rscheffler
Online
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
Unfortunately a lot of the photography market seems to be of the mindset - the larger the lens, the more justification there can be for a higher price point - since you're getting more for your money, right? 
So a 'slow and boring' 28/2.8, even a very compact pancake, I think would be a very difficult sell at a higher price range. Sure, put on a red ring and call it an L lens with very complex glass molded and/or ground aspherical elements, but it would just put it farther out of reach of many. IMO this is a good compromise by Canon. The performance looks very good and the price is reasonable, therefore it will hopefully make them some profit and encourage them to make more lenses along this line of size, performance and 'experimental' optics.
rscheffler wrote:
That's true, many of the old manual focus SLR system 28mm lenses were the equivalent of 'kit' lenses to cover the wide end and pair with a 50/1.8 or 50/2 and a 135/2.8 or 135/3.5. A lot of those 28s were very small, but were also designed for ~45mm flange distances. To use them on mirrorless would add about 1" for the adapter tube. The RF 28 pancake could probably have been designed similarly, considering Nikon's recent Z mount 26/2.8 has a somewhat less ambitious, though still similar optical design, but may have had edge performance tradeoffs, such as even stronger vignetting and lower image quality due to the steep angle through which the light rays would pass through the sensor topping glass, which also can affect image quality (the lens would have to be designed to compensate for greater refraction by the sensor glass of light forming the periphery of the image area).
...Show more →
AmbientMike wrote:
I would say, in spite of ~45mm flange distance, they are still light, and have excellent performance.
In theory it should be easier on mirrorless given the shorter distance since you don't need the retrofocus design. Even less reason to need computational imaging
rscheffler wrote:
True for analog but with digital, you run into problems introduced by the sensor with traditional short exit pupil designs. The steeper light rays towards the periphery are more strongly refracted by the sensor stack and there's a greater chance of CFA crosstalk as light intended for one pixel partially passes through the neighboring pixel's CFA. From what I gather, even though mirrorless with the shorter flange distance should make wide angle lens designs easier/simpler, they still needs to take the additional complications introduced by the sensor stack into consideration. It's a reason for the wide diameter elements at the rear of the 28's design, to redirect the light path so it's projected as perpendicular to the sensor as possible.
Older rangefinder system wide angle lenses are probably as close to non retrofocus designs as you'll find now and those have loads of image quality compromises on digital for the above reasons. But they were great on film!
...Show more →
AmbientMike wrote:
If you are going to say that, then you are coming pretty close to saying there's no reason to go mirrorless, size wise.
I'm not sure how you interpreted that. If you want a compact FF body and as small a 28/2.8 lens as possible, there is no DSLR combination that will match something like this RF lens and an RP/R8 body. There are alternatives if you're OK with manual focus lenses in Leica M mount (such as those from MS Optics, or a bunch of small 28s from a range of Chinese brands), but technically M mount is also 'mirrorless'.
In any case, I'm one of the few who apparently doesn't think mirrorless must equal smaller everything. My preference is equipment that is 'right sized' for my hands. Size was a very low priority in my mirrorless transition. It was all the other improvements that would benefit my work and user experience, such as the much faster, more precise, more consistent AF even at 20 and 40 fps, compared to my decades of Canon 1-series SLR/DSLR experience. Smaller and lighter is also nice and a reason I got the RF 16, 50/1.8 and 70-200/4. But I also bought the huge 28-70/2 because of its unique performance capabilities and how it could benefit the work I do for both myself and for clients. That never existed in EF (or IMO is matched by any other mirrorless system).
|
or that a basically zeiss lens (thinking cosina made recent zeiss) is $550.