p.21 #1 · Is Viltrox Getting Sued? (No more RF-EF Adapters/Speedboosters/Lenses)
AmbientMike wrote:
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 ...Show more →
Yes astro is a particular use case but again the options I mentioned are all excellent for regular daylight shooting as well.
I forgot to mention that there’s also the Sigma 24 f2 which is the more budget friendly option for those who want something smaller and lighter than an Art or GM. That goes for £549
p.21 #2 · Is Viltrox Getting Sued? (No more RF-EF Adapters/Speedboosters/Lenses)
bballfreak6 wrote:
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.
You are making an assumption, and ignoring the point I was conveying: that you should judge the lens' performance after corrections are applied, and not dismiss it out of hand (due to said corrections).
In actual testing, the RF 14-35L looks quite good at most focal lengths. Here, it shows better peripheral performance than the RF 15-35L on an R5:
I rather suspect Bryan tested an outlier copy of the 15-35L, but except for some weakness at 35mm, the performance of the 14-35 stands on its own.
Sep 15, 2022 at 10:10 AM
AmbientMike Offline • • • • • • [X]
p.21 #3 · Is Viltrox Getting Sued? (No more RF-EF Adapters/Speedboosters/Lenses)
SNJOps wrote:
Yes astro is a particular use case but again the options I mentioned are all excellent for regular daylight shooting as well.
I forgot to mention that there’s also the Sigma 24 f2 which is the more budget friendly option for those who want something smaller and lighter than an Art or GM. That goes for £549
As much clamoring as there's been about light, inexpensive primes, though the 24/1.4's really don't have a place in this thread. Not light lenses.
I don't do much astro anyway and the little I do tends to not get pp'd. IS gets used, a lot, in low light at dusk etc.
Sep 15, 2022 at 11:19 AM
AmbientMike Offline • • • • • • [X]
p.21 #4 · 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 →
How is the 16-35/4 + adapter? I'd probably just use that, if I ever go R my 15+ year old macro is coming. At least at this point it is. Opticallimits tested the 15-35 part of the problem may be that mirrorless has a larger distance from the corner than the center on uwa.
p.21 #5 · Is Viltrox Getting Sued? (No more RF-EF Adapters/Speedboosters/Lenses)
The thread is about the availability of third party lenses and accessories. Some people want light and cheap, some want character, some want heavy and fast, some want IS. That’s sort of the whole point; more choices tend to benefit the artist.
AmbientMike wrote:
As much clamoring as there's been about light, inexpensive primes, though the 24/1.4's really don't have a place in this thread. Not light lenses.
I don't do much astro anyway and the little I do tends to not get pp'd. IS gets used, a lot, in low light at dusk etc.
p.21 #6 · Is Viltrox Getting Sued? (No more RF-EF Adapters/Speedboosters/Lenses)
garyvot wrote:
You are making an assumption, and ignoring the point I was conveying: that you should judge the lens' performance after corrections are applied, and not dismiss it out of hand (due to said corrections).
In actual testing, the RF 14-35L looks quite good at most focal lengths. Here, it shows better peripheral performance than the RF 15-35L on an R5:
I rather suspect Bryan tested an outlier copy of the 15-35L, but except for some weakness at 35mm, the performance of the 14-35 stands on its own.
Nope I didn't miss your point; I know the lens is sharp across the frame post correction, as matter of fact I said it in my original post that I am not paying that much more money just for a bit more sharpness (compared to my EF 16-35 f/4). My point still stands; you lose resolution when you apply correction that's a separate issue, I'd love to see if the RAW file produced comes out at the full resolution of whichever body it's used with to see or understand how Canon mitigate the problem from correction, if it's through say upscaling then I'd imagine the integrity of the RAW would be affected.
OTOH you've missed and I will be saying for the third time now, post correction Dustin found the lens to be longer than the Samyang 14mm so it might be looking more like a 15mm or god forbid closer to 16mm which was the point of my original post in that I will be paying a lot more upgrading possibly without getting a noticeably wider lens compared to my 16-35 f/4 (which mind you handles distortion so well I rarely feel the need to correct it when I shoot landscapes) and just gaining a bit more sharpness which is not worthwhile for me as the EF 16-35 f/4 is still plenty sharp.
AmbientMike wrote:
How is the 16-35/4 + adapter? I'd probably just use that, if I ever go R my 15+ year old macro is coming. At least at this point it is. Opticallimits tested the 15-35 part of the problem may be that mirrorless has a larger distance from the corner than the center on uwa.
It works great everything functions as it should. I want to upgrade partly due to GAS and partly wanted a wider lens (14 vs 16 is significant) and the extra sharpness is always nice as I do print. The adapter can be inconvenient at times though mainly due to the added length and how it affects packing/transporting when you're already packing tight.
p.21 #7 · Is Viltrox Getting Sued? (No more RF-EF Adapters/Speedboosters/Lenses)
bballfreak6 wrote:
OTOH you've missed and I will be saying for the third time now, post correction Dustin found the lens to be longer than the Samyang 14mm so it might be looking more like a 15mm or god forbid closer to 16mm
I have the Samyang 14mm (original), the 14-35mm f/4L, the Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8 and have shot and tested the RF 15-35mm f/2.8L -
IMO, based on fov of MANY lenses I've tested, including on other platforms, the Samyang 14mm isn't a true 14mm. it's closer to 13mm than to 14mm.
The RF 14-35mm is, I believe, true 14mm in width. The Sigma 14-24mm (both DSLR and mirrorless versions) is closer to 14.5mm, and the RF 15-35mm is longer still.
So the RF 14-35 is not 15mm and certainly not 16mm. It's wider than the other 14mm zooms I've used and wider than the Canon 15-35mm.
This is all after correction.
Canon marks their lenses based on corrected FOV - for instance the RF 16mm f/2.8 has massive correction needed. It's 16mm when corrected. Uncorrected, it's closer to 13.5mm.
p.21 #8 · Is Viltrox Getting Sued? (No more RF-EF Adapters/Speedboosters/Lenses)
Jman13 wrote:
I have the Samyang 14mm (original), the 14-35mm f/4L, the Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8 and have shot and tested the RF 15-35mm f/2.8L -
IMO, based on fov of MANY lenses I've tested, including on other platforms, the Samyang 14mm isn't a true 14mm. it's closer to 13mm than to 14mm.
The RF 14-35mm is, I believe, true 14mm in width. The Sigma 14-24mm (both DSLR and mirrorless versions) is closer to 14.5mm, and the RF 15-35mm is longer still.
So the RF 14-35 is not 15mm and certainly not 16mm. It's wider than the other 14mm zooms I've used and wider than the Canon 15-35mm.
This is all after correction.
Canon marks their lenses based on corrected FOV - for instance the RF 16mm f/2.8 has massive correction needed. It's 16mm when corrected. Uncorrected, it's closer to 13.5mm. ...Show more →
Thank you that's actually really good to know it does come to a true 14mm (I do already know the part about Canon marking their lenses based on corrected FOV though it's more like you said often different manufacturer's stated focal length are not exactly what it supposed to be).
Are you getting the full resolution files ie stated body mpx in the RAW? Also how does the correction get applied when you load the file into say Lightroom? I think I am mainly concerned about the mustache distortion tested by Dustin Abbott.
Looking at your corrected image of the Supreme Court of Ohio I can see the effect of the mustache distortion. But I guess at the same time it's going to be very specific situations for it to be noticeable.
I don't know it's a hard one, I am guesstimating it's still going to cost me ~1k AUD to move over to the 14-35 after selling my 16-35 f/4 (and that's with the lens on sale here and with Canon Australia cash back going on right now) and I am not sure if I am happy with the compromises but the lure of 14mm in a zoom for situations that requires it is tempting.
I think I am still disappointed with the approach that Canon took with this lens considering the L designation especially with the wonderful job that they did on the EF 16-35 f/4; I know designing an UWA zoom is always going to be a challenge let alone one that doesn't have a bulbous front element at 14mm but I was hoping with the bigger RF mount which was meant to allow for more radical lens design they could've done better than this.
For me personally I would have been stoked if they maybe had gone with say a 14-24/28 zoom range with 82mm filter thread size and even if they had to add a bit more weight if it meant fixing up the (my perceived) issues with this lens.
p.21 #11 · Is Viltrox Getting Sued? (No more RF-EF Adapters/Speedboosters/Lenses)
As an interesting update to the Canon/Viltrox issue, I picked up a Viltrox RF mount 85mm f1.8. On an EOS R, it identifies as VILTROX AF 85/1.8 RF, and the various lens corrections are shown as "Correction data not available". So things seemed to have changed from the earlier situation where it supposedly identified as an EF 85mm f1.8
p.21 #15 · Is Viltrox Getting Sued? (No more RF-EF Adapters/Speedboosters/Lenses)
TeamSpeed wrote:
I believe there were two variants of the viltrox 85mm?
I believe there were 2 AF versions for Sony, and the RF version is based off the version II design. Hence it seems to be sometimes refered to as RF II, even though there apparently wasn't actually an RF version I. Preceding based on my interpretation of Dustin Abbott's review.
