Archive 2022 · Is Viltrox Getting Sued? (No more RF-EF Adapters/Speedboosters/Lenses)
AmbientMike Offline • • • • • • [X]
p.9 #1 · Is Viltrox Getting Sued? (No more RF-EF Adapters/Speedboosters/Lenses)
jwolfe wrote:
You really kinda have a problem with comprehension.
Yes I shoot at f8 until it’s too dark and I take the TC off. But once you add a TC to an f7.1 lens it’s f10. You should know this if you actually shoot with long lenses. That’s why I said f7.1 is a no go. You can’t use a TC in anything other than bright light.
I’m planning to add the 800mm pf once Nikon makes an R7 competitor so I won’t need a TC at all.
Look man, you already told me that I was completely wrong. Twice. And you are the one that was wrong.
Now you tell me my comprehension is bad. Because you ignorantly think I don't know f stops. Are you joking? You can blather on til the cows come home and theres 2/3 stop difference between the 500pf and 100-500 you inexplicably go off on. Maybe you should learn f stops better. If you have a hard time with a lens costing $2800, or think that 400mm isn't long enough go to the Sony board and tell them that their $12k 400/2.8 isn't any good on birds and the $2800 70-200/2.8 is too expensive.
Your arguments don't really make a lot of sense to begin with. And you don't seem to know what you are talking about. So maybe you should quit talking.
p.9 #2 · Is Viltrox Getting Sued? (No more RF-EF Adapters/Speedboosters/Lenses)
I don’t know what I’m talking about? You’re the one that can’t grasp why I don’t want an f7.1 lens when I’m shooting owls. I’ve been a professional photographer since 1996.
But whatever. If you want to resort to bashing instead of having an intelligent discussion that’s fine. I for one, do not think you’re a bird photographer, otherwise you wouldn’t be making such an ignorant argument.
AmbientMike wrote:
Look man, you already told me that I was completely wrong. Twice. And you are the one that was wrong.
Now you tell me my comprehension is bad. Because you ignorantly think I don't know f stops. Are you joking?
Your arguments don't really make a lot of sense to begin with. And you don't seem to know what you are talking about. So maybe you should quit talking.
p.9 #3 · Is Viltrox Getting Sued? (No more RF-EF Adapters/Speedboosters/Lenses)
jwolfe wrote:
I don’t know what I’m talking about? You’re the one that can’t grasp why I don’t want an f7.1 lens when I’m shooting owls. I’ve been a professional photographer since 1996.
But whatever. If you want to resort to bashing instead of having an intelligent discussion that’s fine. I for one, do not think you’re a bird photographer, otherwise you wouldn’t be making such an ignorant argument.
Aside from f7.1 being a struggle in low light, f7.1 also means less subject isolation which will be an issue for wildlife use in particular.
Sep 02, 2022 at 09:51 PM
AmbientMike Offline • • • • • • [X]
p.9 #4 · Is Viltrox Getting Sued? (No more RF-EF Adapters/Speedboosters/Lenses)
jwolfe wrote:
I don’t know what I’m talking about? You’re the one that can’t grasp why I don’t want an f7.1 lens when I’m shooting owls. I’ve been a professional photographer since 1996.
But whatever. If you want to resort to bashing instead of having an intelligent discussion that’s fine. I for one, do not think you’re a bird photographer, otherwise you wouldn’t be making such an ignorant argument.
You're the one making the ignorant arguments. Condescending and ignorant is not a good mix for you.
But if you want to make the argument that 7.1 is such a big deal when you shoot a 5.6 lens and put a TC on it for f/8, be my guest. It goes right along with freaking out about a 2800 dollar lens. Those unfortunately aren't rare anymore. Have you gone to the Sony board and told them their 400/2.8's aren't long enough for birds yet?
Trust me talking to you has been anything but an intelligent conversation
p.9 #5 · Is Viltrox Getting Sued? (No more RF-EF Adapters/Speedboosters/Lenses)
jwolfe wrote:
Well yeah I will argue that. I’ve shot the 100-500, the Sony 200-600 and the 500mm pf side by side and there’s no contest. The Nikon blows them all away. I can crop way tighter due to sharpness.
But you’re skirting the issue, and being a fanboy. There’s NO inexpensive long lens option in RF mount. Nikon has the 200-500 and will soon have their own 200-600. Sony has the 200-600 which is every bit as sharp as the Canon and $1,000 less expensive. And that’s just looking at birding lenses.
You can argue all you want that the 100-500 is a great lens, but in reality it’s average at best. And massively overpriced for what it offers.
The RF 100-500mm and Nikon 500mm PF are my two favourite lenses, and I shot them side by side with the Nikon on the D850 and the RF on the R5 in the field and very carefully compared them on charts. There was negligible difference between my copies. PCMag has measured their resolutions using IMATEST. On the D850/Z7 sensor, which is sharper than the R5 as it lacks the AA-filter, the 500PF scores 3756 l/ph, negligibly higher than the 3700 l/ph of the zoom at 500mm in the centre, consistent with negligible difference I saw on mine. Maybe your copies are different from mine and PCMag's, but I was very happy with both of mine. They were both at least as good as the two copies of the 400mm DO II I have had.
p.9 #6 · Is Viltrox Getting Sued? (No more RF-EF Adapters/Speedboosters/Lenses)
AmbientMike wrote:
You're the one making the ignorant arguments. Condescending and ignorant is not a good mix for you.
But if you want to make the argument that 7.1 is such a big deal when you shoot a 5.6 lens and put a TC on it for f/8, be my guest. It goes right along with freaking out about a 2800 dollar lens. Those unfortunately aren't rare anymore. Have you gone to the Sony board and told them their 400/2.8's aren't long enough for birds yet?
Trust me talking to you has been anything but an intelligent conversation
Here's some intelligent thought for you:
A 400 2.8, to the vast majority of owners or anyone considering one, or even just drooling over one, is considered to be a 400 2.8, 560 f4 and 800 5.6.
The RF 100-400 f5.6-8 though, the lens jwolfe discounted due to only being 400mm, is 560 f11 or 800 f16.
It would require a lack of intelligence to do as you suggest and go onto the Sony board, or any board, and tell them 400 2.8 is too short for birds. I'm sure you know this as you mention f stop for the 400 2.8 but not for the 400 f8 RF lens.
So you either do need lessons on f stops or you are choosing to debate focal lengths without including f stop.
p.9 #7 · Is Viltrox Getting Sued? (No more RF-EF Adapters/Speedboosters/Lenses)
Choderboy wrote:
Here's some intelligent thought for you:
A 400 2.8, to the vast majority of owners or anyone considering one, or even just drooling over one, is considered to be a 400 2.8, 560 f4 and 800 5.6.
The RF 100-400 f5.6-8 though, the lens jwolfe discounted due to only being 400mm, is 560 f11 or 800 f16.
It would require a lack of intelligence to do as you suggest and go onto the Sony board, or any board, and tell them 400 2.8 is too short for birds. I'm sure you know this as you mention f stop for the 400 2.8 but not for the 400 f8 RF lens.
So you either do need lessons on f stops or you are choosing to debate focal lengths without including f stop.
Arguments aside, I had the original Canon EF 400 f/2.8L lens - non-IS (bought used here on FM). It weighed something like 14-15 pounds, but it was incredibly sharp. Really, really great lens. But alas, at its weight, it was absolutely a monopod/tripod type lens for me, and not suitable for walking around. Still, optically, it was incredible.
It did increase my desire for fast glass though. Which is a shame, since really fast long glass is costly. That's always the tradeoff, regardless of brand - size versus f/stop. The 100-500, like all lenses, is a compromise - in this case, it compromises weight and hand-holdability over a larger aperture. I would love to see something that gets out to 500 at f/4, though I would expect it to be large and expensive. And much less handy to use. Still,...
That was the upside to my Sigma 150-600 - 600 mm at f/6.3 in a reasonably hand-holdable package, at a very good price. Granted, it slips a notch or two in absolute sharpness, and the bokeh can sometimes be a little "busy" but in terms of "mm per dollar", it is a pretty good bargain. My friend uses hers almost exclusively on her Nikon 7200 (she's a birder) and creates some excellent images.
p.9 #8 · Is Viltrox Getting Sued? (No more RF-EF Adapters/Speedboosters/Lenses)
Tom_W wrote:
Arguments aside, I had the original Canon EF 400 f/2.8L lens - non-IS (bought used here on FM). It weighed something like 14-15 pounds, but it was incredibly sharp. Really, really great lens. But alas, at its weight, it was absolutely a monopod/tripod type lens for me, and not suitable for walking around. Still, optically, it was incredible.
It did increase my desire for fast glass though. Which is a shame, since really fast long glass is costly. That's always the tradeoff, regardless of brand - size versus f/stop. The 100-500, like all lenses, is a compromise - in this case, it compromises weight and hand-holdability over a larger aperture. I would love to see something that gets out to 500 at f/4, though I would expect it to be large and expensive. And much less handy to use. Still,...
That was the upside to my Sigma 150-600 - 600 mm at f/6.3 in a reasonably hand-holdable package, at a very good price. Granted, it slips a notch or two in absolute sharpness, and the bokeh can sometimes be a little "busy" but in terms of "mm per dollar", it is a pretty good bargain. My friend uses hers almost exclusively on her Nikon 7200 (she's a birder) and creates some excellent images....Show more →
I have the Sigma 500 f4 S. About 7lb. Still heavy but about half the weight of the 400 you had. If Canon ever makes a new 500/4, it should be under 6lbs and feel even less with weight moved rearward.
p.9 #9 · Is Viltrox Getting Sued? (No more RF-EF Adapters/Speedboosters/Lenses)
I will admit my testing was brief. I compared the 100-500, the 200-600 and the 500 pf. I found the pf to be much sharper than the other two. However there are a lot of variables, such as sample variation, the bodies I was using etc.
The real deal breakers for me are f7.1, the terrible tripod mount design and lack of proper compatibility with TCs.
cpe1991 wrote:
The RF 100-500mm and Nikon 500mm PF are my two favourite lenses, and I shot them side by side with the Nikon on the D850 and the RF on the R5 in the field and very carefully compared them on charts. There was negligible difference between my copies. PCMag has measured their resolutions using IMATEST. On the D850/Z7 sensor, which is sharper than the R5 as it lacks the AA-filter, the 500PF scores 3756 l/ph, negligibly higher than the 3700 l/ph of the zoom at 500mm in the centre, consistent with negligible difference I saw on mine. Maybe your copies are different from mine and PCMag's, but I was very happy with both of mine. They were both at least as good as the two copies of the 400mm DO II I have had....Show more →
Sep 03, 2022 at 09:39 AM
AmbientMike Offline • • • • • • [X]
p.9 #10 · Is Viltrox Getting Sued? (No more RF-EF Adapters/Speedboosters/Lenses)
100-400 has been used for bird photos probably since it's inception decades ago. 400mm is 400mm if it's no good on the 100-400 it's no good on the 400/2.8. Since I know you are interested in education and not just being a troll & fanboy certainly you'd be interested in educating the Sony board as well .
Still remember the time someone told PetKal 400mm too short, or something similar. So he used 50/1.0!!! He got excellent wood duck photos
p.9 #11 · Is Viltrox Getting Sued? (No more RF-EF Adapters/Speedboosters/Lenses)
Choderboy wrote:
I have the Sigma 500 f4 S. About 7lb. Still heavy but about half the weight of the 400 you had. If Canon ever makes a new 500/4, it should be under 6lbs and feel even less with weight moved rearward.
The Canon 500 f/4L II is about the same weight, give or take a couple of ounces. Hand-holdable for brief periods, but generally less practical than the 100-400/100-500/150-600 for walkabout.
p.9 #12 · Is Viltrox Getting Sued? (No more RF-EF Adapters/Speedboosters/Lenses)
Are you talking to me? I’ve moved on. I generally don’t engage trolls who sit in their basement and argue about cameras online. I spend most of my time working.
Your search history has no photos that I can see. So your opinion really has no purpose other than to argue for the sake of arguing. Personally I’m going to go shoot. Good day.
AmbientMike wrote:
100-400 has been used for bird photos probably since it's inception decades ago. 400mm is 400mm if it's no good on the 100-400 it's no good on the 400/2.8. Since I know you are interested in education and not just being a troll & fanboy certainly you'd be interested in educating the Sony board as well .
Still remember the time someone told PetKal 400mm too short, or something similar. So he used 50/1.0!!! He got excellent wood duck photos
p.9 #13 · Is Viltrox Getting Sued? (No more RF-EF Adapters/Speedboosters/Lenses)
More to the original topic, imagine how much Canon users could fill out their lineup with modern lenses if third party lenses were available such as:
Sigma 14-24mm F2.8 DN Art
Sigma 16-28mm f/2.8 DN Art
Tamron 17-28mm f/2.8
Sigma 20mm f/1.4 DN Art
Sigma 24mm f/1.4 DN Art
Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DN Art (or Samyang version) or 35mm f/1.2 Art
Samyang AF 50mm f/1.4 UMC II
SIgma 85mm f/1.4 DN Art or Samyang 85mm f/1.4 II
Sigma 70mm or 105mm DN Macro
Samyang AF 135mm f/1.8
Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 or Sigma 28-70mm f/2.8
Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 DN Art
Tamron 70-180mm f/2.8, 70-300mm and 150-500mm
Not to mention many more. If all these great options were available, do you think people would want to swap brands or use heavier old EF lenses….
p.9 #14 · Is Viltrox Getting Sued? (No more RF-EF Adapters/Speedboosters/Lenses)
Photosbydlee wrote:
More to the original topic, imagine how much Canon users could fill out their lineup with modern lenses if third party lenses were available such as:
Sigma 14-24mm F2.8 DN Art
Sigma 16-28mm f/2.8 DN Art
Tamron 17-28mm f/2.8
Sigma 20mm f/1.4 DN Art
Sigma 24mm f/1.4 DN Art
Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DN Art (or Samyang version) or 35mm f/1.2 Art
Samyang AF 50mm f/1.4 UMC II
SIgma 85mm f/1.4 DN Art or Samyang 85mm f/1.4 II
Sigma 70mm or 105mm DN Macro
Samyang AF 135mm f/1.8
Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 or Sigma 28-70mm f/2.8
Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 DN Art
Tamron 70-180mm f/2.8, 70-300mm and 150-500mm
Not to mention many more. If all these great options were available, do you think people would want to swap brands or use heavier old EF lenses…. ...Show more →
Yep, would be awesome and Id go back to the RF mount for sure. I owned both the Samyang 35 1.4 (same price as RF 35 1.8) and 85 1.4 ($100 cheaper than Canon RF 85 f/2) on Sony. Both are great lenses, especially for the price. I will say however that the Samyang RF 85 1.4 focuses faster and more accurately than the FE version.
p.9 #15 · Is Viltrox Getting Sued? (No more RF-EF Adapters/Speedboosters/Lenses)
I’d love to see a couple of 150-600 options, and especially the Sigma 500mm f4 with matching TCs. One thing I don’t like is that Sony won’t allow teleconverters. And of course 24-70 and 70-200 2.8’s and some great portrait primes.
In Canon native glass, I’d love to see a 500mm or 600mm DO RF mount to compete with Nikon.
Photosbydlee wrote:
More to the original topic, imagine how much Canon users could fill out their lineup with modern lenses if third party lenses were available such as:
Sigma 14-24mm F2.8 DN Art
Sigma 16-28mm f/2.8 DN Art
Tamron 17-28mm f/2.8
Sigma 20mm f/1.4 DN Art
Sigma 24mm f/1.4 DN Art
Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DN Art (or Samyang version) or 35mm f/1.2 Art
Samyang AF 50mm f/1.4 UMC II
SIgma 85mm f/1.4 DN Art or Samyang 85mm f/1.4 II
Sigma 70mm or 105mm DN Macro
Samyang AF 135mm f/1.8
Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 or Sigma 28-70mm f/2.8
Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 DN Art
Tamron 70-180mm f/2.8, 70-300mm and 150-500mm
Not to mention many more. If all these great options were available, do you think people would want to swap brands or use heavier old EF lenses…. ...Show more →
p.9 #16 · Is Viltrox Getting Sued? (No more RF-EF Adapters/Speedboosters/Lenses)
Dexter75 wrote:
Yep, would be awesome and Id go back to the RF mount for sure. I owned both the Samyang 35 1.4 (same price as RF 35 1.8) and 85 1.4 ($100 cheaper than Canon RF 85 f/2) on Sony. Both are great lenses, especially for the price. I will say however that the Samyang RF 85 1.4 focuses faster and more accurately than the FE version.
I think many people who swapped out of lack of third party support would! I’d probably wait for an R6II before I’d consider it but would definitely be an option. Interesting that the RF version had better AF compared to FE, I owned the Z Sony version and had no issues with it but I ended up selling it for the 85mm DN Art which I consider to be more of the complete package (build, IQ and AF).
jwolfe wrote:
I’d love to see a couple of 150-600 options, and especially the Sigma 500mm f4 with matching TCs. One thing I don’t like is that Sony won’t allow teleconverters. And of course 24-70 and 70-200 2.8’s and some great portrait primes.
In Canon native glass, I’d love to see a 500mm or 600mm DO RF mount to compete with Nikon.
Yeah lot of options not to mention any future lens that Sigma/Tamron could announce. Tamron is announcing new lenses practically monthly so options that aren’t available could be very soon.
p.9 #17 · Is Viltrox Getting Sued? (No more RF-EF Adapters/Speedboosters/Lenses)
Tom_W wrote:
The Canon 500 f/4L II is about the same weight, give or take a couple of ounces. Hand-holdable for brief periods, but generally less practical than the 100-400/100-500/150-600 for walkabout.
I was thinking of a V3 500 f4 from Canon. If it follows the pattern of the V3 400 2.8 and 600 4, ie, huge weight reduction along with concentration of elements at the rear, it won't be much heavier than the 150-600s and will seem even lighter in use with rear weight bias. Unfortunately, it will come with Canon super tele price as well.
p.9 #18 · Is Viltrox Getting Sued? (No more RF-EF Adapters/Speedboosters/Lenses)
Choderboy wrote:
I was thinking of a V3 500 f4 from Canon. If it follows the pattern of the V3 400 2.8 and 600 4, ie, huge weight reduction along with concentration of elements at the rear, it won't be much heavier than the 150-600s and will seem even lighter in use with rear weight bias. Unfortunately, it will come with Canon super tele price as well.
I still have my 500mm f/4L IS Mark I, which is even heavier than the Mark II.
You are no doubt right about the RF version slimming down, similar to the v3 EF models, but I think it would be cool if Canon changed things up and gave us (maybe) a 500 f/4.5 DO IS that is considerably smaller and lighter still. I think losing a third of a stop at this focal length would be worthwhile for the gains in portability.
Pretty sure they won't do this though. Since Canon basically invented diffractive optics, they've been somewhat conservative in where and how they are applied.
p.9 #19 · Is Viltrox Getting Sued? (No more RF-EF Adapters/Speedboosters/Lenses)
Wouldn’t a 500mm f4.5 DO be a killer lens? Would set them apart for sure.
garyvot wrote:
I still have my 500mm f/4L IS Mark I, which is even heavier than the Mark II.
You are no doubt right about the RF version slimming down, similar to the v3 EF models, but I think it would be cool if Canon changed things up and gave us (maybe) a 500 f/4.5 DO IS that is considerably smaller and lighter still. I think losing a third of a stop at this focal length would be worthwhile for the gains in portability.
Pretty sure they won't do this though. Since Canon basically invented diffractive optics, they've been somewhat conservative in where and how they are applied....Show more →
p.9 #20 · Is Viltrox Getting Sued? (No more RF-EF Adapters/Speedboosters/Lenses)
jwolfe wrote:
Wouldn’t a 500mm f4.5 DO be a killer lens? Would set them apart for sure.
A quality DO zoom would be a great asset for birding. I would suggest the 200-600 range, but perhaps ending up at 4.5 or 5.6, or even the unusual f/5.0. Of course, all those those things add up to bigger glass, but if I'm going to venture out on walkabout, I really would prefer a zoom. As the 400 f/4 DO and Nikon's 500 f/5.6 PF show, you can get a pretty handy package using the DO technique, and very good IQ can be obtained.
Come to think of it, aren't the 600/11 and 800/11 DO lenses? Both, despite their cost-saving designs (constant aperture), have pretty good IQ, all things considered, and a great price.
