p.4 #2 · Canon R5 (and R5M2) vs Nikon Z8 (low light AF performance)
artsupreme wrote:
Gotta love the brand war banter. All modern ML bodies can do the job very well and the used prices seem in line for what you get from each body:
I'm happy with my Canon bodies but I sure would love to be able to mount Nikon's 400 TC & 600 TC to them, and also Sony's 50 1.4, 85 1.4, and their new 300 2.8. And that's just getting started on my wishlist of lenses.
The most remarkable Sony FE lens is probably the 50mm f1.2 GM. The 85mm is good optically, but is slow focusing.
p.4 #3 · Canon R5 (and R5M2) vs Nikon Z8 (low light AF performance)
bernardl wrote:
I believe it was DxO tests? I don't remember for sure.
Cheers,
Bernard
DXO have not tested the RF.
There is no data nowhere supporting anything else than the RF 85 f/1.2 is T1.3
The DS variant loses 1.5 stops and is T2.2 according to Canon.
You are correct, they don't have data for the 85mm f1.2. I am not sure where I got the info. But fine, let's say I imagined it and that the T1.5 issue is only relevant for the 50mm f1.2. I personally use my 50mm f1.2 probably at least 10 times more than my 85mm f1.2.
p.4 #5 · Canon R5 (and R5M2) vs Nikon Z8 (low light AF performance)
alundeb wrote:
DXO have not tested the RF.
There is no data nowhere supporting anything else than the RF 85 f/1.2 is T1.3
The DS variant loses 1.5 stops and is T2.2 according to Canon.
All we know about the non DS version of the RF 85/1.2 L is the f-stop, t-stop therefore unknown and that Canon specifies the DS version as T2.2.
Without measurements you can't say anything, so no T1.3 either.
DXO has at least measured previous models and the Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM is at T1.5.
When you see that the Canon EF 50mm f/1.2L USM was measured at T1.5 by DXO Score and the current model Canon RF 50mm f/1.2L USM also only at T1.5, I wouldn't be surprised if it doesn't achieve a T1.3.
DXO mark has not tested very many lenses and some of them have been around for a few years, but none of the Canon f/1.2 L lenses tested so far has a better T-stop measurement than T1.5.
The now ancient Canon EF 85mm F1.2L USM, still identical in optical construction to my old Canon nFD 85/1.2 L, was still at T1.6.
So Bernardi is not entirely wrong in the tendency, none of the Canon f/1.2 L lenses tested with DXO Mark achieves a better T-stop value than T1.5 in their measurements.
The situation is definitely different at Nikon with the Z 85/1.2 S., which was measured with T1.3, or the Noct with T1.1.
It may be a coincidence that the RF 85/1.2 L performs better there than, for example, the Canon RF 50/1.2 L, or the predecessor models of the RF 85/1.2 L, but this is rather doubtful.
p.4 #6 · Canon R5 (and R5M2) vs Nikon Z8 (low light AF performance)
Vento wrote:
All we know about the non DS version of the RF 85/1.2 L is the f-stop, t-stop therefore unknown and that Canon specifies the DS version as T2.2.
Without measurements you can't say anything, so no T1.3 either.
DXO has at least measured previous models and the Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM is at T1.5.
When you see that the Canon EF 50mm f/1.2L USM was measured at T1.5 by DXO Score and the current model Canon RF 50mm f/1.2L USM also only at T1.5, I wouldn't be surprised if it doesn't achieve a T1.3.
DXO mark has not tested very many lenses and some of them have been around for a few years, but none of the Canon f/1.2 L lenses tested so far has a better T-stop measurement than T1.5.
The now ancient Canon EF 85mm F1.2L USM, still identical in optical construction to my old Canon nFD 85/1.2 L, was still at T1.6.
So Bernardi is not entirely wrong in the tendency, none of the Canon f/1.2 L lenses tested with DXO Mark achieves a better T-stop value than T1.5 in their measurements.
The situation is definitely different at Nikon with the Z 85/1.2 S., which was measured with T1.3, or the Noct with T1.1.
It may be a coincidence that the RF 85/1.2 L performs better there than, for example, the Canon RF 50/1.2 L, or the predecessor models of the RF 85/1.2 L, but this is rather doubtful.
If you measure T-stop for very large aperture lenses using Canon cameras, there is a known problem with pixel vignetting with certain Canon cameras. When the exit pupil is very large and close, the light from the most oblique rays do not hit the photodiodes. So the low T-stop measurements could be a sensor problem and not a lens problem. I don't know the situation regarding this for the R5 or R3, but the R5 is said to be better in this regard than the R, which was used for the DXO measurements with the RF 50/1.2.
The large difference between f-stop and T-stop measured by DXO does not appear for lenses with aperture f/1.8 or smaller. The RF 135/1.8 looks fine.
It would be very strange if Canon lenses systematically had large transmission loss only for the f/1.4 and f/1.2 lenses.
It seems the original article from DXOmark cannot be found anymore, but there is a discussion about it here:
p.4 #7 · Canon R5 (and R5M2) vs Nikon Z8 (low light AF performance)
alundeb wrote:
If you measure T-stop for very large aperture lenses using Canon cameras, there is a known problem with pixel vignetting with certain Canon cameras. When the exit pupil is very large and close, the light from the most oblique rays do not hit the photodiodes. So the low T-stop measurements could be a sensor problem and not a lens problem. I don't know the situation regarding this for the R5 or R3, but the R5 is said to be better in this regard than the R, which was used for the DXO measurements with the RF 50/1.2.
The large difference between f-stop and T-stop measured by DXO does not appear for lenses with aperture f/1.8 or smaller. The RF 135/1.8 looks fine.
It would be very strange if Canon lenses systematically had large transmission loss only for the f/1.4 and f/1.2 lenses. ...Show more →
Whether the issue is with the lens or sensor design is irrelevant since you can only use RF lenses on RF bodies, right?
p.4 #9 · Canon R5 (and R5M2) vs Nikon Z8 (low light AF performance)
Canon make Cinema lenses as well. I'm not sure if these lenses are based on the existing "photography" optical design or not, but Canon explicitly mention T1.3 for the 85/1.2: https://www.usa.canon.com/shop/p/cn-r85?color=Black&type=New (this looks like an EF design with an RF adapter).
I'm wondering if anyone has both Nikon and Canon lenses so they could just take the same picture with the same settings and see if Nikon's comes out brighter?
I personally couldn't care less about the T stop - my favorite portrait lens is actually the DS rated at T2.2, but I was just surprised by the claim...
Feb 29, 2024 at 09:17 AM
AmbientMike Offline • • • • • • [X]
p.4 #10 · Canon R5 (and R5M2) vs Nikon Z8 (low light AF performance)
I can't say using the Nikon to adapt Sony 50/1.2 makes too much sense to me, given nikon makes one.
p.4 #13 · Canon R5 (and R5M2) vs Nikon Z8 (low light AF performance)
AmbientMike wrote:
I can't say using the Nikon to adapt Sony 50/1.2 makes too much sense to me, given nikon makes one.
Historically the ability to adapt EF lenses on Sony mirrorless bodies with decent AF was probably the most important factor that enabled Sony to win back quickly an important part of Canon’s high end users market share. In Japan 100% of the pros I know that used to shoot Canon all moved to Sony and they all continued at first to use their EF lenses through adaptors.
So the #1 use case is a Sony user owning the 50mm f1.2 GM interested in adding a Nikon body to their line up or to switch to Nikon. Many examples here at FM alone.
The #2 scenario is a Nikon user willing to add a Sony body such as the a9III to his line up for some specific need who would buy the 50mm f1.2 GM and want to use the lens also on his Nikon bodies when not needing the a9III and preferring to use his Z8/Z9 for resolution, colors, because he needs some Nikon lenses for a shoot,… that’s my case. It’s about the possibility to benefit from the strengths of 2 systems without having to duplicate lenses line up. Obvious cost savings.
The 3rd use case is someone preferring the Sony 50mm f1.2 that is significantly more compact to the Nikon lens while being excellent (comparing my copies the Nikon 50mm f1.2 S is better but others report the opposite so there may be sample variations). This is about having more options, freedom of choice. This includes all the cases where there are Sony FE mount lenses not available in Z mount. From Sony or from other vendors. I am sure that Nikon will release soon a 100-300mm f2.8 TC that will probably weight 2.4 kg, Sony has a fixed 300mm f2.8 that weights 1.5 kg. I will love to be able to decide if I prefer flexibility or weight. For me it will be flexibility but I will have the choice and I can change my mind any day.
All that should be familiar to Canon users who used to be able to adapt Nikon F mount lenses. Most of my former Canon DSLR shooting friends were adapting the Nikon 14-24mm f2.8 during the 8 years it took Canon to come up with a credible alternative. The EF mount was the universal DSLR mount now in mirrorless that is the Z mount. A difference of a few mm that to me changes the game. Or should at least be understood when picking a mount in which to invest big bucks for many years.
I shoot Fuji GFX also and my main issue with system is how limited lenses options are. I am disappointed by the look, optical issues (CA) and focusing speed of half of the lenses and would love to be able to adapt Hasselblad lenses (but I understand that will never happen because of flange distance and leaf shutter compatibility). So I know the feeling even if Canon RF obviously offers many more options. It’s still a single manufacturer and they will typically only offer one prime at each focal length. It’s just me but as creative person I prefer freedom of choice.
Call me a traditionalist if you will but to me photography is first about lenses. Especially now that all high end mirrorless bodies behave in similar ways from an AF point of view in the grand scheme of things. Bodies are a commodity, lenses are the differentiator. The L mount is another potentially interesting option btw but unfortunately they lack the drive to come up with a credible télé lenses line up.
Anyways it’s great to have options and I am not trying to convince anybody. Just explaining what works for me.
p.4 #14 · Canon R5 (and R5M2) vs Nikon Z8 (low light AF performance)
alundeb wrote:
No, as I said it depends on which camera. Stacked sensors (R3) should be much better and the R5 is probably better as well.
Don’t stacked sensors differ in terms of what’s happening behind the sensels, as opposed to in front of them?
For the T stop to differ btwn bodies would probably require a change of micro lenses in front of the sensor which would impact other lenses in the line up, wouldn’t it?
p.4 #15 · Canon R5 (and R5M2) vs Nikon Z8 (low light AF performance)
docusync wrote:
Canon make Cinema lenses as well. I'm not sure if these lenses are based on the existing "photography" optical design or not, but Canon explicitly mention T1.3 for the 85/1.2: https://www.usa.canon.com/shop/p/cn-r85?color=Black&type=New (this looks like an EF design with an RF adapter).
I'm wondering if anyone has both Nikon and Canon lenses so they could just take the same picture with the same settings and see if Nikon's comes out brighter?
I personally couldn't care less about the T stop - my favorite portrait lens is actually the DS rated at T2.2, but I was just surprised by the claim...
How much does the Canon cine 85mm T1.3 cost comoared to the photo lens?
p.4 #16 · Canon R5 (and R5M2) vs Nikon Z8 (low light AF performance)
docusync wrote:
The OP has bounced a day ago but the war still rages on!
My apologies for contributing to the off topic drift. If anyone is interested in following up leads from the side-discussions, they can seek information or discuss where relevant. I am stepping out
p.4 #17 · Canon R5 (and R5M2) vs Nikon Z8 (low light AF performance)
bernardl wrote:
How much does the Canon cine 85mm T1.3 cost comoared to the photo lens?
$3950 for the RF mount and $3450 for the EF mount. It's the same lens BTW, just a different mount. It should be optically identical to the 85/1.2L II.
https://www.sharegrid.com/learn/lens-sets/canon-cn-e To create the CN-E's, Canon started with their exceptional still photography prime lenses. They swapped out their 8-blade irises for 11-blade irises, gave them proper cinema housings, and a new recipe of lens coatings that delivers a slightly warmer look than their still photo predecessors.
alundeb wrote:
The large difference between f-stop and T-stop measured by DXO does not appear for lenses with aperture f/1.8 or smaller. The RF 135/1.8 looks fine.
It would be very strange if Canon lenses systematically had large transmission loss only for the f/1.4 and f/1.2 lenses.
It seems the original article from DXOmark cannot be found anymore, but there is a discussion about it here:
Did DxO document their testing process? Was it peer reviewed? I doubt it. I'm not saying that the Canon's numbers are correct, but I have very little trust into DxO "measurements" either.
p.4 #18 · Canon R5 (and R5M2) vs Nikon Z8 (low light AF performance)
docusync wrote:
...It's the same lens BTW, just a different mount. It should be optically identical to the 85/1.2L II.
DXO measured the Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM @ T1.5.
Incidentally, the camera body used for the measurement was a Canon EOS 5DS R, as with all DXO measurements of Canon f1.2 L lenses, with the exception of the RF 50/1.2 L, which was measured on a Canon R.
With regard to the argument that the Canon R is the actual reason for the comparatively weak T-stop values of the Canon f/1.2 L lenses measured there.
Incidentally, the T1.3 of the Nikkor Z 85/1.2 S or the T1.1 of the Z Noct was measured on a Z7, i.e. also not on a body with a stacked sensor, as it was claimed that this should be the cause of the consistently poor measurements of the T-stops with Canon f/1.2 L lenses @ DXO.
p.4 #19 · Canon R5 (and R5M2) vs Nikon Z8 (low light AF performance)
docusync wrote:
$3950 for the RF mount and $3450 for the EF mount. It's the same lens BTW, just a different mount. It should be optically identical to the 85/1.2L II.
https://www.sharegrid.com/learn/lens-sets/canon-cn-e To create the CN-E's, Canon started with their exceptional still photography prime lenses. They swapped out their 8-blade irises for 11-blade irises, gave them proper cinema housings, and a new recipe of lens coatings that delivers a slightly warmer look than their still photo predecessors.
Did DxO document their testing process? Was it peer reviewed? I doubt it. I'm not saying that the Canon's numbers are correct, but I have very little trust into DxO "measurements" either....Show more →
We can of course question everything we want, but DxO is using their measurements to build their lens profiles which is the core value of their offering. They have a deeply vested interested in getting it right and any Canon user working with Photolab would be able to tell instantly if their light fall off corrections were over done as a result of an over estimated corner darkening (probably a key contributor to the lower T stop).
Besides they have been around for years and nobody, as far as I know, has been able to dispute their measurements or to come up with different ones. Since the 50mm f1.2 L was released 5 years ago I would think that someone having measured a more favorable T stop would have published their results by now.
There is not reason to focus too much on this, it is just another element like the raw NR in camera. Everyone can make up their mind as to whether the combination of these elements changes or not the value proposition they are getting from their system.
To me the ability to adapt lenses from other mirrorless mounts is tens of times more significant than the raw NR or the slightly disappointing T stop(s). The look of the images captured with the RF 50mm f1.2 and 85mm f1.2 is great and amazing photographs can be captured with these lenses even if they are a few % behind their Nikon counter parts. They are way beyond the threshold of good enough, they remain some of the best lenses ever designed.
Speaking of which Youtube just selected this video for me (scary thing in its own right btw), quite interesting I thought:
p.4 #20 · Canon R5 (and R5M2) vs Nikon Z8 (low light AF performance)
bernardl wrote:
Besides they have been around for years and nobody, as far as I know, has been able to dispute their measurements or to come up with different ones. Since the 50mm f1.2 L was released 5 years ago I would think that someone having measured a more favorable T stop would have published their results by now.
I'm not sure why would Canon misadvertise their T stops either, especially catering to the picky Cinema crowd.
bernardl wrote:
Speaking of which Youtube just selected this video for me (scary thing in its own right btw), quite interesting I thought:
...so what the YT pundits say - is Nikon better than Canon?
It's like a 50+ years old question, you have no choice now but to watch that video and report back
