rscheffler
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 p.2 #2 · Is f/1.2 or f/1.4 of any real use? | |
artsupreme wrote:
When I say "mini" I'm taking into consideration the size of the 1.2 behemoths. For example, if you look at the size of the EF 50 1.4 and assume an RF 50 1.4L would only be slightly bigger, it's still "mini" compared to the RF 50 1.2.
Forget the EF 50/1.4 because it's an ancient double Gauss formula that can't compete wide open against modern designs. A better example is to compare Sony's FE 50/1.2 and their new 50/1.4. This is exactly the scenario you described above where the 50/1.4 is >90% the quality of the 50/1.2. So why buy the 50/1.2? I don't know, I would buy the 50/1.4.
But I also don't advocate Canon making another line of f/1.4 lenses alongside their f/1.2s. There will hardly be a size and price difference. It should be compact, modern, highly corrected f/2.0-2.8 so that there is a definite difference between the options. Some will prefer the massive f/1.2s while others will prefer the smaller, yet still optically excellent, medium speed options.
sencarna wrote:
...yet their f/1.8 options leave much to be desired.
garyvot wrote:
I get that some people dislike STM focusing or digital corrections, but I'd like to play the devil's advocate and disagree with this. I rather think Canon's line of STM primes are all solid improvements over prior Canon non-L primes.
Optically, they are all better than their EF counterparts, usually being sharper across the field and having lower CA. They offer features that older lenses did not have, including (some combinations of) higher speed, IS, close focusing, or unique focal lengths and form factors (i.e., the 16 and 28). They all feature smooth, silent focusing for video. Due to either the focal lengths offered or the increased maximum apertures, these lenses also make more sense as prime choices for APS-C cameras than older lenses.
And while this is subjective, I think that the RF 35 f/1.8 IS has substantially better rendering than the EF f/2.0 IS. As someone who prefers lighter f/1.8 or f/2 primes, this lens has filled a real gap for me, as I was never very happy with Canon's non-L 35mm options in the past.
These are very good lenses for the money, IMO.
...Show more →
While the RF STM primes are generally (optically) better than the past non-L primes, there is still a considerable gap, IMO, between them and the f/1.2L options. For example, the RF 50/1.8 sharpens up decently around f/4, but IMO is relatively poor across the frame at wide apertures. Its 'draw' is also not that pleasant (the 28-70 at 50 is much better, IMO). If Cosina ever releases their Voigtlander 50/2 APO in RF mount, I would be extremely tempted by it, because it's optically what I want in a 'medium speed' 50mm lens (highly corrected from wide open with pleasing character). The RF 50/1.8 is a mild tweak of previous 'nifty fifties' confirmed by its price point. There's room for a $1000-1500 medium speed 50 (and 28, 35, 85, 100) with fast internal AF, relatively compact, and better build quality.
tsangc wrote:
I think this sadly will be our future as enthusiast photographers--manufacturers moving to the edges of the market--more high end lenses like a 135mm f1.8, 28-70 f2.0 etc...and a low end to appeal to vloggers, content creators coming from phones. Canon used to have three lines--there was a line of mid priced lenses with a gold "ribbon" around the front (like the EF50mm f1.4), but I think without the base of point and shoots generating revenue and fewer and fewer overall "system" camera sales, that middle ground has disappeared.
This is where third party options can come into play. But it's Canon and so far they have been very restrictive about who and what is released for RF mount...
|
Archive 2024 · Is f/1.2 or f/1.4 of any real use?
