Archive 2020 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
Steve Spencer Online • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
p.27 #1 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
Holger wrote:
Adapters introduce additional variables (sealing, electronic contacts, possible skew). I had my only bad experience with moisture when using adapters. I don't know whether this was coincidence.
Many lenses weren't optimised for CDAF. Of course you can use them, esp. during transition, but "no compromise" is a bit too rosy, imo (unless you define it as getting rid of AFMA etc.).
It would be interesting to compare the performance of a 600/4 designed for the R system compared to attaching the DSLR 600/4 with adapter. I could easily imagine differences. How bif this compromise would be is the intersting question.
I think what arbitrage is saying is that EF lenses on Canon RF cameras will work as well as they do on DSLRs or very nearly so. That means if you have an EF lenses you can buy a Canon RF camera and the lens will continue to work as well as it did without compromises in its performance.The lens wasn't optimized for CDAF on the EF DSLR either. No one is saying that new lenses designed for RF won't outperform similarly spec'd EF lenses (of course in many ways the Canon EF 800 f/5.6L will outperform the new RF 800 f/11, but that is a different issue because the lenses aren't similarly spec'd). New lenses for the RF mount should and in almost all cases will outperform EF lenses, just like new versions of EF lenses should outperform older EF lenses. Still having the large number of lenses for EF that works as well as they do on EF cameras is a big benefit for the RF system.
p.27 #2 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
NJPhotographer wrote:
No, the old 50/1.4 is far below the RF 50/1.2. The-Digital-Picture has comparisons in their Lens Image Quality tool. It's not even close. The old 50/1.4 at 1.4 is hazy throughout: center, middle and corners, topped off with purple fringing. The new RF 50/1.2 is neither hazy nor purple. It's 25 years newer and a big step up in quality. Yet on DXO they both score the same. That's not useful. If we relied on DXO, we could all save a lot of money by buying 1990's lenses, thinking they're just as sharp as the latest big-priced lenses.
I was only talking about sharpness. The new RF lens scores way better in other aspects (including CA) in DXOMark and its overall score is also better than the old one. At this point, I still trust DXOMark more than anywhere else. Here's something to read regarding this comparison: https://www.thephoblographer.com/2019/06/14/dxomark-the-new-canon-rf-50mm-f1-2-l-usm-proves-to-be-quite-nifty/. It says the new lens isn't sharp wide open hence the reason for the low DXOMark score but it becomes razor sharp once stopped down to f1.8.
That said, honestly, I am not certain and I don't care about these Canon lenses enough to try to figure out this puzzle since Canon isn't my system right now. If I ever consider switching to Canon, I will definitely want to check these lenses as thoroughly as possible, reading all available online sources and even buy both and compare them side by side-by-side myself to verify what this hype is all about. At this point, I would say even if I were a Canon shooter and wanted a top level 50mm normal lens, the Canon RF 50mm f1.2 would more likely not be my first choice (weight, size, price, sharpness, etc.). It will be an adapted Sigma Art or Zeiss lens.
p.27 #6 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
RoamingScott wrote:
The 50/1.2 by all accounts seems like a once in a generation lens. Too bad it’s the worst focal length ever
I prefer 50mm, but that is subjective of course. However I wouldn't consider it a once in a generation lens. The Canon R50/1.2 is already showing non-circular bokeh balls from f2 on. That's disappointing, the majority of our images are around f2 when shooting bride and groom to get both within the DOF. Strong cats eyes and over 3 stops of vignetting wide open is quite something, too. It is an excellent lens, but these factors would hold me off to giving it a "once in a generation" lens title.
p.27 #7 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
RoamingScott wrote:
The 50/1.2 by all accounts seems like a once in a generation lens. Too bad it’s the worst focal length ever
With the exception of photographers who know how to use the 50mm focal length effectively. For outdoors in open space, the RF 50mm 1.2 can allow leaving the 35mm and 85mm in the bag, and simply walking closer and farther. 50mm is equal as a tool. Some RF 50mm photos have so much detail, any extra sharpening my not help.
From a wedding I did for Lee Orr and bride Kristy Lee Cook in a snowy aspen grove. I used to shoot mostly 85mm 1.2, but found the 50mm 1.2 just as good. With just a few steps back and forth, it could shoot tight or also grab surrounding scenery.
p.27 #8 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
raminolta wrote:
I was only talking about sharpness. The new RF lens scores way better in other aspects (including CA) in DXOMark and its overall score is also better than the old one. At this point, I still trust DXOMark more than anywhere else. Here's something to read regarding this comparison: https://www.thephoblographer.com/2019/06/14/dxomark-the-new-canon-rf-50mm-f1-2-l-usm-proves-to-be-quite-nifty/. It says the new lens isn't sharp wide open hence the reason for the low DXOMark score but it becomes razor sharp once stopped down to f1.8.
That said, honestly, I am not certain and I don't care about these Canon lenses enough to try to figure out this puzzle since Canon isn't my system right now. If I ever consider switching to Canon, I will definitely want to check these lenses as thoroughly as possible, reading all available online sources and even buy both and compare them side by side-by-side myself to verify what this hype is all about. At this point, I would say even if I were a Canon shooter and wanted a top level 50mm normal lens, the Canon RF 50mm f1.2 would more likely not be my first choice (weight, size, price, sharpness, etc.). It will be an adapted Sigma Art or Zeiss lens.
Thephoblographer is just repeating the DXO score. Your link is to a page whose main purpose is to "share" the DXO score. In Thephoblographer's actual review of the RF 50, the sharpness of the lens is listed as one of their "likes". Thephoblographer's actual review says: "it’s super sharp when stopped down and wide open." By comparison, nobody would ever call the old EF 50/1.4 "super sharp" wide open.
p.27 #9 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
The eye AF looks to be on par with the Sony in these cameras. Well done Canon.
Jul 25, 2020 at 01:18 PM
osv2 Offline • • • • [X]
p.27 #10 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
NJPhotographer wrote:
That's why I'm saying DXO's "22" sharpness score for both lenses is not useful.
agree with that, you are obviously looking at the wrong dxo metric.
you should be comparing sharpness at each aperture setting, instead of the overall "22" metric, which is an average of all sharpness measurements, taken at all aperture settings.
the averaged-out "22" numbers are similar because by f/4 the sharpness measurement profiles are close to each other, and by f/5.6-f/8 they are identical, for both lenses.
Jul 25, 2020 at 01:22 PM
osv2 Offline • • • • [X]
p.27 #11 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
1bwana1 wrote:
The eye AF looks to be on par with the Sony in these cameras. Well done Canon.
putting a box over the eye doesn't mean that canon has the same keeper ratios in actual pics.
p.27 #14 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
osv2 wrote:
agree with that, you are obviously looking at the wrong dxo metric.
you should be comparing sharpness at each aperture setting, instead of the overall "22" metric, which is an average of all sharpness measurements, taken at all aperture settings.
the averaged-out "22" numbers are similar because by f/4 the sharpness measurement profiles are close to each other, and by f/5.6-f/8 they are identical, for both lenses.
It may be the "wrong" DXO metric, but it's the metric DXO chooses when ranking lenses by sharpness. So they are the ones who choose to do it wrong, unfortunately misleading some photographers.
When judging 50mm f/1.2 and f/1.4 lenses, most photographers don't rank lenses by how they look by f/4. Many lenses are close to each other by f/4, and nearly identical by f/5.6-f/8. So that "average" approach is not useful when ranking lenses.
Jul 25, 2020 at 01:30 PM
osv2 Offline • • • • [X]
p.27 #15 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
NJPhotographer wrote:
It may be the "wrong" DXO metric, but it's the metric DXO chooses when ranking lenses by sharpness.
dxo didn't make you compare an averaged metric to a specific aperture measurement, you did that all on your own, lol
1) thedigitalpicture doesn't have an overall average metric, so it's not comparable to the dxo averaged measurement, you posted apples vs. oranges, it was not valid.
2) dxo *does* have sharpness measurements at every aperture, just like thedigitalpicture does, and in that case you can see that the ef50/1.4 is garbage wide open.
p.27 #16 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
No one cares what a 1.2 lens looks like at 4, end of story. The RF 50 is stunningly sharp at 1.2, and worthy of heaping praise. It’s a huge step forward from the EF days.
The RF 85 is of course light years beyond the Keg as well, but not to the same degree as the 50s.
Jul 25, 2020 at 02:05 PM
osv2 Offline • • • • [X]
p.27 #17 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
AlphaPhotography wrote:
Seems to work well for humans
i like jared polin, but at some level he's a drama queen that posts clickbait in order to drive traffic.
look at his ridiculous 1dxmk3/lens hood vs. a9ii/evf comparison, he tried to claim that 1dxm3 liveview was just as good, and he wasn't even operating the a9ii correctly, he didn't use real-time tracking.
p.27 #18 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
osv2 wrote:
dxo didn't make you compare an averaged metric to a specific aperture measurement, you did that all on your own, lol
Open DXOMark's Lens Database, and rank lenses by Sharpness. Then you see: it's based on that Sharpness score. And you see: the RF 50mm ranks way down on the list, same as the very old 1993 EF 50/1.4. That's misleading. We often see that score reposted, as we did in this thread. In that ranking, the new RF 50 looks like junk, equal to a cheap old lens. That's how DXO is set up. I didn't set it up that way.
How misleading is DXO? For evidence, just look at raminolta's post above, stating "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."
So that's just one FredMiranda forum member accepting the "22" sharpness ranking as authoritative and reliable. Likely many photographers are misled the same way, thinking the RF lenses are as sharp as 1990s junk. Why is DXO set up to mislead? I don't know.
If someone looks up the aperture comparison chart, which you helpfully posted, they find that the RF 50/1.2 is much better than the old EF 50/1.4. But that's not how the lenses are ranked by DXO.
P.S. What's helpful about The-Digital-Picture's tool is that it compares actual pictures made by each lens. So you can see and compare the sharpness with your own eyes, instead of comparing numerical scores or color maps.
p.27 #19 · Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6
osv2 wrote:
i like jared polin, but at some level he's a drama queen that posts clickbait in order to drive traffic.
look at his ridiculous 1dxmk3/lens hood vs. a9ii/evf comparison, he tried to claim that 1dxm3 liveview was just as good, and he wasn't even operating the a9ii correctly, he didn't use real-time tracking.
Maybe, but who else even bothers to do a wind tunnel and sniff test these days?
