Jman13
Online
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
|
 p.8 #18 · Z8 vs R5? I'm just curious... | |
marsguy wrote:
Well, if we're still talking about landscape, primes don't make any sense, if you have to hike to your location. They are cumbersome to switch in the field where you are around dirt/mud/dust, water, sand, rocks, etc. Zooms are the clear way to go, especially when you get the f/4 versions. Not all mirrorless lenses are gigantic, but Canon has taken the summit tier approach by making giant, clinically perfect f/1.2 primes.
Fuji on the other hand has kept their APS-C lenses pretty compact, up until the past few years where they seem to be trying to lure more FF shooters with bigger, faster glass (like the 50/1 and 200/2). It's still quite a bit smaller and lighter than FF at that point. Their 35/1.4 is absolutely tiny (like the size of the RF50/1.8) and is a lovely lens. Their 56/1.2 is on the larger side for the X system and is still svelte compared to the RF85/1.2 which could easily be used as a bludgeon. Their "red badge"/pro tier 16-55/2.8 is affectionately known as "the brick" which is hilarious considering it's half a pound lighter than the RF24-70/2.8 and 0.1lbs lighter than the RF24-105/4 which is actually pleasantly small for what it is. As well, the 16-55 is still quite a bit smaller than both of the lenses I compared it to as well, despite being the largest standard zoom in the entire X system.
My point is, Canon has deliberately chosen to make their L lenses huge. Mirrorless lenses don't have to be huge. It seems pretty common to see a lot of people still desiring f/1.4 primes as cheaper, smaller, lighter alternatives to the absurd f/1.2 primes.
I also don't shoot landscape only on a tripod. Should I? Maybe. But I do a lot of hiking, backpacking, and canoeing/kayaking, and it's not practical to bring a tripod for many of those scenarios, at least not a full size one. You can't use a tripod in a canoe, either. I'm often on the move and don't have time to sit in one spot for a while for the light to be just right. I don't use big flat filters or graduated filters. Obviously if I'm trying to blur water I'll use a tripod with an ND filter but most photos I take don't require slow shutter speeds, so handheld shooting is fine. And yes, I shoot at base ISO as much as I possibly can. I need stuff that is compact and convenient and doesn't require any setup or takedown for most shots, and mirrorless cameras are an improvement over DSLRs in pretty much every way that matters to me....Show more →
I'm a former Fuji user, so I am familiar with the 56mm f/1.2 (and also with Sigma's very tiny APS-C 56mm f/1.4). However, APS-C lenses require a smaller image circle, and the physical aperture is significantly smaller than an 85mm f/1.2. Also, while the 56mm f/1.2 is a very nice lens (and honestly, one of my favorites of all time), it doesn't hold a candle to the Canon RF 85mm f/1.2L optically. The Fuji is significantly less corrected, with less sharpness, more chromatic aberration, and not quite as smooth bokeh.
The fact is, top tier glass is often rather large. Nikon's 85mm f/1.2 is larger than Canon's (and roughly the same weight), while Nikon's 50mm f/1.2 is MASSIVELY larger than Canon's. Sony's equivalents are a little smaller, but the fact is that really high end, ultra-well corrected glass, is generally pretty big. Back in the DSLR days, most manufacturers (bar Sigma with their Art series, which is huge), traded undercorrected lenses for a smaller size. The EF 50mm f/1.2L is much smaller than the RF version, but it also is technically terrible in comparison. The RF is sharper at f/1.2 than the EF is at f/2.8. The market for the L primes is professional shooters who mostly would prefer optical perfection over size. Also, Canon has made their telephoto zooms smaller, with both 70-200mm lenses being very compact and light for their focal length and apertures.
|
And periodically, when the time is right, photographer #2 updates gear from the same solid brand when the old gear starts to wear out or when improvements are significant enough to make a material difference in the photographs — maybe ever couple of camera upgrade cycles or so.
....for a guy who claims not to want drama, this isn't helping.