p.5 #1 · Canon R7 Mk II (rumored) versus Sony A7 V
garyvot wrote:
You are stretching the truth to support your narrative. Canon isn't imposing arbitrary limits--older EF lenses are limited by their technology. This framerate limitation does not apply to newer EF lenses, including inexpensive consumer lenses like the EF 40mm f/2.8 STM.
Considering that the 85/1.8 USM focuses faster than the 85/2 STM, which is 40fps capable, I don’t see why hitting 40 fps should be a problem.
The real limitation is more likely the iris speed. Canon could have followed Sony’s approach, locking the aperture during high-speed shooting, to allow 40 fps operation without issue. This is exactly what Sony does with some older lenses when shooting at 120 fps.
p.5 #2 · Canon R7 Mk II (rumored) versus Sony A7 V
aCuria wrote:
The Tamron 90mm f/2.8 Di III VXD is a full 1:1 macro lens and still delivers noticeably faster AF. That alone undermines the idea that the RF 85/2 should be given a pass simply because it is a half-macro.
Given that Tamron, as a third-party manufacturer, can achieve fast and responsive AF in a full macro lens, it is entirely reasonable to expect a first-party Canon lens to meet or exceed that level of performance in a half macro. Calling the RF 85/2 “special” because of its close-focusing capability does not explain or excuse its slow AF.
The Tamron is a much higher-end lens. One would hope that Tamron had finally figured out autofocus for their Macro lineup.
aCuria wrote:
We can set aside the 50/1.8 since you don’t consider comparing it to the Sony 28–60 kit lens fair for some reason. I do not know enough to comment on the 45/1.2, but given that it does cost more than the FE28-60 kit lens, I would hope it at least focuses as fast?
Why would I compare the cheapest RF lens to, well, anything but the equivalent in other systems?
Why are you set on a 'kit' lens as your point of comparison?
aCuria wrote:
The bigger concern, in my view, is the relatively slow autofocus on high-end lenses such as the RF50/1.2L and RF28-70L. Despite being expensive, professional-grade optics, their autofocus performance doesn’t match that of other L-series lenses like the RF24-70L, or comparable high-end glass such as the 50/1.2GM and 28-70GM.
Both of the Sony lenses came out much later, in a time when all lens manufacturers were pushing increased AF speed as faster readout sensors became available for mirrorless cameras. I'd expect Sony to one-up Canon the same way I expect Canon to one-up Sony (as they did with their VCM line), and I don't expect Nikon to take developments from either of their main competitors lying down.
p.5 #3 · Canon R7 Mk II (rumored) versus Sony A7 V
You are doubling down on intentionally disingenuous, to the point where it is intentially misrepresenting. Tribalism gone amok.
johnctharp wrote:
That is an intentionally disingenuous argument.
Canon allows some third-party lenses, and many non-Sony E-mount lenses have compatibility issues (see linked video you scrolled past to get here).
Then there are no native Sony adaptations - whereas all EF-mount lenses are electrically native on RF-mount (and the now retired EF-M mount). It's a massive catalog with the most lenses on the market available.
p.5 #4 · Canon R7 Mk II (rumored) versus Sony A7 V
johnctharp wrote:
The Tamron is a much higher-end lens. One would hope that Tamron had finally figured out autofocus for their Macro lineup.
You would expect the Tamron to cost more, but they actually cost about the same! (2600 yen difference)
johnctharp wrote:
Why would I compare the cheapest RF lens to, well, anything but the equivalent in other systems? Why are you set on a 'kit' lens as your point of comparison?
Its the cheapest Canon RF vs cheapest Sony EF lens.
johnctharp wrote:
Both of the Sony lenses came out much later, in a time when all lens manufacturers were pushing increased AF speed as faster readout sensors became available for mirrorless cameras. I'd expect Sony to one-up Canon the same way I expect Canon to one-up Sony (as they did with their VCM line), and I don't expect Nikon to take developments from either of their main competitors lying down.
Yes, the VCM line is absolutely a move in the right direction as far as autofocus performance goes.
p.5 #6 · Canon R7 Mk II (rumored) versus Sony A7 V
aCuria wrote:
You would expect the Tamron to cost more, but they actually cost about the same! (2600 yen difference)
There's a reason we typically compare prices in US$ - other currencies can fluctuate a lot, and the Japanese Yen is a current prime example. The Tamron 90mm is two to four times the price in the US right now, depending on holiday sales.
johnctharp wrote:
Why would I compare the cheapest RF lens to, well, anything but the equivalent in other systems? Why are you set on a 'kit' lens as your point of comparison?
aCuria wrote:
Its the cheapest Canon RF vs cheapest Sony EF lens.
See above about currency conversions and so on. How's Sony's E-mount 50/1.8? I remember it having enough LoCA to outright embarrass my old EF 50/1.4!
aCuria wrote:
Yes, the VCM line is absolutely a move in the right direction as far as autofocus performance goes.
They're also the newest; Canon has improved autofocus performance, even with STM lenses, significantly, since releasing the RF system. No reason to expect them to not update and revise as time goes on. How's the autofocus on the Sony/Zeiss 4/24-70 in comparison?
p.5 #7 · Canon R7 Mk II (rumored) versus Sony A7 V
aCuria wrote:
...For example, I’ve shot with the EF 16–35L, 35L, 40/2.8, 50/1.8, 135L, and 70–200L, and it was quite clear that the autofocus performance of the 40/2.8 and 50/1.8 was not on the same level as the 70-200L.
On higher-end lenses such as the RF 28–70mm f/2L and the RF 50mm f/1.2L, the Canon versions still don’t match the autofocus performance of their Sony counterparts, possibly because Sony uses more motors (four) to drive the heavy glass elements.
Comparing 7x more expensive lenses with the cheapest there is and finding differences. No, not much wow-factor there. But you may still have a point in that AF may be slower than necessary from the economic angle of view. Could Canon be the only one to do this? Any bets for?
As for the heavy hitters, both Canons are from 2018, the Sony 50 is 2021 and the 28-70 is from 2024. The conspiracy inclined do, of course, find the obvious pattern that Canon has made the Version 1 slow, so they can milk the market by getting a faster v.2 out far sooner than Sony has to. Who can say? Could be! Or not!
p.5 #8 · Canon R7 Mk II (rumored) versus Sony A7 V
aCuria wrote:
Yes, the VCM line is absolutely a move in the right direction as far as autofocus performance goes.
The VCM lenses focus nearly instantly. They are all internal focusing designs, and from the reviews I have seen are faster than both Canon's f/1.8 and f/1.2 variants in each respective focal length where there is overlap. (I have personally used the 50, and this is consistent with my experience.) And they have almost no focus breathing.
A big part of the reason that the STM primes focus more slowly is that they are all front focus designs. The new f/2.8 STM zooms use internal focusing (and possibly have updated STM motors). In any case, focus on those lenses is quite quick (I recently acquired both and find they perform well).
p.5 #9 · Canon R7 Mk II (rumored) versus Sony A7 V
Z250SA wrote:
Comparing 7x more expensive lenses with the cheapest there is and finding differences. No, not much wow-factor there. But you may still have a point in that AF may be slower than necessary from the economic angle of view. Could Canon be the only one to do this? Any bets for?
As for the heavy hitters, both Canons are from 2018, the Sony 50 is 2021 and the 28-70 is from 2024. The conspiracy inclined do, of course, find the obvious pattern that Canon has made the Version 1 slow, so they can milk the market by getting a faster v.2 out far sooner than Sony has to. Who can say? Could be! Or not! ...Show more →
I really hope Canon improves all of its slow-focusing L lenses, including the RF 85mm f/1.2. Somehow, the RF version ends up being just as slow as the EF one. I’m generally hesitant to buy lenses that feel like they’re clearly waiting for a v2 update.
We were in the same situation with Sony. In 2018 I adapted Canon L glass instead of buying lenses I though were not good enough like the 24ZA, 35/1.4 ZA, 70-200 v1, or 16-35mm f/2.8 v1.
p.5 #11 · Canon R7 Mk II (rumored) versus Sony A7 V
I wonder how much of a problem that is for portrait shooters...
For posed portraits, I don’t think this is much of an issue. But for children’s portraits and candids, where subjects rarely stay still, it can become a problem, at wide apertures.
At something like f/1.4, depth of field can be under 1 cm when you’re close to the subject. The faster a lens can perform autofocus updates, the higher the hit rate will be. I usually shoot at 5fps (at most 10) for kids portraits, and the hit rate is noticeably better on A1 / A9iii than the A7iii.
One thing I like is that Sony is quite forthcoming about the limitations of their lens lineup, after all the older lenses are not capable of 120 autofocus updates per second.
Canon should be more open about this, in my opinion. As far as I know, they simply state that all RF lenses are capable of 40 fps burst, but the rate at which lenses can update their autofocus is omitted. In reality there are clear underperformers here like the RF 85mm f/2 and 85/1.2.
p.5 #12 · Canon R7 Mk II (rumored) versus Sony A7 V
johnctharp wrote:
There's a reason we typically compare prices in US$ - other currencies can fluctuate a lot, and the Japanese Yen is a current prime example. The Tamron 90mm is two to four times the price in the US right now, depending on holiday sales.
In USD, the prices are about $639 and $699. The Tamron represents good value, as most third-party lenses do. For it to be “four times the price,” the RF 85/2 would have to sell for around $175, which clearly isn’t the case. Tariffs have also made USD price comparisons increasingly unreliable. You may be thinking of an older sale price, but prices have risen sharply in recent years due to tariffs.
johnctharp wrote:
How's Sony's E-mount 50/1.8? I remember it having enough LoCA to outright embarrass my old EF 50/1.4!
At this price range the Viltrox 50mm f/2 is what people recommend. Some people really like the rendering on the Sony 50/1.8 though.
johnctharp wrote:
They're also the newest; Canon has improved autofocus performance, even with STM lenses, significantly, since releasing the RF system. No reason to expect them to not update and revise as time goes on.
You are insinuating that Canon's AF is monotonically improving. That is exactly what I want to see, but its not the case.
This is what Canon's mid range glass looks like:
Non-L Canon RF lens releases
2018 - RF 35 f/1.8 STM (slow video AF, noisy)
2019 - RF 24-240mm USM
2020 - RF 85 STM (very slow AF)
2021 - RF 50 STM (very slow AF)
2022 - RF 24 STM (better but still slow for action)
2023 - 28mm F2.8 STM
2024 - RF 200-800 USM
2025 - 28-70mm f/2.8 STM
2025 - RF 45mm f/1.2 STM
And Sony:
2017 - FE 85 f/1.8
2019 - FE 35 f/1.8
2020 - FE 20/1.8
2021 - FE 28-60
2022 - FE PZ 16-35 f/4
2023 - FE 20-70 f/4
2024 - FE 24-50 f/2.8
2025 - FE 400-800 f/6.3-8
johnctharp wrote:
How's the autofocus on the Sony/Zeiss 4/24-70 in comparison?
The 24-70/4 was released in 2013, just a few months after the 5D Mark III and the original 6D. I can’t really comment in detail as I shot with mostly Canon until 2019.
The EF 85mm f/1.8 USM was released in 1992 at a price of $400, and it delivered excellent autofocus performance. Given that benchmark, whenever Canon later introduced lenses priced above $400 that failed to match the focusing performance of the EF 85mm f/1.8, it felt less like a technical limitation and more like an abuse of their market-leader position.
Sony only caught up decades later in 2017 with the FE85 f/1.8!
However they have not looked back. Since the FE85 f/1.8, Sony has engineered its lenses with high-end autofocus performance. This is not limited by price point, GM branding, and includes APSC lenses. As a result, they can all support up to 120 autofocus updates per second.
