Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda

New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site

New Feature: SMS Notification alert

New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist

FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

3 end

New Era for Canon L zooms

Zenon Char
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #1 · p.2 #1 · New Era for Canon L zooms

Sorry to bump again but I remember reading when people got their R5 and adapted said how much it woke up their EF lenses.

Nov 03, 2023 at 07:40 AM

Rivermist
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #2 · p.2 #2 · New Era for Canon L zooms

exdeejjjaaaa wrote:
IBIS was introduced on dSLRs ... not by Canon of course

my bad, I edited the post, thanks...

Nov 03, 2023 at 09:10 AM

Alan Parker
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #3 · p.2 #3 · New Era for Canon L zooms

matejphoto wrote:
Questions to ponder:
1.) Are these lenses more environmentally sealed (due to internal zoom)?
2.) Will canon include aperture rings on all L lenses or will it be limited to this Z line?
3.) Will they keep making the smaller f/2.8 L zooms? (I think so, they are a cash cow)

I think this is a very good post and discussion; I am not a Canon shooter (apart from EF L glass), but do look at these developments with interest.

Internal zooming is the way forward in my opinion too; Sony has shown this too in my opinion. Aperture rings seems to be a thing that is sought after in the market, and if Canon now makes a choice supply this RF(+) line with them I think that's great. I feel Canon's push towards new focal ranges and aperture combinations frees up the choices to make smaller lenses too; A small 24-50 for example?
Canon has recently focused a lot on small primes and large optically excellent lenses; but is that the promise of mirrorless that people signed up for? It's hard to say what Canon's sale figures are like but they certainly seem to say that selling high margin high R&D cost lenses are their way forward.

Nov 03, 2023 at 09:24 AM

IlyaSnopchenko
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #4 · p.2 #4 · New Era for Canon L zooms

This new 24-105/2.8 seems to mesh well with the (also recently introduced) 100-300/2.8. Just sayin'.

Nov 03, 2023 at 09:27 AM

jedibrain
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #5 · p.2 #5 · New Era for Canon L zooms

exdeejjjaaaa wrote:
and focus shift on RF100/2.8 Macro can't be corrected as a result - neither Canon provides an option for a user to force lens for a certain set of conditions ( selectable by a user ) to focus stopped down to a taking aperture which will be another way to address focus shift

AFMA was designed to correct the difference between what the AF sensor saw as focused, and the actual result on the imaging sensor.

I don't know you can be sure it would have helped what is a lens-side issue with the RF Macro.

Nov 03, 2023 at 11:38 AM

rscheffler
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #6 · p.2 #6 · New Era for Canon L zooms

Rivermist wrote:
no more lens calibrations

exdeejjjaaaa wrote:
and focus shift on RF100/2.8 Macro can't be corrected as a result - neither Canon provides an option for a user to force lens for a certain set of conditions ( selectable by a user ) to focus stopped down to a taking aperture which will be another way to address focus shift

jedibrain wrote:
AFMA was designed to correct the difference between what the AF sensor saw as focused, and the actual result on the imaging sensor.

I don't know you can be sure it would have helped what is a lens-side issue with the RF Macro.

This is not entirely correct about the RF 100 macro. While it appears to exhibit focus shift within a certain subject distance range, there is a very easy way for the user to correct it - use of the spherical aberration correction ring.

There was a thread here on the Canon board here by Jordan about how bad the focus shift was. After further exploration by him, he determined that a specific amount of SA adjustment entirely eliminated the shift, within that distance range.

Please take the time to look up that thread and read it.

Nov 03, 2023 at 11:47 AM

rscheffler
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #7 · p.2 #7 · New Era for Canon L zooms

IlyaSnopchenko wrote:
This new 24-105/2.8 seems to mesh well with the (also recently introduced) 100-300/2.8. Just sayin'.

This was noted by others in the 24-105 rumor thread.

Canon Japan has a mini-site for the lens: https://cweb.canon.jp/eos/your-eos/product/lens/rf24-105-f28lz/

Among the info there, here is their new f/2.8 trinity suggestion:

Nov 03, 2023 at 11:50 AM

IlyaSnopchenko
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #8 · p.2 #8 · New Era for Canon L zooms

Or maybe the new 10-20 will be a better fit, to add to the truly extreme nature of the lineup.

Nov 03, 2023 at 11:56 AM

rscheffler
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #9 · p.2 #9 · New Era for Canon L zooms

I agree, I'd probably go 10-20 over the 15-35 if paring with the 24-105 and 100-300.

The 10-20 is probably also one third of a possible f/4 20-70 and 70-200 trio. I'd very much like to see a reasonably compact 20-70...

matejphoto wrote:
Questions to ponder:
1.) Are these lenses more environmentally sealed (due to internal zoom)?
2.) Will canon include aperture rings on all L lenses or will it be limited to this Z line?
3.) Will they keep making the smaller f/2.8 L zooms? (I think so, they are a cash cow)

Alan Parker wrote:
I think this is a very good post and discussion; I am not a Canon shooter (apart from EF L glass), but do look at these developments with interest.

Internal zooming is the way forward in my opinion too; Sony has shown this too in my opinion. Aperture rings seems to be a thing that is sought after in the market, and if Canon now makes a choice supply this RF(+) line with them I think that's great. I feel Canon's push towards new focal ranges and aperture combinations frees up the choices to make smaller lenses too; A small...Show more →

There are pros and cons to internal (or external) zooming. Fixed size can be good from a video perspective when using a rig and the new 24-105 has been designed so that internal movement of the optics retains consistent balance. That wouldn't be as likely with an external zoom design. But as has been demonstrated by numerous recent external zoom designs, it can make for a much more compact lens in the fully collapsed position, such as Canon's 70-200s. Sure, there are compromises with this design that some are very vocal about, but image quality doesn't appear to be one. And Sony isn't averse to continuing with extending zoom designs, such as the recent 70-200/4 update.

It will be interesting IMO to see if the size and weight of the new 24-105 will also translate into other lens offerings. Others have mentioned how much it looks like a 70-200.... Well, a 70-200/2.8 could probably be made to match this size, shape, weight and balance to enable quick interchangeability during video shoots.

Nov 03, 2023 at 12:07 PM

Zenon Char
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #10 · p.2 #10 · New Era for Canon L zooms

Nov 03, 2023 at 06:10 PM

Zenon Char
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #11 · p.2 #11 · New Era for Canon L zooms

Page 9.

https://gdlp01.c-wss.com/gds/6/0300042036/02/rf100f28l-macro-is-im2-eng.pdf

Nov 03, 2023 at 06:14 PM

stanj
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #12 · p.2 #12 · New Era for Canon L zooms

Pixelpuffin wrote:
The irony I find so funny is the sheer size of these new RF L lenses…they dwarf and make a mockery of the reason why we were directed towards mirrorless in the first instance, smaller lighter bodies.

The bodies are smaller and lighter. R5 vs 5D, R3 vs ... what, EOS-3?

My 10-20 is decidedly smaller than my 11-24

Nov 03, 2023 at 09:05 PM

jedibrain
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #13 · p.2 #13 · New Era for Canon L zooms

matejphoto wrote:
Questions to ponder:
1.) Are these lenses more environmentally sealed (due to internal zoom)?
2.) Will canon include aperture rings on all L lenses or will it be limited to this Z line?
3.) Will they keep making the smaller f/2.8 L zooms? (I think so, they are a cash cow)

.

The argument over internal vs. external zoom is as 50/50 as any other hot topic in the world today. There are zealots on both sides. There really isn't any data to show that external zoom lenses are less robust than internal ones. I've had my 100-400s (both EF L versions) out in some wet and dusty environments, and they're fine. Both external zooming.

Should canon focus on one or the other? Again, 50/50 depending on who you ask. As I frequently travel for my photography, I LOVE that my lenses collapse to smaller sizes. Fixed size zooms are always the largest they have to be for their focal range. The external zooms stow away smaller. RF70-200s are prime (pun intended) examples of this. So much more handy. But with many who wish they were internal zoom.

I doubt we'll see aperture rings on everything. It adds cost and complexity, and is really only useful to a few specific users and scenarios. Best kept as a feature for lenses aimed at those things.

Brian

Nov 03, 2023 at 09:41 PM

Zenon Char
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #14 · p.2 #14 · New Era for Canon L zooms

jedibrain wrote:
AFMA was designed to correct the difference between what the AF sensor saw as focused, and the actual result on the imaging sensor.

I don't know you can be sure it would have helped what is a lens-side issue with the RF Macro.

Yes and to correct for either consistent back or front focus. Not for bouncing back Abe forth. There can be a lens or camera issue that causes focus issues. Canon still encourages people to send their kits in for that. With focusing on the sensor I wonder what that percentage is these days.

Nov 03, 2023 at 09:44 PM

exdeejjjaaaa
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #15 · p.2 #15 · New Era for Canon L zooms

jedibrain wrote:
AFMA was designed to correct the difference between what the AF sensor saw as focused, and the actual result on the imaging sensor.

I don't know you can be sure it would have helped what is a lens-side issue with the RF Macro.

of course if will in the same way... there is NOTHING in "AFMA" that specifically needs different focusing sensor... just in case if you do not know, other vendors ( not Canon ) have "AFMA" in dLSM cameras

Nov 04, 2023 at 09:03 AM

exdeejjjaaaa
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #16 · p.2 #16 · New Era for Canon L zooms

rscheffler wrote:
This is not entirely correct about the RF 100 macro. While it appears to exhibit focus shift within a certain subject distance range, there is a very easy way for the user to correct it - use of the spherical aberration correction ring.

There was a thread here on the Canon board here by Jordan about how bad the focus shift was. After further exploration by him, he determined that a specific amount of SA adjustment entirely eliminated the shift, within that distance range.

Please take the time to look up that thread and read it.

NO - please take your time to read this ( instead of "Jordan" ) = https://www.the-digital-picture.com/News/News-Post.aspx?News=36282&Title=Conclusion-to-the-Canon-RF-100mm-F2-8-L-Macro-IS-USM-Lens-Focus-Shift-Inquiry

I hope that reading will be educational

"....The response from Canon's optical engineers was to confirm that, due to its 1.4x magnification (1.4:1 reproduction ratio) capability, a magnification far exceeding 1.0x, the RF 100mm F2.8 L Macro IS Lens's optical design exhibits some focus shift.

The focus shift is not sample dependent and is not related to the SA control ring. As focus shift is characteristic of this lens, no production changes to the lens or lens/camera firmware updates are anticipated. Correction, when necessary, is accomplished by focusing slightly in front of the subject...."

so Canon says go and FYS, we will not provide any means to fix focus shift that we knowingly designed in the lens

PS: and this is again an example that PDAF on sensor in principle can NOT eliminate the problems if AF is executed wide open and lens has focus shift @ stopped down aperture... of course most modern dSLM lens are designed not to exhibit user detectable focus shift, but RF 100 macro was on purpose designed to do this to accomodate other design needs ( cost, weight, size, magnification, etc )

Nov 04, 2023 at 09:11 AM

Zenon Char
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #17 · p.2 #17 · New Era for Canon L zooms

exdeejjjaaaa wrote:
NO - please take your time to read this ( instead of "Jordan" ) = https://www.the-digital-picture.com/News/News-Post.aspx?News=36282&Title=Conclusion-to-the-Canon-RF-100mm-F2-8-L-Macro-IS-USM-Lens-Focus-Shift-Inquiry

I hope that reading will be educational

"....The response from Canon's optical engineers was to confirm that, due to its 1.4x magnification (1.4:1 reproduction ratio) capability, a magnification far exceeding 1.0x, the RF 100mm F2.8 L Macro IS Lens's optical design exhibits some focus shift.

The focus shift is not sample dependent and is not related to the SA control ring. As focus shift is characteristic of this lens, no production changes to the lens or lens/camera firmware updates are anticipated. Correction, when necessary, is accomplished...Show more →

Focus shift in one consistent direction or back and forth?

Nov 04, 2023 at 09:26 AM

jedibrain
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #18 · p.2 #18 · New Era for Canon L zooms

exdeejjjaaaa wrote:
of course if will in the same way... there is NOTHING in "AFMA" that specifically needs different focusing sensor... just in case if you do not know, other vendors ( not Canon ) have "AFMA" in dLSM cameras

... and as noted a proper design not only allows a user to use "AFMA", but also allows user to control when and how he wants to execute AF ( wide open, stopped to taking aperture, something in between, etc, etc ) with a granular control over all parameters ( lens model, lens serial number, focusing distance, aperture, focal length, etc,...Show more →

I'm so glad the Canon AF system does not require AFMA anymore. To hear other systems have enough focus shift or focus inaccuracy going on that they needed to include such a function is odd. Pretty big black mark against those MFGs, IMO. At least with Canon, it seems limited to just one unique lens design.

My experience with AFMA on the DLSR was that it was never perfect, except at the exact distance that you did the calibration at. From there, it could be hit or miss. So no, I am still not convinced AFMA would solve the issue with the RF100 macro. Fix it for one distance, break it for another.

-Brian

Nov 04, 2023 at 10:17 AM

Zenon Char
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #19 · p.2 #19 · New Era for Canon L zooms

For RF Lenses, it is recommended to send a Mirrorless body together for best results.

For EF Lenses, it is recommended to send in a DSLR body together, or with a Mirrorless body with a genuine Canon EF-EOS R adapter for best results.

Source

https://www.usa.canon.com/support/canon-precision-alignment

I have thought about is. At one time there was no MFA. Most likely a large number went in for servicing. Warranty is likely built into the price of gear but that still costed Canon money.

ML comes out and they drop MFA. Why? The program was already there. It is an electrical adjustment so maybe it interferes with IBIS? Also you know now people are. Maybe Canon got a lot of calls anyway because they had trouble with adjusting MFA?

Canon like any other business likely have underwriters figuring this stuff out. ML focuses on the sensor. If we drop MFA how many people will actually send their ML gear in for AF fine tuning? How many reviewers have you seen complain about missing MFA since the R5 came out?

Aside from the 100 macro and even though ML focuses on the sensor I don't disagree that there could be an issue with a lens or body. What is the frequency? I bet almost everyone here has used MFA with their DLSR gear. Now many have sent their ML and RF lenses in to correct AF issues?

I can see MFA being helpful with 3rd party lenses but I don't think Canon cares too much about that. If you don't add MFA it would encourage people to buy Canon instead of 3rd party in case it needs servicing. You can't send in your ML with a Sigma lens. 3rd party not there yet anyway but one day.

Canon being greedy? Absolutely. Welcome to our bottom line world. 35 years in manufacturing and I can't ever remember corporate telling us last year you did great. Take a year off. Always do better next year with less resources.

Nov 04, 2023 at 10:42 AM

Zenon Char
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #20 · p.2 #20 · New Era for Canon L zooms

jedibrain wrote:
I'm so glad the Canon AF system does not require AFMA anymore. To hear other systems have enough focus shift or focus inaccuracy going on that they needed to include such a function is odd. Pretty big black mark against those MFGs, IMO. At least with Canon, it seems limited to just one unique lens design.

My experience with AFMA on the DLSR was that it was never perfect, except at the exact distance that you did the calibration at. From there, it could be hit or miss. So no, I am still not convinced AFMA would solve the issue...Show more →

Me too. I hated MFA. It never had the correct instructions when first released. It was all over the place. One set of Canon instructions said 50X while another said at distances you normally shoot at. We printed out paper scales and doing it at 45 degrees which was incorrect. Even Chuck Westfall said in an article said "if you can do better". Me? I paid Canon thousands for precision equipment. You tell me how to do it properly.

I later got FoCal which was excellent. Based other their information I thought the light source was important so I lit the target with studio daylight balanced CFL's. I had an MFA kit ready to go. When I posted that I think some thought I lost a few marbles. Finally Canon came out with a compressive document I've seen. Page 5. First they talk about is the light source.

https://support.usa.canon.com/resources/sites/CANON/content/live/ARTICLES/175000/ART175504/en_US/AF_MicroAdjustGuide_desktop.pdf

My only real pet peeve about Canon so enough of that. You are correct. Even if you get MFA spot on the nature of the mirror assembly AF drifts very slightly from shot to shot. Canon eventually provided MFA for both ends of a lenses focal length but it is still only an average. It's works but I'd bank on when you are zoomed half way AF on the sensor will more precise than that MFA average.

Nov 04, 2023 at 11:10 AM

1 2 3 end
FM Forums \| Canon Forum \| Join Upload & Sell 1 2 3 end

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