Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username  

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1       2      
3
       end
  

Why are RF lenses generally slower?

  
 
Mike_5D
Online
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #1 · p.3 #1 · Why are RF lenses generally slower?


Pixelpuffin wrote:
Yeah you are correct tbh
I was considering taking the RP on holiday in July at the time, but couldnít face the thought of taking 2 primes (16 & 50) nor could I face taking my existing ef 24-105 stm with the added length of the ef-rf adapter fitted. Spotted a used rf24-105 at a very fair price. But I quickly regretted it as didnít realise just how big a impact 7.1 would affect either iso or shutter speed. The lens itself is plenty sharp enough and the IS works great but that god damn 7.1 is the Achilles heel. A
...Show more

What subjects are you shooting on holiday where f/7.1 is a major deal killer?



Aug 26, 2023 at 09:30 AM
Pixelpuffin
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #2 · p.3 #2 · Why are RF lenses generally slower?


Mike_5D wrote:
What subjects are you shooting on holiday where f/7.1 is a major deal killer?


I rarely ever venture beyond 5.6.
Iím usually at 2.8 or 4
Grab shots of family, evening shots, interior shots etc etc
I have no excuse, itís my own fault entirely I bought it out of desperation thinking the smaller size would suit me and the RP better for traipsing around Portugal. Besides a dozen or so test shots the day it arrived, itís not seen use since. Canít be bothered with the hassle of selling and fending off scammers, so itís been moth balled along with the rest of my brief introduction to the R system.


Edited on Aug 26, 2023 at 03:05 PM · View previous versions



Aug 26, 2023 at 11:53 AM
AmbientMike
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #3 · p.3 #3 · Why are RF lenses generally slower?


I'm usually f/8 or so, not a deal breaker for me. IS supposed to be really good too, to make up for it.


Aug 26, 2023 at 02:51 PM
Pixelpuffin
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #4 · p.3 #4 · Why are RF lenses generally slower?




AmbientMike wrote:
I'm usually f/8 or so, not a deal breaker for me. IS supposed to be really good too, to make up for it.


Not quite sure how F8 indoors works out capturing fleeting moments. Yeah IS will ensure everything static is sharp not so much the person.
Címon give me a break. 7.1 @ 105mm is pathetic as is 50 @ 6.3 (24-50).
If someone had said to me 5/6 yrs ago canon would release a 24-50 mm 6.3 for their state of the art futuristic mirrorless cameras when at that time consumer zooms were averaging 3.5-4.5 I would have thought they were daft.

Sorry but I think the canon budget RF line is a joke. Itís not funny and Iím not laughing.
As for the RF-S stuff 😂😂😂😂😂😂





Aug 26, 2023 at 03:48 PM
EB-1
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #5 · p.3 #5 · Why are RF lenses generally slower?


Indoor venues vary and I assume you get some info about them ahead of time to figure out what the lighting is like and what you need. RP and slow lenses would not be a good choice for low light. The low-res S*ny a7 series cameras and some of the f/1.8 or faster primes might be better for your application. There are plenty of the manual focus 3rd party lenses if you like that.

EBH



Aug 26, 2023 at 04:02 PM
Jeff Nolten
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #6 · p.3 #6 · Why are RF lenses generally slower?


Pixelpuffin wrote:
Not quite sure how F8 indoors works out capturing fleeting moments...


Not quite sure why I'm responding to this... But anyone who knows anything about cameras and shoots indoor venues with an f8 lens ... The f8 100-400 works well outdoors, but I also have the 70-200 f4 for indoor work. I've found that f4 on FF can handle most situations well enough for me and rarely need faster. And now there's Topaz. I also suggest that "in your face" photo fans should be using at least the f4 Ls and not complain that STMs are not up to snuff. They generally do their intended purpose well enough but really, for a high brow fotog?



Aug 26, 2023 at 06:24 PM
Mike_5D
Online
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #7 · p.3 #7 · Why are RF lenses generally slower?


Pixelpuffin wrote:
I rarely ever venture beyond 5.6.
Iím usually at 2.8 or 4
Grab shots of family, evening shots, interior shots etc etc
I have no excuse, itís my own fault entirely I bought it out of desperation thinking the smaller size would suit me and the RP better for traipsing around Portugal. Besides a dozen or so test shots the day it arrived, itís not seen use since. Canít be bothered with the hassle of selling and fending off scammers, so itís been moth balled along with the rest of my brief introduction to the R system.


Having actually used the 24-105 STM, I'll say you can do more with a slow lens than you probably think. I haven't used it on a non-IBIS body, but IBIS only adds about a stop beyond what you can do with IS alone. This lens is f/4 at the wide end, so that's only a stop slower than big pro zooms. I think it hits f/7.1 at around 80mm. So there's lots of focal lengths where you're not at f/7.1. In daylight, there's no issue with f/7.1 unless you're trying to blow out the background. You can still blur the background at that aperture, but you'll have to be more careful about subject and background distances.

Calling it pathetic is hyperbole. It was a design decision which included a lot of factors including price, size and weight. I think it would be better to say the slow aperture at the long end is fine for some uses, less than ideal for others, and inappropriate for others. Looking through my Lightroom library for this lens, I find lots of daytime photos where I was happy to save the weight over a faster lens and the image quality was more than sufficient. As for nighttime/low light photos:

I also have fireworks shots stopped down from a tripod and handheld long exposures of carnival rides in motion. 0.5 sec, f/7.1, ISO 100. A faster lens would not have helped here but the IS sure did.

I have pictures from a local event in the evening and into the night. Posing humans can be easily shot at 1/60sec with a short burst to pick the best image, which I do anyway. I have shots of Santa on stage lighting the Christmas tree. 1/160sec, f/7.1, ISO 6400. I was in the dark but the stage lighting was better than expected.

I visited an exhibit at an indoor mall. Good lighting, but possibly fluorescent, so I shot at 1/125 sec just in case. f/4-5.6 mostly and ISO's usually under 1600. Yes, the shutter speed is a bit slow for kids, but quick bursts at 12 fps ensured plenty of sharp images.

I took it to the aquarium with the kids. This wasn't a photo-centric visit, but I wanted better than my phone. While the indoor spaces were super dark, the exhibits themselves were lit. 1/125 sec, f/6.3, ISO 16000 or 1/60 sec, f/7.1, ISO 6400 for example. Looks fine.

Most recently, I took it to Disneyland. 1/8 sec, f/7.1, ISO 5000, 85mm for example. The big lighting displays don't move. Sure I could have brought my EF 24-70 2.8 and gotten a cleaner image (not that the image I got was noisy) but then I wouldn't have had the whole subject in focus, probably couldn't have pulled off 1/8 sec with just IBIS and would have been less comfortable carrying around a lens and adapter weighing twice as much.

I'm not saying an f/7.1 lens can do everything. I would never use a lens this slow for indoor or night sports. No way. It wouldn't be my first choice for Christmas morning photos without a flash. I have better lenses for portraits. But there are so many subjects and situations where even a slow lens can still get the job done, even in less than ideal conditions. It just takes a bit of work to get the best out of it.



Aug 26, 2023 at 11:04 PM
 


Search in Used Dept. 

EB-1
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #8 · p.3 #8 · Why are RF lenses generally slower?


EB-1 wrote:
I most always use ISO 100 for landscapes to maximize IQ and DR.
I've opted out of computed lenses. The excessive distortion and correction needed are as bad as noise can be, though different and maybe not so noticeable to normal people.

EBH

cpe1991 wrote:
I am happy to be normal.


I'm quite jealous. At least all of my interest is in the photo gear/travel and not audio/music equipment or automobiles.

EBH



Aug 27, 2023 at 08:03 AM
Rivermist
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #9 · p.3 #9 · Why are RF lenses generally slower?


Mike_5D wrote:
It depends on what lenses you have. In my case:

EF 24-70 2.8 II -> RF adds IS
EF 16-35 f/4 -> RF 14-35 is much smaller and 2mm wider
EF 100 macro -> RF goes to 1.4x and has IS
EF 100-400 II -> RF 100-500 is 100mm longer and lighter
EF 70-200 2.8 II -> RF is lighter and much smaller


To which I'll add:
EF 70-200 f/4 -> RF 70-200 f/4 much smaller and lighter
EF 85mm f/1.8 -> RF 85mm f:2 lost ⅓ aperture but gained IS and much lower MFD ("macro"?)
EF 35mm f:2.0 IS -> RF 35mm f:1.8 IS ⅓ aperture brighter, lighter and smaller front element + lower MFD
These are all quite reasonably priced, as are the f/4 L zooms 70-200 and 14-35



Sep 01, 2023 at 02:57 PM
tomasr
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #10 · p.3 #10 · Why are RF lenses generally slower?


Those of us looking for the reasonably priced and well performing middle ground have to get it from sigma and tamron. There are some really outstanding bargain lenses.
Does RF 135 match sigma art? I bought the art and still have money leftover for 85mm art and another one if I wanted. Is there any RF that can touch tamron 35 1.4, sigma 28, 40 and 105 1.4s? Nope. Canon 50/1.2 may be better than 50 art, but the price!!!

The problem with RF l zooms, is not just plastic build. Vignetting is getting beyond ridiculous particularly in wideangles. Ef 16-35 iii was already so bad I essentially use it as f4 lens. Then there is out of control geometric distortion. You can correct with profile but you lose a little bit of sharpness.



Sep 01, 2023 at 04:18 PM
Pete73
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #11 · p.3 #11 · Why are RF lenses generally slower?


I though the RF system offers some slower lenses simply because the RF autofocus system can focus with slow (small aperture) lenses. The rebels and lower cost bodies of the EF system needed 5.6 or faster lenses to focus. I believe all RF bodies can focus with lenses down to f11.


Sep 01, 2023 at 04:20 PM
Rivermist
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #12 · p.3 #12 · Why are RF lenses generally slower?


Pete73 wrote:
I though the RF system offers some slower lenses simply because the RF autofocus system can focus with slow (small aperture) lenses. The rebels and lower cost bodies of the EF system needed 5.6 or faster lenses to focus. I believe all RF bodies can focus with lenses down to f11.


That is correct, as seen with the RF 800 f:11 and others (the 600 and 800 can take the extenders too...). While best used in daylight I have used the 800 f:11 indoors and the camera, R6mk2, had no problem focusing. ISO 20,000 f:11 1/80, IS on, no crop. In-camera jpg with only a tweak to brightness, Second picture is cell phone wide angle for context...












Sep 02, 2023 at 09:48 AM
MintMar
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #13 · p.3 #13 · Why are RF lenses generally slower?


Pete73 wrote:
I though the RF system offers some slower lenses simply because the RF autofocus system can focus with slow (small aperture) lenses. The rebels and lower cost bodies of the EF system needed 5.6 or faster lenses to focus. I believe all RF bodies can focus with lenses down to f11.


This is my opinion also. And Canon can push you to brighter, more expensive lenses, if you don't like those f/7.1 dark holes in normal zooms. I think the difference in maximum aperture would be widening between consumer and L zooms, all under guise of "smaller, lighter, cheaper" Seems like my EF 24-105 IS STM and similar will be used until unserviceable. Or maybe Canon will create some middle class RF lenses until then.



Sep 21, 2023 at 05:23 PM
goalerjones
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #14 · p.3 #14 · Why are RF lenses generally slower?


I like and regularly use my RF 35 1.8, but I've really enjoyed moving into the RF lineup. The weight savings really makes a difference with the RF70-200. However, I won't be paying $10k for the RF100-300, so when needed I use the adapted EF 300mk 2. I really love the RF28-70, and have fallen in love with the RF 85 1.2.


Sep 21, 2023 at 11:52 PM
1       2      
3
       end






FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1       2      
3
       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username       Or Reset password



This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.