johnctharp wrote:
To quote Jobs: "You're holding it wrong"
It's not a question of 'why allow it', but rather, why go out of their way to ensure that the feature can't be used for stills? And since it's a soft control, the current functionality could be toggled rather than being forced?
As has been pointed out by melcat, the biggest problem with the iris ring is that the visual feedback is not reliable. That is more likely to be a problem with stills than video because of mode usage.
As it is, that problem is not possible to encounter with stills if you just can't use it for stills. I like that.
I see it as discussion about UI design, not an obvious design flaw.
Reviewers that always have to find something to nitpick, that may work for them.
Just have to wonder though, those forum members that not only want the best you can buy, but are upset because no manufacturer is able to combine all the best properties from all the competitors, how are they going to find happiness?
garyvot wrote:
I honestly don't get the whole kerfuffle over the iris ring being dedicated to video.
There is *already* a control ring on every RF lens that can be purposed to control the aperture. And helpfully, it has clicks.
A free-spinning aperture ring sort of makes no sense for stills. This feels like reviewers needing to find something to criticize.
Some users might want to see the aperture on the ring when making adjustments, like it was with traditional mechanical aperture rings, and still is on many modern lenses for various systems. A ring which has no scale is annoying at least to me. This is true of focus, aperture etc.
Interestingly, on the Nikon Z, there are control rings that can be used to make adjustments but while there was a digital screen which could show the setting on the lens on some early higher-end Z Nikkors, in some of the latest models such as 85/1.2 and 135/1.8, there is no display on the lens, so all the rings run freely and have no indicator of the settings position. Depending on the user, this could be considered a negative. I understand that the camera has displays that are capable of displaying some of this information, but still, I liked seeing the settings and distances on the lens.
Now Canon has put in an iris ring with f-stop markings on the ring, but it can only be used for video. Giving the option to use this ring also for stills would enable the stills-oriented photographers to benefit from it, and for those who do both video and stills, those users can use the same ring to control the f-stop for both video and stills, which to me makes sense. Having to use separate rings for setting f-stop for stills and video wastes a perfectly good control ring which could be used for another setting. Making these physical rings costs something, it adds to the price of the lens even if a particular user doesn't shoot video at all.
I don't see any reason why an aperture ring with a scale, but no click stops would be a problem for stills. Having continuous adjustment of aperture is no bad thing, all I can see is benefits from it.
Additionally, having clickless operation on the aperture ring offers a seamless transition between stills and video shooting, which is increasingly important for photographers who often work in both mediums. It's a practical approach that not only improves usability but also ensures that photographers have the flexibility they need to capture their creative vision across different shooting scenarios
ilkka_nissila wrote:
I don't see any reason why an aperture ring with a scale, but no click stops would be a problem for stills. Having continuous adjustment of aperture is no bad thing, all I can see is benefits from it.
I surmise one reason the Iris is disabled for stills is that there is (maybe) no mechanism to lock out the ring. If, for example, it is not coupled to shutter release and AF-On buttons like the Control Ring is by default (so that you must press one of these buttons to affect a change when turning the ring). then it might be easy to accidentally change the aperture, leading to frustration or missed shots.
Perhaps Canon felt it would be difficult or impossible to add control of this retroactively to older cameras via firmware, or there was some reason it did not like the idea of a mechanical lock mechanism on the lens.
Just a theory, but I would find this understandable.
Reportedly new cameras not yet released will support the use of the iris ring in still photography. It would seem that there is some technical reason why existing and older cameras won't support this ring except in video.
Interestingly, Nikon has now released their Z-mount 35/1.4 and it's only $600. Question of course is: what compromises were made to achieve this price point? It's not their 'S' series, which I guess is the equivalent of Canon's L series. It's also being marketed as a hybrid lens, low focus breathing, but without the marked aperture ring (though the control ring is click-less). And DPR doesn't think it's a third-party design rebadged by Nikon.
Perhaps it's also the first of a line of more affordable 'hybrid' f/1.4 lenses, like what Canon stated with the RF 35/1.4 release. Will be interesting to see how, or if, it pushes Canon... but it sure undercuts the RF (and everyone else) on price!
I honestly thought it was a mistake when I saw that price. That also tells me Nikon must have a 1.2 in store as well, because there’s no way that they would price it that low if that was to be their peak 35mm. Hopefully Canon also has a true flagship 35mm in the works, because this lens just doesn’t excite me for some reason.
rscheffler wrote:
Interestingly, Nikon has now released their Z-mount 35/1.4 and it's only $600. Question of course is: what compromises were made to achieve this price point? It's not their 'S' series, which I guess is the equivalent of Canon's L series. It's also being marketed as a hybrid lens, low focus breathing, but without the marked aperture ring (though the control ring is click-less). And DPR doesn't think it's a third-party design rebadged by Nikon.
Perhaps it's also the first of a line of more affordable 'hybrid' f/1.4 lenses, like what Canon stated with the RF 35/1.4 release. Will be interesting to see how, or if, it pushes Canon... but it sure undercuts the RF (and everyone else) on price!...Show more →
rscheffler wrote:
Interestingly, Nikon has now released their Z-mount 35/1.4 and it's only $600. Question of course is: what compromises were made to achieve this price point? It's not their 'S' series, which I guess is the equivalent of Canon's L series. It's also being marketed as a hybrid lens, low focus breathing, but without the marked aperture ring (though the control ring is click-less). And DPR doesn't think it's a third-party design rebadged by Nikon.
Perhaps it's also the first of a line of more affordable 'hybrid' f/1.4 lenses, like what Canon stated with the RF 35/1.4 release. Will be interesting to see how, or if, it pushes Canon... but it sure undercuts the RF (and everyone else) on price!...Show more →
Definitely a novel strategy from Nikon!
I think the Nikon 35mm 1.4 is more competing with the Canon 35mm 1.8 macro. They are similar in price.
Nikon has f/1.4 and some weather sealing.
Canon has only f/1.8, but adds IS and macro.
Most people would probably pick the Nikon (if mount was not an issue).
But in reality the Canon might be more practical.
But overall super interesting. We got used to the fact that at the normal focal lengths (24-135mm), all the big makers pretty much offered the same category of lenses.
comotionfilms wrote:
Hopefully Canon also has a true flagship 35mm in the works, because this lens just doesn’t excite me for some reason.
Well, it *is* an f/1.4 L-series prime with better MTF charts than the EF 35mm f/1.4L II, which has been considered a standout design at this focal length.
I think we need to wait for reviews to see if anything unexpected pops up, but if the lens delivers in practice what it promises on paper, I don't see why this shouldn't be viewed as a flagship 35mm prime.
Personally, I am relieved that it is not another f/1.2 "statement" lens with IS that would just add to the bulk, weight, and cost. The differences between f/1.2 and f/1.4 are negligible in practical terms, and IS is really not needed at this focal length with any current Canon full frame body north of an R8, for which the 35mm f/1.8 IS STM is a more natural fit in any case.
I hope to see more lenses like this from Canon. 50mm and 85mm f/1.4 lenses having similar compact designs would be excellent.
Looks like the Canon is sharper wide open but the Nikon might have smoother bokeh given the tangential and sagittal plots remain close together all the way off-axis.
Could be the Nikon is a bit more a 'traditional' lens that needs stopping down a couple stops to really sharpen up. If the Canon's MTF is accurate, it will already be very sharp from wide open. Or perhaps Nikon uses more realistic 'real world' MTF calculations?
garyvot wrote:
Well, it *is* an f/1.4 L-series prime with better MTF charts than the EF 35mm f/1.4L II, which has been considered a standout design at this focal length.
I think we need to wait for reviews to see if anything unexpected pops up, but if the lens delivers in practice what it promises on paper, I don't see why this shouldn't be viewed as a flagship 35mm prime.
Personally, I am relieved that it is not another f/1.2 "statement" lens with IS that would just add to the bulk, weight, and cost. The differences between f/1.2 and f/1.4 are negligible in practical terms, and IS is really not needed at this focal length with any current Canon full frame body north of an R8, for which the 35mm f/1.8 IS STM is a more natural fit in any case.
I hope to see more lenses like this from Canon. 50mm and 85mm f/1.4 lenses having similar compact designs would be excellent....Show more →
I’m glad this lens exists for people like you, and I know I’m the minority, but I’d prefer Canon to release a statement 35mm lens as well. Looking at the jumps that Canon made from the EF 50 L to the RF, and the EF 85 1.2 L to the RF, this one just disappoints a bit. Maybe the real reviews will sway me, but the MTF charts show that the old 35 L is actually slightly sharper in the center, which is fine, but I was just hoping for something amazing after this long wait.
comotionfilms wrote:
I’m glad this lens exists for people like you, and I know I’m the minority, but I’d prefer Canon to release a statement 35mm lens as well. Looking at the jumps that Canon made from the EF 50 L to the RF, and the EF 85 1.2 L to the RF, this one just disappoints a bit. Maybe the real reviews will sway me, but the MTF charts show that the old 35 L is actually slightly sharper in the center, which is fine, but I was just hoping for something amazing after this long wait.
First of all the bar is much higher with the EF 35 1.4L II compared to the EF 50L and 85L. Also according to this review the new RF 35L is quite a bit sharper everywhere, including center, compared to EF counterpart.
According to the MTF charts, which I rarely bother to check “ The EF 35 II is optically great. Thus, its performance sets the bar high. In the precise center of the frame, that lens appears to have a tiny (imperceptible) advantage over the RF lens. ” I’m sure it’s better than the old EF 35, I was just surprised that it’s not a home run, at least for me.
Now MTF charts aren’t everything, and real reviews might show a different story. I don’t doubt the new lens will be nice, and Im not here to debate that, I was just hoping for something a little more breathtaking, something that was more of a statement lens that blew everything else away, price and size not considered. On appearances, this looks like a compromise, or a hybrid lens, and not a top of the line L lens, but I’m guessing that’s what the vast majority of the people want anyways. I’m the rare bird that doesn’t mind carrying a big prime, with a massive front element, if it’s just such a nice lens (like the Sigma 40mm which is my normal walk around lens). If this lens is not that sort of lens, that’s okay, as it seems to be perfect for most people. I might buy it to play around with, but pros can still wish for more, right?
CelesteForza wrote:
First of all the bar is much higher with the EF 35 1.4L II compared to the EF 50L and 85L. Also according to this review the new RF 35L is quite a bit sharper everywhere, including center, compared to EF counterpart.
comotionfilms wrote:
According to the MTF charts, which I rarely bother to check “ The EF 35 II is optically great. Thus, its performance sets the bar high. In the precise center of the frame, that lens appears to have a tiny (imperceptible) advantage over the RF lens. ” I’m sure it’s better than the old EF 35, I was just surprised that it’s not a home run, at least for me.
Now MTF charts aren’t everything, and real reviews might show a different story. I don’t doubt the new lens will be nice, and Im not here to debate that, I was just hoping for something a little more breathtaking, something that was more of a statement lens that blew everything else away, price and size not considered. On appearances, this looks like a compromise, or a hybrid lens, and not a top of the line L lens, but I’m guessing that’s what the vast majority of the people want anyways. I’m the rare bird that doesn’t mind carrying a big prime, with a massive front element, if it’s just such a nice lens (like the Sigma 40mm which is my normal walk around lens). If this lens is not that sort of lens, that’s okay, as it seems to be perfect for most people. I might buy it to play around with, but pros can still wish for more, right?
Well according to a reputable reviewer, the new RF 35L seems to be quite a bit sharper than the legendary EF 35mm L II, wide open. Also you don't necessarily need a gigantic front element to have the best optics. My modestly sized RF 85L is even better than my old gigantic Sigma 105 1.4 Art....Show more →
I've already posted samples and embargo is long gone.
But, my extremely quick thoughts.
The new 35mm f/1.4L VCM is a very good lens. Bokeh, focusing speed, size, better image quality overall, less Chromatic Aberrations, less artifacts overall, and better edge performance than the previous 35mm f/1.4L for EF Mount. I also found it less prone to flare in outdoor/high contrast situations compared to the 35mm f/1.4L EF and the 38mm f/1.8 STM Macro RF. And I'll reiterate, I really like the iris design on the new prime.
But. This lens does have a fair bit of distortion, which already is being "not shown or discussed much" publicly. In camera corrections and post distortion corrections rectifies that. I think that's part of the reason the newer lens is actually closer to probably a 32 or 33 FOV, btw, as that was likely part of the design consideration. For some, this is a non-issue, for others, they will want a good high quality corrected optic, though it would be bigger and more expensive.
My general POV is Canon is dancing the dance of a balancing act with the new hybrid design lenses to keep them small, lightweight, perform very good optically, providing minimal focus breathing (thus far), but with the compromise of distortion being the concession.
This to me leads a potential more corrected L Prime in the future, but I am also unsure that is on the roadmap or current direction of these lenses.
Canon is indeed fleshing out the rest of the hybrid VCM prime range. To me that means expect more f/1.4 glass, which I know some have been asking for.
What is a medium frustration is there is an "optical gap" in mindset and quality set by the rather good 50mm f/1.2L, 85mm f/1.2L, and 138mm f/1.8L RF, which are on par or exceed Zeiss Otus quality generally speaking. But on the wide side there is no such lens in the current RF lineup in terms of well corrected, low-to-no CA, and all of that.
But again, despite that criticism, this is a a great new lens for RF Mount and I'd say a decent price point more or less. Lots of focus on motion with the new general design and motor layout. I've been told and I think it's been mentioned now that there will be some support for the manual iris control in the future for stills mode.
PhilH wrote:
My general POV is Canon is dancing the dance of a balancing act with the new hybrid design lenses to keep them small, lightweight, perform very good optically, providing minimal focus breathing (thus far), but with the compromise of distortion being the concession.
I get why some people are uncomfortable with this, but I think if the edge performance after corrections is fine--which seems to be the case here--then the distortion isn't really an issue in practical terms. I welcome the size and weight savings.
I think that's part of the reason the newer lens is actually closer to probably a 32 or 33 FOV, btw, as that was likely part of the design consideration.
Yes, in my experience all of Canon's lenses with forced digital corrections have a wider FOV than stated to allow for the necessary stretching. Users are never meant to see the uncorrected output, I think.
garyvot wrote:
I get why some people are uncomfortable with this, but I think if the edge performance after corrections is fine--which seems to be the case here.
I’m not sure we really do know that. All the reviewers seem to think it’s a good thing to test on a high resolution camera because it’s “more demanding”. It might be a different story if you start with only 24Mpx and then stretch those relatively fewer corner pixels.
One might get some idea of how it works on, say, an R3, by taking the uncorrected R5 image, downres-ing to 24Mpx, and only then correcting the barrel distortion.
garyvot wrote:
Yes, in my experience all of Canon's lenses with forced digital corrections have a wider FOV than stated to allow for the necessary stretching. Users are never meant to see the uncorrected output, I think.
Gary, have you compared SOOC jpeg images with your 24-105Z against the same images, but raw versions, processed in Lightroom with corrections applied?
The 24-105Z has fairly strong distortion at 24mm and requires aggressive correction. With the few images I've processed from it so far, at 24mm the SOOC corrected image has a considerably narrower angle of view than the LRC distortion corrected version, which suggests to me that at least for this lens, Canon applies a fairly aggressive crop after distortion correction. At least at the wide end - I haven't yet compared other focal lengths. Perhaps this is also true for other lenses?
