p.20 #1 · Is Viltrox Getting Sued? (No more RF-EF Adapters/Speedboosters/Lenses)
When SONY produced the 36MP CMOS sensor in 2013, NIKON realized that they couldn't design/ produce a sensor of that advanced technology within a satisfactory time frame. They wanted to give their customers the best quality, so they bought SONY sensors, and SONY was glad to provide them.
Canon, on the other hand, refused to do the same for their customers, and stubbornly stuck with their "outdated" 32MP sensor, so Canon customers, like myself, had to wait seven years for them to catch up, in 2020 with the EOS R5.
Leaves little doubt which Companies care more about their customers, VS the one that cares more
about it's "bottom line" profit.
Sep 13, 2022 at 11:01 AM
AmbientMike Offline • • • • • • [X]
p.20 #2 · Is Viltrox Getting Sued? (No more RF-EF Adapters/Speedboosters/Lenses)
I looked at going full frame. But if you don't use IS lenses, even 18-55 STM probably gives 2-3+ stops, depending on the number of photos you shoot. FF high ISO advantage no more than 2 stops. So am I even going to come out ahead using alts having no IS on FF? Idk. Sure I'd rather have these primes I don't think most, if any, have IS, though.
If you are using a lens having no IS and maybe no af, you can't really say you are using the latest tech, if you are into that. Even Rebel + kit lenses have both af and IS. Kinda can't look down on EF as antiquated if you are going to shoot like that.
p.20 #3 · Is Viltrox Getting Sued? (No more RF-EF Adapters/Speedboosters/Lenses)
Sy Sez wrote:
When SONY produced the 36MP CMOS sensor in 2013, NIKON realized that they couldn't design/ produce a sensor of that advanced technology within a satisfactory time frame. They wanted to give their customers the best quality, so they bought SONY sensors, and SONY was glad to provide them.
Canon, on the other hand, refused to do the same for their customers, and stubbornly stuck with their "outdated" 32MP sensor, so Canon customers, like myself, had to wait seven years for them to catch up, in 2020 with the EOS R5.
Leaves little doubt which Companies care more about their customers, VS the one that cares more
about it's "bottom line" profit. ...Show more →
In this sole regard I must concede.
Would be awesome to be using 2023 Sony image sensors with L lenses.
p.20 #4 · Is Viltrox Getting Sued? (No more RF-EF Adapters/Speedboosters/Lenses)
AmbientMike wrote:
I looked at going full frame. But if you don't use IS lenses, even 18-55 STM probably gives 2-3+ stops, depending on the number of photos you shoot. FF high ISO advantage no more than 2 stops. So am I even going to come out ahead using alts having no IS on FF? Idk. Sure I'd rather have these primes I don't think most, if any, have IS, though.
If you are using a lens having no IS and maybe no af, you can't really say you are using the latest tech, if you are into that. Even Rebel + kit lenses have both af and IS. Kinda can't look down on EF as antiquated if you are going to shoot like that.
Ive owned everything from tiny little sensors in point and shoots up to MF and everything in between. Currently own two smaller sensors in a Powershot and Coolpix, APS-C and a FF camera. FF definitely has more advantages than IS lenses. Everything from better DR and cleaner shots at higher ISO to better performance with lenses and better overall image quality in most cases. All depends whether your needs benefit from those advantages.
p.20 #5 · Is Viltrox Getting Sued? (No more RF-EF Adapters/Speedboosters/Lenses)
Sy Sez wrote:
When SONY produced the 36MP CMOS sensor in 2013, NIKON realized that they couldn't design/ produce a sensor of that advanced technology within a satisfactory time frame. They wanted to give their customers the best quality, so they bought SONY sensors, and SONY was glad to provide them.
Canon, on the other hand, refused to do the same for their customers, and stubbornly stuck with their "outdated" 32MP sensor, so Canon customers, like myself, had to wait seven years for them to catch up, in 2020 with the EOS R5.
Leaves little doubt which Companies care more about their customers, VS the one that cares more
about it's "bottom line" profit. ...Show more →
This is a pretty cynical take.
For Canon to stay competitive in sensor technology requires significant investments in R&D and manufacturing. This cuts into profits, not pads them.
Canon's reliance on in-house sensor technology is likely considered to be strategic, else it would become beholden to a competitor. Canon has the resources to do the heavy lifting. Nikon does not.
In any case, Canon's sensor in the 5D Mark IV did not in any way impede the success of that camera. In fact, it represented a significant improvement in DR over prior models. While it might have been a step behind Sony in absolute terms, most of the delta was in the margins that did not impact most photographers.
p.20 #6 · Is Viltrox Getting Sued? (No more RF-EF Adapters/Speedboosters/Lenses)
garyvot wrote:
This is a very cynical take.
For Canon to continue to stay competitive in sensor technology requires significant investments in R&D and manufacturing. This cuts into profits, not pads them.
It's simple enough to understand Canon's continued reliance on in-house sensor technology: it considers this to be strategic to the company and does not want to become beholden to a competitor. Canon has the resources to do the heavy lifting. Nikon does not.
Besides, Canon's "outdated" sensor technology in the 5D Mark IV did not in any way impede the success of that camera. In fact, it represented a significant improvement in DR over prior models. While it might have been a step behind Sony in absolute terms, most of the delta was in the margins that did not impact most photographers. ...Show more →
Sony's only able to leapfrog Canon because of revenue from selling ~50% of all 1.4 billion smartphone cameras.
If they had that revenue then they'd be ~6 years advance as well
It is like the Mac's 5nm die shrink advantage over any Intel or AMD chip. This is largely funded by revenue from 0.25 billion iPhone shipped annually.
p.20 #7 · Is Viltrox Getting Sued? (No more RF-EF Adapters/Speedboosters/Lenses)
garyvot wrote:
This is a pretty cynical take.
For Canon to stay competitive in sensor technology requires significant investments in R&D and manufacturing. This cuts into profits, not pads them. .
So, when choosing any product for purchase, rather than selecting the one that's technically, superior, or best suits your needs you simply select the one from whichever Company has the highest profits
I guess choosing by only one single criterion, profit, would undoubtably simplify all shopping decisions!
p.20 #8 · Is Viltrox Getting Sued? (No more RF-EF Adapters/Speedboosters/Lenses)
Pretty emotional responses from some people here. Just vote with your wallet...
I decided to sell all my Canon RF lenses except for the cheap and tiny 50mm f/1.8, because I don't need the big heavy lenses to produce shots that are good enough for my output. I can get great results with my Olympus/Panasonic gear and/or my Leica setup, all with smaller glass.
We're traveling to Europe next month and to Japan at the end of the year and I already know the Canon gear won't make those trips because the lenses are not conducive for me to lug around. At some point, having (expensive) gear that you won't take to your best photo opportunities is just a waste.
I keep either the R5 or the R6 to use with some nice older EF glass (135mm f/2, Zeiss, Voigtlander, Olympus OM) or my M-mount lenses and that's it. Some of that is large too, but it wasn't pricey when I bought it and it will not function as day-to-day gear.
Maybe one day, Canon or others will release lenses I can see myself lugging around all day. Or maybe not.
p.20 #9 · Is Viltrox Getting Sued? (No more RF-EF Adapters/Speedboosters/Lenses)
johnvanr wrote:
Pretty emotional responses from some people here. Just vote with your wallet...
I decided to sell all my Canon RF lenses except for the cheap and tiny 50mm f/1.8, because I don't need the big heavy lenses to produce shots that are good enough for my output. I can get great results with my Olympus/Panasonic gear and/or my Leica setup, all with smaller glass.
We're traveling to Europe next month and to Japan at the end of the year and I already know the Canon gear won't make those trips because the lenses are not conducive for me to lug around. At some point, having (expensive) gear that you won't take to your best photo opportunities is just a waste.
I keep either the R5 or the R6 to use with some nice older EF glass (135mm f/2, Zeiss, Voigtlander, Olympus OM) or my M-mount lenses and that's it. Some of that is large too, but it wasn't pricey when I bought it and it will not function as day-to-day gear.
Maybe one day, Canon or others will release lenses I can see myself lugging around all day. Or maybe not....Show more →
Canon has offered small, lightweight and travel friendly mirrorless kit for a long time, FYI.
Sep 14, 2022 at 11:18 AM
AmbientMike Offline • • • • • • [X]
p.20 #10 · Is Viltrox Getting Sued? (No more RF-EF Adapters/Speedboosters/Lenses)
Well OK, I'm not a big 24mm user but let's look at it logically. Canon has the 24/1.8 Rf they just released. 9.5 Oz. $600. Has IS.
I searched for 24mm Sony lenses on B&H. 24/1.4 Sigma is a bit more expensive, almost 2x as heavy at 18 oz. Faster but I didn't see any mention of OSS so it probably won't be as capable in low light. The only f/2-ish 24mm is the Samyang. A bit lighter at 8.1 oz and less expensive but again, no OSS mentioned. Looked again found 24/1.8 Sonnar, ~8oz, $800 again no OSS mentioned. Am I missing something or do they not have it? A bit more expensive a bit lighter. Sony 24 1.4 much heavier and over 2x the cost. Might be better optically but it might not be. And there's been a lot of clamoring for lightweight inexpensive primes and it's not light or inexpensive.
24/2.8 Sony $600 even though it's over a stop slower. Lighter but No mention of IS/OSS. So presumably significantly less capabilities. Some inexpensive light 3rd party 2.8's available. But the Canon looks like a great choice here imo due to speed, lightweight and presumably 2-3 stops due to IS. Even 1 stop puts it ahead of the 1.4. And most people aren't going to be shooting action using 24mm, mostly static subjects so IS is definitely a big consideration
p.20 #11 · Is Viltrox Getting Sued? (No more RF-EF Adapters/Speedboosters/Lenses)
garyvot wrote:
Canon has offered small, lightweight and travel friendly mirrorless kit for a long time, FYI.
The small Canon lenses are slow and/or not great optically. And what they call compact lenses aren’t compact at all.
Canon isn’t alone in this. Nikon, Panasonic and Leica SL are just as bad. Sony is a bit better and has good third-party options, but I don’t like using Sony.
Sep 14, 2022 at 02:00 PM
AmbientMike Offline • • • • • • [X]
p.20 #12 · Is Viltrox Getting Sued? (No more RF-EF Adapters/Speedboosters/Lenses)
If you get a stop or two, or more, out of better IS since Canon put IS in their 24/1.8, and you are shooting at f/2.8-4 vs 1.8 on the Sony, I'm liking the odds of doing better optically. 24 Rf is new any lens tests out yet?
~1.5 Oz vs Sony 24/1.8 to get IS is no big deal. Canon has 1:2 macro as well
p.20 #13 · Is Viltrox Getting Sued? (No more RF-EF Adapters/Speedboosters/Lenses)
AmbientMike wrote:
Well OK, I'm not a big 24mm user but let's look at it logically. Canon has the 24/1.8 Rf they just released. 9.5 Oz. $600. Has IS.
I searched for 24mm Sony lenses on B&H. 24/1.4 Sigma is a bit more expensive, almost 2x as heavy at 18 oz. Faster but I didn't see any mention of OSS so it probably won't be as capable in low light. The only f/2-ish 24mm is the Samyang. A bit lighter at 8.1 oz and less expensive but again, no OSS mentioned. Looked again found 24/1.8 Sonnar, ~8oz, $800 again no OSS mentioned. Am I missing something or do they not have it? A bit more expensive a bit lighter. Sony 24 1.4 much heavier and over 2x the cost. Might be better optically but it might not be. And there's been a lot of clamoring for lightweight inexpensive primes and it's not light or inexpensive.
24/2.8 Sony $600 even though it's over a stop slower. Lighter but No mention of IS/OSS. So presumably significantly less capabilities. Some inexpensive light 3rd party 2.8's available. But the Canon looks like a great choice here imo due to speed, lightweight and presumably 2-3 stops due to IS. Even 1 stop puts it ahead of the 1.4. And most people aren't going to be shooting action using 24mm, mostly static subjects so IS is definitely a big consideration ...Show more →
Sony don’t put OSS into their primes (certainly not the new ones) and neither do a lot of 3rd parties. For astro use you will be on a tripod so OSS needed.
As for lens quality the RF 24mm f1.8 has very bad coma whereas the 24mm f1.4 GM is one of the best astro corrected lenses on the market and it’s overall IQ is excellent too. The Sigma 24mm f1.4 DG DN is also very well corrected for astro use, almost to the level of the GM and again overall an excellent lens.
On emount OSS theses days is usually found on long zooms. I don’t miss OSS on any of my e mount primes but others may disagree.
p.20 #14 · Is Viltrox Getting Sued? (No more RF-EF Adapters/Speedboosters/Lenses)
The RF 35 1.8 IS Macro STM needs to be stopped down to F4 to nix most of the coma (as does the RF 50 1.8 STM and RF 85 2.0 IS). I've heard the new RF 24 1.8 is the same in this regard. I don't shoot astro—mainly landscape—but the coma really bothers me in twilight shots containing street and car lights. Wish Canon would do better. Having F1.8 is rather useless if you need to stop down to F4.
p.20 #15 · Is Viltrox Getting Sued? (No more RF-EF Adapters/Speedboosters/Lenses)
Gochugogi wrote:
The RF 35 1.8 IS Macro STM needs to be stopped down to F4 to nix most of the coma (as does the RF 50 1.8 STM and RF 85 2.0 IS). I've heard the new RF 24 1.8 is the same in this regard. I don't shoot astro—mainly landscape—but the coma really bothers me in twilight shots containing street and car lights. Wish Canon would do better. Having F1.8 is rather useless if you need to stop down to F4.
Since we're already gone completely off topic; I too don't quite understand Canon's design philosophy with their new wide angle lenses.
Was looking forward to possibly replacing my EF 16-35 f/4 with either the RF 15-35 f/2.8 or the 14-35 f/4 but the f/2.8 has such bad vignette wide open (almost 5 stops) basically nullifying the 1 stop light advantage so not worth the extra cash and the 14-35 firstly requires correction to fix the fact that the imaging circle doesn't fully cover the sensor (which will eat into my already low 20mpx on the R6) and has the dreaded mustache distortion which requires heavy correction making it not noticeably wider (I assume) post correction compared to my 16-35 (Dustin Abbott tested it against the Samyang 14 and post correction the RF is more cropped in than the Samyang).
I am not going to spend that much more money just for a little bit more sharpness.
p.20 #16 · Is Viltrox Getting Sued? (No more RF-EF Adapters/Speedboosters/Lenses)
bballfreak6 wrote:
Since we're already gone completely off topic; I too don't quite understand Canon's design philosophy with their new wide angle lenses.
Was looking forward to possibly replacing my EF 16-35 f/4 with either the RF 15-35 f/2.8 or the 14-35 f/4 but the f/2.8 has such bad vignette wide open (almost 5 stops) basically nullifying the 1 stop light advantage so not worth the extra cash and the 14-35 firstly requires correction to fix the fact that the imaging circle doesn't fully cover the sensor (which will eat into my already low 20mpx on the R6) and has the dreaded mustache distortion which requires heavy correction making it not noticeably wider (I assume) post correction compared to my 16-35 (Dustin Abbott tested it against the Samyang 14 and post correction the RF is more cropped in than the Samyang).
I am not going to spend that much more money just for a little bit more sharpness....Show more →
Digital corrections are part of the design of these lenses. This allows them to be either smaller/lighter, to have wider zoom ranges, or both.
The uncorrected angles of view of the 14-35, 15-30, 24-240 et al are greater than their bespoke focal lengths so that after correction, they deliver what is stated on the lens barrel. It doesn't make any sense to evaluate these lenses without corrections: that is not how they are meant to be used.
None of these are meant to be cost-no-object "statement" lenses, the way the 28-70 or 50 1.2 are. Within their price ranges they are (by all accounts) quite competitive.
Sep 14, 2022 at 10:41 PM
AmbientMike Offline • • • • • • [X]
p.20 #17 · Is Viltrox Getting Sued? (No more RF-EF Adapters/Speedboosters/Lenses)
SNJOps wrote:
Sony don’t put OSS into their primes (certainly not the new ones) and neither do a lot of 3rd parties. For astro use you will be on a tripod so OSS needed.
As for lens quality the RF 24mm f1.8 has very bad coma whereas the 24mm f1.4 GM is one of the best astro corrected lenses on the market and it’s overall IQ is excellent too. The Sigma 24mm f1.4 DG DN is also very well corrected for astro use, almost to the level of the GM and again overall an excellent lens.
On emount OSS theses days is usually found on long zooms. I don’t miss OSS on any of my e mount primes but others may disagree....Show more →
If you are on a tripod you negate most of the mirrorless advantages. 30fps isn't usually possible due to the slow ss, and unnecessary anyway. Blazing fast af usually doesn't matter, especially if you are mf on a tripod.
The 24/1.4's are not light, and the GM is fairly expensive. Yes they'd make sense for astro but that's different from regular daylight shooting. Coma isn't anywhere near as big a deal in daylight I don't believe. If even visible. I've seen excellent daylight lenses having odd looking stars, and not so sharp but quite usable lenses looking quite nice in night sky photos. Sure I'd rather have less, but am I willing to carry a heavier lens.
I realize Sony doesn't put IS OSS into their primes, but that's potentially a big advantage of getting the Canon 24/1.8 Rf, depending on how good IS turns out to be. If one could really use 1 or more seconds hh that'd be really useful
p.20 #18 · Is Viltrox Getting Sued? (No more RF-EF Adapters/Speedboosters/Lenses)
garyvot wrote:
Digital corrections are part of the design of these lenses. This allows them to be either smaller/lighter, to have wider zoom ranges, or both.
The uncorrected angles of view of the 14-35, 15-30, 24-240 et al are greater than their bespoke focal lengths so that after correction, they deliver what is stated on the lens barrel. It doesn't make any sense to evaluate these lenses without corrections: that is not how they are meant to be used.
None of these are meant to be cost-no-object "statement" lenses, the way the 28-70 or 50 1.2 are. Within their price ranges they are (by all accounts) quite competitive....Show more →
But that was my point; in Dustin Abbott's test the corrected image of the 14-35 comes out longer than the Samyang 14, so either the Samyang is actually wider than 14 or Canon's corrected image is longer. Also perspective and distortion corrections are not free, you lose pixels; again the fact that the imaging circle does not even cover the sensor and has mustache distortion says to me the correction would be quite aggressive and you'd lose a decent amount of resolution.
With the 15-35 ~4.5 stops of vignette is A LOT. That's going from ISO 100 to 2000. Maxing out the slider in Lightroom don't fix it. So either the corner is going to be noisy or aggressive noise reduction is being applied to it. Neither IMHO are good solutions. That alone is a non starter if you're shooting for example Milky Way landscape like I do.
You could argue that the 14-35 is not a statement lens etc but it is still an L lens and costs a hell of a lot more than what I paid for my EF 16-35 f/4 new and the 15-35 costs almost AUD 4K here in Australia and not exactly a light lens either at 860g so I'd absolutely put it in the premium lens category.
p.20 #20 · Is Viltrox Getting Sued? (No more RF-EF Adapters/Speedboosters/Lenses)
Jesse Evans wrote:
Neither the 15-35 nor the 14-35 are particularly good astro lenses. Canon has very few if any exceptional wide angle lenses for astro.
Most people have relied on third party lenses for Canon astrophotography.
Yea I am definitely holding onto my Sigma 14, 35 and 50.
I got to use my 28-70 f/2 the other weekend though and it did a superb job.
