically we could produce an f/1.0, but it would not make business sense.”
The Canon 85 is a very good lens. but I don't see big differences, not some leaving it "far behind", see that video, too https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1624897/0#15066877
The Canon 85/1.2 DS is furthermore more than twice the price, the standard "almost" twice the price of the GM, here. So wouldn't be worth that money for *me*. CAs are exaggerated by you here, similarly to AF, which is absolutely fine, albeit not the fastest. I use the lens at weddings for years now and AF performance is not an issue.
In my personal opinion there are more than enough options now with Sony, esp. when including Sigma, an 85 f1.2 doesn't make one's images better compared to an f1.4. I find large apertures for WA make a much bigger visual impact. The 24GM and 35/1.2 Art fill the gap nicely. ...Show more →
The Canon 28-70/2 sounds great on paper and I'm sure it's a great lens but considering it's heavier than the Sony 100-400 GM, I would much prefer carrying faster primes like the FE 24/1.4 GM and FE 50/1.4 ZA (or 55/1.8) instead. Not only it's a cheaper proposition, it would make my bag lighter without sacrificing IQ.
p.25 #6 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
Fred Miranda wrote:
The Canon 28-70/2 sounds great on paper and I'm sure it's a great lens but considering it's heavier than the Sony 100-400 GM, I would much prefer carrying faster primes like the FE 24/1.4 GM and FE 50/1.4 ZA (or 55/1.8) instead. Not only it's a cheaper proposition, it would make my bag lighter without sacrificing IQ.
Exactly I mean you really want faster and better IMO and a 28-70/2 gives you neither plus lot a moola and weight.
I will take two 1.4 primes all day long over a 24-70 zoom. 24 GM and 50 1.4 ZA fit nicely in my front pocket of my cargo shorts.
With 61mp and APS-C mode I have 24-75 covered in spades. I save most of my images at 4752 pixels which is downsampling in half so I can also crop in post.
p.25 #8 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
The only lenses I've ever used that were large enough to cause issues in my bag and handholding are the Sigma 150-600mm and to a lesser extent the Sony 200-600mm. Everything smaller has been manageable and I'd gladly take the faster aperture in almost every situation except traveling overseas where there are strict weight restrictions (my flight to Amsterdam had a 22lb total carry-on limit).
I agree that there is a smaller pool of people interested in something like a 135mm f1.4 but lenses like the 28-70 f2 and 15-35mm f2.8 have drawn me to the RF system now that competitive bodies are here. If Canon decided to make the 28-70 as one of their first RF lenses then I'm confident that there are plenty of people interested based on their market research, along with the f1.2's. Every review I've seen/read has said it's optically excellent and the only complaints are size/weight/price.
I don't think the 85 GM's chromatic abberation performance is being exaggerated. It is poor compared to other lenses like the 135 GM, 24 GM, Sigma 35mm f1.2 and Canon f1.2 lenses. My friend who owns it jokes about it after he posted a photo with "glowing" brake lines on a bicycle (see crop).
And this quote: "While the resolution performance of the Sony FE 1.4/85 GM fits more modern portrait lenses, the longitudinal chromatic aberration correction is closer to that of older constructions. The aberration is distinct at the maximum relative aperture and remains visible even on stopping down the lens to f/2.0. It is a very surprising result, taking into account the fact the lens’s optical construction features as many as three low dispersion elements." from this review: https://www.lenstip.com/484.5-Lens_review-Sony_FE_85_mm_f_1.4_GM_Chromatic_and_spherical_aberration.html
Check our this comparison of the 85GM and RF85 with his conclusion in the last minute:
I do prefer the rounder bokeh of the 85GM.
I'd love for them to make an f1.2 version with AF, sharpness, and CA control matching the 135mm.
I agree that Sony has more than enough choices but that they are no longer the best choices when looking across systems (for low light and shallow DOF). I own the 24GM and 135GM which is easily the best performing lens I've used. I would love for both of them to be f1.2 and f1.4 respectively.
Holger wrote:
Your post makes me wonder whether you have any ideas about size and weight of lenses like a 135/1.4, a halo lens in the 3500$-4000$ realm, only a minority would buy.
By now you should know, too, that the Sony lens mount is be able to sustain fast lenses easily (I forgot the minimum f-stop, but it was around 0.8 I think). So only because Sony is not making a halo lens like the 28-70/2, which is extremely expensive (3200 Euros), that doesn't mean it is the lens mount preventing that.
Sony's general manger Kenji Tanaka “Yes we could, but there is no market demand" ... “Maybe some demand exists for an f/1.2, but an f/1.0? Technically we could produce an f/1.0, but it would not make business sense.”
The Canon 85 is a very good lens. but I don't see big differences, not some leaving it "far behind", see that video, too https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1624897/0#15066877
The Canon 85/1.2 DS is furthermore more than twice the price, the standard "almost" twice the price of the GM, here. So wouldn't be worth that money for *me*. CAs are exaggerated by you here, similarly to AF, which is absolutely fine, albeit not the fastest. I use the lens at weddings for years now and AF performance is not an issue.
In my personal opinion there are more than enough options now with Sony, esp. when including Sigma, an 85 f1.2 doesn't make one's images better compared to an f1.4. I find large apertures for WA make a much bigger visual impact. The 24GM and 35/1.2 Art fill the gap nicely. ...Show more →
p.25 #9 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
I agree except for the fact that lens changes (for me personally) are a PITA when walking around. I usually end up swapping just for one quick tighter shot then immediately feel the need to swap back when I see something that requires more background. The 24-70 has always felt too slow in comparison to my primes to be worth the compromise. I think the 28-70 f2 is just fast enough to allow me to get more great shots while retaining enough character and shallow DOF.
Good video review:
trstahly wrote:
Exactly I mean you really want faster and better IMO and a 28070/2 gives you neither plus lot a moola and weight.
p.25 #10 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
AlphaPhotography wrote:
I agree except for the fact that lens changes (for me personally) are a PITA when walking around. I usually end up swapping just for one quick tighter shot then immediately feel the need to swap back when I see something that requires more background. The 24-70 has always felt too slow in comparison to my primes to be worth the compromise. I think the 28-70 f2 is just fast enough to allow me to get more great shots while retaining enough character and shallow DOF.
Good video review:
Not sure how much I'd be walking around with a lens weighing 1430gm. You'd also be sacrificing the wider 24mm which makes quite a difference compared to 28mm. I just don't envision the 28-70 being your typical walk around lens. Now the Tamron 28-75...yeh a great walk around.
p.25 #11 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
chez wrote:
Not sure how much I'd be walking around with a lens weighing 1430gm. You'd also be sacrificing the wider 24mm which makes quite a difference compared to 28mm. I just don't envision the 28-70 being your typical walk around lens. Now the Tamron 28-75...yeh a great walk around.
It clearly is not a walk around lens, of course a person can walk around with a 51 oz lens but it ain't much fun and I am not going to do it.
If this 51 oz lens was a 1.4 and the IQ rendering equalled of bettered my primes I might (big might though) consider it but it isn't a 1.4 so mute point.
p.25 #12 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
Fred Miranda wrote:
The Canon 28-70/2 sounds great on paper and I'm sure it's a great lens but considering it's heavier than the Sony 100-400 GM, I would much prefer carrying faster primes like the FE 24/1.4 GM and FE 50/1.4 ZA (or 55/1.8) instead. Not only it's a cheaper proposition, it would make my bag lighter without sacrificing IQ.
Interesting. I already find my 100-400mm GM lens is too heavy: it is not suitable for long hikes. It is not suitable to be put in a carry-on bag on flights because it adds so much weight to the bag, the check-in staff may complain my carry-on is too heavy. There is no way I want a midrange zoom being that heavy and to gain what? Only one extra f-stop. I checked the Canon 50mm f1.2 RF lens. It is quite heavier than the Sony Planar 50mm f1.4 which is already a very heavy lens (among normal lenses).
p.25 #13 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
AlphaPhotography wrote:
The only lenses I've ever used that were large enough to cause issues in my bag and handholding are the Sigma 150-600mm and to a lesser extent the Sony 200-600mm. Everything smaller has been manageable and I'd gladly take the faster aperture in almost every situation except traveling overseas where there are strict weight restrictions (my flight to Amsterdam had a 22lb total carry-on limit).
I agree that there is a smaller pool of people interested in something like a 135mm f1.4 but lenses like the 28-70 f2 and 15-35mm f2.8 have drawn me to the RF system now that competitive bodies are here. If Canon decided to make the 28-70 as one of their first RF lenses then I'm confident that there are plenty of people interested based on their market research, along with the f1.2's. Every review I've seen/read has said it's optically excellent and the only complaints are size/weight/price.
I don't think the 85 GM's chromatic abberation performance is being exaggerated. It is poor compared to other lenses like the 135 GM, 24 GM, Sigma 35mm f1.2 and Canon f1.2 lenses. My friend who owns it jokes about it after he posted a photo with "glowing" brake lines on a bicycle (see crop).
And this quote: "While the resolution performance of the Sony FE 1.4/85 GM fits more modern portrait lenses, the longitudinal chromatic aberration correction is closer to that of older constructions. The aberration is distinct at the maximum relative aperture and remains visible even on stopping down the lens to f/2.0. It is a very surprising result, taking into account the fact the lens’s optical construction features as many as three low dispersion elements." from this review: https://www.lenstip.com/484.5-Lens_review-Sony_FE_85_mm_f_1.4_GM_Chromatic_and_spherical_aberration.html
Check our this comparison of the 85GM and RF85 with his conclusion in the last minute:
I do prefer the rounder bokeh of the 85GM.
I'd love for them to make an f1.2 version with AF, sharpness, and CA control matching the 135mm.
I agree that Sony has more than enough choices but that they are no longer the best choices when looking across systems (for low light and shallow DOF). I own the 24GM and 135GM which is easily the best performing lens I've used. I would love for both of them to be f1.2 and f1.4 respectively.
I have made and sold tons of images by now using the GM over all the years since its introduction, in all kinds of situations. I bet by far quite a few more than your friend ;-). Large issues due to CAs similarly to the cables you show are rare in real life, so ye, that is why I call them exaggerated (longitudinal aberrations, lateral are very well controlled), since the situation in real life is what counts, not the worst case result for arm chair photographers who inspect everything at 200%. The more so if it is easily correctable in case it is an issue.
Remember, I didn't say the Canon, a much newer construction, to be worse or less sharp. I just see the difference not large enough to justify the extra weight and size and money for gains you have difficulties seeing in most situations in real life. A lens which I would say can be problematic is one of the first lenses Sony introduced, the 55/1.8 (but otherwise a fantastic lens).
"I think the jury is still out on the throat diameter thingy,"
The new 20/1.8G seems to easily compete with the new Nikkor if Jim Kasson comparison is to be trusted. Does this proove anything? No, because people here aren't scientists and you can't compare thoroughly without knowing all parameters.
It all depends on compromises in design, cost etc. Without knowing what those were, a comparison makes only remotely sense and is pure speculation, esp. if prices are often different (e.g. 35/1.8 G vs. Z, again quite a difference in Germany).
p.25 #14 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
I'm just a sucker for fast glass. Probably in the minority but it's not about justifying the cost/weight/size as much as it's simply the best lens in its class for quality/speed. I think that holds true for the rf 50 f1.2, 85 f1.2, 28-70mm f2, 70-200mm f2.8, and 15-35 f2.8 (comparable to the 16-35GM which I own but that extra 1mm is huge on the wide end). I'm curious to see how the upcoming 100-500 (I have it on pre-order) compares to my current 200-600 which is frustratingly unusable with my A7RIV.
Sony has RF beat in the 12-15mm range, 24mm, and 135mm but I use those focal lengths far less. The one other I'm hoping for soon is an RF competitor to the Sigma 35mm f1.2.
Holger wrote:
I have made and sold tons of images by now using the GM over all the years since its introduction, in all kinds of situations. I bet by far quite a few more than your friend ;-). Large issues due to CAs similarly to the cables you show are rare in real life, so ye, that is why I call them exaggerated (longitudinal aberrations, lateral are very well controlled), since the situation in real life is what counts, not the worst case result for arm chair photographers who inspect everything at 200%. The more so if it is easily correctable in case it is an issue.
Remember, I didn't say the Canon, a much newer construction, to be worse or less sharp. I just see the difference not large enough to justify the extra weight and size and money for gains you have difficulties seeing in most situations in real life. A lens which I would say can be problematic is one of the first lenses Sony introduced, the 55/1.8 (but otherwise a fantastic lens).
"I think the jury is still out on the throat diameter thingy,"
The new 20/1.8G seems to easily compete with the new Nikkor if Jim Kasson comparison is to be trusted. Does this proove anything? No, because people here aren't scientists and you can't compare thoroughly without knowing all parameters.
It all depends on compromises in design, cost etc. Without knowing what those were, a comparison makes only remotely sense and is pure speculation, esp. if prices are often different (e.g. 35/1.8 G vs. Z, again quite a difference in Germany). ...Show more →
p.25 #15 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
I think it depends on everyone's limits for what's reasonable for a walk-around. If I'm already choosing to bring my A7RIV out instead of just my iPhone then the difference between the Tamron 28-75 f2.8 and a 28-70 f2 is minimal to me. My brother-in-law has the Tamron which is excellent btw, but too many compromises being both 28mm on the wide end AND only f2.8. I would LOVE for the RF 28-70 f2 to have been 24mm wide and I'd have paid more for it (I have the 28-70 refurb on order). I wouldn't have minded the added size/weight because it's yet another step in reducing lens changes and compromises for my use.
chez wrote:
Not sure how much I'd be walking around with a lens weighing 1430gm. You'd also be sacrificing the wider 24mm which makes quite a difference compared to 28mm. I just don't envision the 28-70 being your typical walk around lens. Now the Tamron 28-75...yeh a great walk around.
p.25 #16 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
I found the 100-400mm GM light and compact when I owned it. It was only when I purchased the 200-600mm that I started having problems easily fitting it into my bags. I think everyone's threshold is different. Flights could be a problem. I haven't yet traveled anywhere with a long zoom where there are weight restrictions, only domestically with the Sigma 100-400mm.
raminolta wrote:
Interesting. I already find my 100-400mm GM lens is too heavy: it is not suitable for long hikes. It is not suitable to be put in a carry-on bag on flights because it adds so much weight to the bag, the check-in staff may complain my carry-on is too heavy. There is no way I want a midrange zoom being that heavy and to gain what? Only one extra f-stop. I just checked the Canon 50mm f1.2 RF lens is also quite heavier than the Sony Planar 50mm f1.4 which is already a very heavy lens (among normal lenses).
p.25 #17 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
AlphaPhotography wrote:
I think it depends on everyone's limits for what's reasonable for a walk-around. If I'm already choosing to bring my A7RIV out instead of just my iPhone then the difference between the Tamron 28-75 f2.8 and a 28-70 f2 is minimal to me. My brother-in-law has the Tamron which is excellent btw, but too many compromises being both 28mm on the wide end AND only f2.8. I would LOVE for the RF 28-70 f2 to have been 24mm wide and I'd have paid more for it (I have the 28-70 refurb on order). I wouldn't have minded the added size/weight because it's yet another step in reducing lens changes and compromises for my use.
Personally for me f2.8 is just fine for a walk around...and if it ain't for certain situations, so isn't a f2.0 lens. I'd much rather have primes for when I'm out taking photos which are much lighter than the 28-70 and much faster if I need the wider opening. For me, f2.0 is no man's land...makes the lens way to heavy and is not really fast enough if I need a wide aperture.
p.25 #18 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
Which 2-3 much faster primes do you use?
chez wrote:
Personally for me f2.8 is just fine for a walk around...and if it ain't for certain situations, so isn't a f2.0 lens. I'd much rather have primes for when I'm out taking photos which are much lighter than the 28-70 and much faster if I need the wider opening. For me, f2.0 is no man's land...makes the lens way to heavy and is not really fast enough if I need a wide aperture.
p.25 #19 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
Regarding the guy in the Youtube video comparing Sony fe 85mm 1.4 GM to Canon rf 85mm 1.2, I really do not trust any random guy's review. I see shots taken with the 85mm gm seem soft in comparison to the Canon lens. It can be because his misfocused the Sony lens or, something in his settings went wrong or, he doesn't know how to handle Sony files in post editing. Who knows? Maybe he is right, maybe not. but I don't trust his evaluation. I prefer to wait for sites like DXO Mark to test the lens before believing in anything.
DXOMark has so far reviewed two RF lenses. Canon RF 50mm f/1.2L USM on EOS R scores 22 in sharpness on DXOMark. Canon RF 28-70mm f/2L USM. Sony FE 24-70mm F2.8 GM scores 28 in sharpness on A7r ii. The Sony Carl Zeiss Planar T* FE 50mm 1.4 ZA scores 41 in sharpness. In other words, the Sony FE lenses are better than the Canon RF lenses. This means as of now as far as we know, the Sony system is the best option for those who are looking for best available image quality (the combination of sensor/lens).
p.25 #20 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
raminolta wrote:
Regarding the guy in the Youtube video comparing Sony fe 85mm 1.4 GM to Canon rf 85mm 1.2, I really do not trust any random guy's review. I see shots taken with the 85mm gm seem soft in comparison to the Canon lens. It can be because his misfocused the Sony lens or, something in his settings went wrong or, he doesn't know how to handle Sony files in post editing. Who knows? Maybe he is right, maybe not. but I don't trust his evaluation. I prefer to wait for sites like DXO Mark to test the lens before believing in anything.
DXOMark has so far reviewed two RF lenses. Canon RF 50mm f/1.2L USM on EOS R scores 22 in sharpness on DXOMark. Canon RF 28-70mm f/2L USM. Sony FE 24-70mm F2.8 GM scores 28 in sharpness on A7r ii. The Sony Carl Zeiss Planar T* FE 50mm 1.4 ZA scores 41 in sharpness. In other words, the Sony FE lenses are better than the Canon RF lenses. This means as of now, anyone switching to Canon for the sake of an imaginary perception of better Canon lenses is in the oldest known human business: self-deception! ...Show more →
DXOMark's sharpness scores appear to be tied to the resolution of the test camera. So test on higher resolution camera and you get an apparently "sharper" lens. The RF lenses are bound to score lower because DXO is testing them on lower res cameras. DXO is inherently unreliable in this respect. According to DXO, the ultra-expensive mirrorless RF 50/1.2L is not the slightest bit sharper than the junky EF 50/1.4 from 1993. Both score 22 for sharpness. DXO even rates the buzzy-motor original EF 35/2 (from 1990!) as "sharper" than the new RF 50/1.2L Anybody who believes that should consider buying a large bridge in Brooklyn.
