castlekeeper01 wrote:
“Unfortunately, my EF 16-35mm f4.0L sticks out way too much on my R6 to be practical for travel purposes.”
Please explain. I’ve traveled a bit - UK, Italy, Jamaica, Aruba, Mexico - and I’m confused as to why a couple of additional inches on an R6 “sticks out way too much”.
How is this a problem?
I currently travel with an R5, RF 16, RF 24-240, and an RF 100-500. I’m mindful of people around me when using the 100-500. But I don’t experience any packing or crowd issues using a standard size zoom.
What am I overlooking?
Maybe he likes to carry his camera/lens combo in a small bag so as to not attract attention? Some folks prefer to travel big while others like to be nimble and incognito when possible. While I don't mind the extra length an adapter adds to larger telephoto lenses, it does spoil the compact advantages of smaller zooms and primes (and caused me to gradually replace most of my small primes and zooms with RF).
castlekeeper01 wrote:
“Unfortunately, my EF 16-35mm f4.0L sticks out way too much on my R6 to be practical for travel purposes.”
Please explain. I’ve traveled a bit - UK, Italy, Jamaica, Aruba, Mexico - and I’m confused as to why a couple of additional inches on an R6 “sticks out way too much”.
How is this a problem?
I currently travel with an R5, RF 16, RF 24-240, and an RF 100-500. I’m mindful of people around me when using the 100-500. But I don’t experience any packing or crowd issues using a standard size zoom.
What am I overlooking?
I try to travel as light and inconspicuous as possible. When I travel, I usually walk long hours; on average 20,000 to 30,000 steps under all sorts of climate (rain, heat, cold, etc.). I try to fit my camera plus lenses into a tiny shoulder sling bag. Every extra ounce makes a difference the longer the day goes by with a either a camera around your neck or bag slung on your shoulder.
95 to 98 % of my shots are taken with a wide angle lens; the more compact, the better it is for me to cary.
Not sure if it got mentioned, but on a budget the RF 15-30m f:4.5 - 6.3 IS STM (currently $499) could also be the cover-it-all UWA - WA lens. I have no experience personally with this lens but no doubt in-camera or DPP corrections play heavily to deliver a good result, and it is on the darker side especially compared to a prime like the 16mm 2.8, but it could complement the 24-105mm f:4-7.1 IS STM. With the R6 there is latitude to push ISO to compensate for lesser apertures.
Also in the E mount, there's the very compact Samyang 18mm f/2.8. 145 grams and none of the issues of the Canon (pretty well corrected natively given the size...)
IlyaSnopchenko wrote:
Sony had a 16mm f/2.8, but it was for APS-C. And it was awful.
Anyway, the software corrections are a given at this point, unfortunately; the 16-35 PZ has 9% of barrel distortion at 16mm uncorrected; the Canon 16mm has 10%, and God only knows how much the Canon 15-30 got (Photozone has not yet tested it). I guess none of these lenses are meant to be ever used without at least the distortion correction.
It seems like the 15-30 is pretty good for the price, similar to the 24-105 STM, but the 14-35/4 is sharper into the edges/corners. While the 14-35 also relies on software correction, it's more so the case at 14-15mm. 16mm and longer is better corrected prior to software intervention.
I was presented the opportunity to buy the 24-105 STM for CAD 200.00 and was pleasantly surprised at how usable it is. 24mm is the weakest focal length due to all the distortion correction and resulting image scaling, but my copy is very good at 28 and 35mm. It loses some sharpness on the left side in the 50-70mm range but is quite even across the frame at 105mm, which is good since it's already at f/7.1.
My point, I guess, is these 'cheap' STM zoom lenses actually seem pretty decent if you can live with the slow variable aperture range. I'm tempted to give the 16 and/or the 15-30 a try, too. I think these are a step up from the 'cheap' EF lenses of years past.
I seem to recall you have fond memories of the EF 24-85 zoom... I had limited experience with it, though had more time with the 28-105/3.5-4.5. IMO the 24-105 STM is a sharper lens.
rscheffler wrote:
I was presented the opportunity to buy the 24-105 STM for CAD 200.00 and was pleasantly surprised at how usable it is. 24mm is the weakest focal length due to all the distortion correction and resulting image scaling, but my copy is very good at 28 and 35mm. It loses some sharpness on the left side in the 50-70mm range but is quite even across the frame at 105mm, which is good since it's already at f/7.1.
My point, I guess, is these 'cheap' STM zoom lenses actually seem pretty decent if you can live with the slow variable aperture range. I'm tempted to give the 16 and/or the 15-30 a try, too. I think these are a step up from the 'cheap' EF lenses of years past.
I seem to recall you have fond memories of the EF 24-85 zoom... I had limited experience with it, though had more time with the 28-105/3.5-4.5. IMO the 24-105 STM is a sharper lens. ...Show more →
Well, I still have the 24-85 (although this is my second copy, bought in 2017), and it works pretty well even on the high megapixel FF body. At least when I took it out for a spin a few days ago. (wish I could post some samples but I need to get some kind of photo hosting going on because the social media disallow direct linking and embedding now, it seems...)
Looking at the reviews of the 24-105 and 15-30 STM (or the 16, anyway), doesn't look like something I would really want to put in front of my cameras. But all right, I never did consider the RF system anyway, even as I have finally pulled the trigger on a mirrorless camera.
I've not yet tried adapting the E mount lenses, though the idea of running mixed systems is appealing on paper. In practice, it's a bit of a hassle as you constantly have to pull the muscle memory back and forth.
My advice to check out the Samyang 18mm for the OP's E-mount system stands. I've seen it used by at least one of my colleagues here, which means it's probably good enough for pro work (which lens isn't, by now, anyway).
Yeah, I never really gave the STM lenses any thought, particularly the RF 24-105. FWIW, I just bought the RF 28-70/2 a couple weeks ago. So now have both. While I love the look from the 28-70, and it's a sharper lens in the periphery, I could see myself using the STM for some paid work, if I had to. At the least I feel confident that it's not a bad lens and would be usable.
If you want to just post photos to the forum, you can use this site for hosting: https://postimages.org/
IlyaSnopchenko wrote:
Well, I still have the 24-85 (although this is my second copy, bought in 2017), and it works pretty well even on the high megapixel FF body. At least when I took it out for a spin a few days ago. (wish I could post some samples but I need to get some kind of photo hosting going on because the social media disallow direct linking and embedding now, it seems...)
Looking at the reviews of the 24-105 and 15-30 STM (or the 16, anyway), doesn't look like something I would really want to put in front of my cameras. But all right, I never did consider the RF system anyway, even as I have finally pulled the trigger on a mirrorless camera.
I've not yet tried adapting the E mount lenses, though the idea of running mixed systems is appealing on paper. In practice, it's a bit of a hassle as you constantly have to pull the muscle memory back and forth.
My advice to check out the Samyang 18mm for the OP's E-mount system stands. I've seen it used by at least one of my colleagues here, which means it's probably good enough for pro work (which lens isn't, by now, anyway)....Show more →
I read reviews about the Samyang/Rokinon AF 18mm f2.8. The consensus seemed to be that it was a matter of luck regarding who received a good copy of the lens; consistant quality control seemed to be a big issue with Samyang/Rokinon. With my luck if there are 3 out of 4 lenses that are deffective, I would end up with all 3 at some point or another. Odds are usually stacked against me.
Also, 18mm is really not much wider than 20mm. For my shooting purposes, 16mm would be ideal. However, I would be willing to go down to 14mm, but again, quality control issues become a concern.
I honestly don't understand why Sony or any 3rd party lens manufacturer can't come up with a decent 16mm f2.8.
I'm actually hesitant to throw any more money at Sony at this time. I'm sort of at a crossroads. I already purchased the Canon RF 16mm f2.8 STM, and I'm considering getting the 24mm and 85 mm cheap RF versions; not so much for the price, but for the weight/size/aperture speed found in these affordable lenses.
For the price the RF 16 2.8 is a no brainier, with corrections on (why would you turn in off anyway?) is better at 16 2.8 than the EF 16-35 2.8 II (not the best WA ever but a completely other price range).
I brought the RF 16 2.8 and 28-70 2.0 and sold my EF 16-35 2.8 II and EF 24-70 2.8 II. Could not be happier.
I also added a RF 24-105 7.1 STM, brought used for 130$ when a I need light package. Is not particularly great but an ok option when the 28-70 is just too big and heavy.
My copy of the EF 16-35/2.8 II had a number of problems and was at Canon a few times, but never reached its potential. It has pretty strong field curvature at the wide end, but where it was in focus, it was better than the previous version (sharper, better contrast in the plane of focus). While Canon had it, I had loaner copies from CPS and one of those was really, really good at 16mm, to the point I would have bought/traded for it, had CPS allowed it. I ended up keeping both the first and second versions. The first for when I wanted to shoot stopped down and get good across frame sharpness. The second for low light work where wide open sharpness at the point of focus was more important than a relatively flat plane of focus.
I replaced both with the 16-35/4. I'm undecided whether to stay with it, if it's worth getting the RF 14-35/4, or get a used 16-35/2.8 III, which apparently is sharper across the frame than the 16-35/4. I like that I can use the drop in filter adapter with the EF lenses, which simplifies polarizer use. But the 14-35 is more compact and looks to be pretty sharp.
I'd like to see Canon release a few more wide primes in the STM 'pancake' line, such as 20 and 24mm if they can make them without the need for as much distortion correction as the 16 or the 24-XXX zooms at 24mm.
Rivermist wrote:
Not sure if it got mentioned, but on a budget the RF 15-30m f:4.5 - 6.3 IS STM (currently $499) could also be the cover-it-all UWA - WA lens. I have no experience personally with this lens but no doubt in-camera or DPP corrections play heavily to deliver a good result, and it is on the darker side especially compared to a prime like the 16mm 2.8, but it could complement the 24-105mm f:4-7.1 IS STM. With the R6 there is latitude to push ISO to compensate for lesser apertures.
I own both the 16mm and 15-30mm. Got the latter last week. If comparing them side by side, they are equally sharp, but the 16mm has a nicer rendering with more contrast (in my limited testing). Subjects pop with the 16, while they look more flat with the zoom.
Given this, I am a little disappointed with the 15-30 so far. Since it costs more than twice the 16, and is more than twice the size while being much slower/darker, I expected it to at least perform equally in terms of IQ at f8-11.
jaygould wrote:
I own both the 16mm and 15-30mm. Got the latter last week. If comparing them side by side, they are equally sharp, but the 16mm has a nicer rendering with more contrast (in my limited testing). Subjects pop with the 16, while they look more flat with the zoom.
Given this, I am a little disappointed with the 15-30 so far. Since it costs more than twice the 16, and is more than twice the size while being much slower/darker, I expected it to at least perform equally in terms of IQ at f8-11.
Thanks for the feedback, interesting observations. Zooms are improving from their early years to matching in some case the primes for many use-cases, but there is always some form of compromise. I guess you need to look at a 15-30 or 14-35 as replacing 3 or more primes (15-20-24-28, or 14-17-24-28-35), and the convenience of not having to swap lenses within that range.
Out of curiosity, was your comparison on jpeg out of camera, HEIF out of camera, or RAW processed in a non-Canon software? Even with the aging RP I have often been pleasantly surprised by the quality of jpeg out of camera (no HEIF option), as long as the exposure and white balance was correct I could not do much if any better using RAW.
