trstahly
Offline
Upload & Sell: On
|
 Sony-shooters thoughts on the Canon R5/R6 | |
Fred Miranda wrote:
Holger wrote:
AlphaPhotography wrote:
Speculation has it that the R5/R6 IBIS is better (stronger) than Sony’s due to the wider diameter mount (more room to shift without revealing edges). We also haven’t seen any lenses from Sony like the 28-70 f2 which is one of the reasons I’m planning on switching to Canon (along with the R5 specs). I’m curious if a lens like that is a mount diameter limitation or if they just haven’t decided it’s worth adding into the lineup. The 12-24mm f2.8 GM does look impressive so I’m glad they’re still pushing the envelope with other lenses like that. My A7RIV + 12-24 GM along with a Canon R5 + 28-70 f2 actually sounds pretty good right now 😅. Only ~$13,500 😭
I haven't yet checked out that RF 85 f1.2 review above but from what I've seen everywhere else it seems to be the best 85mm lens available for any system with almost zero CA. The GM at f1.4 now falls far behind in comparison with worse sharpness, terrible green fringing, and slow AF. I'm hoping Sony come out with some f1.2 primes and f2 zooms in the future. I also wonder if Canon could do a 135mm f1.4...
frezeiss wrote:
2xbass wrote:
Holger wrote:
And how often do they really use the big apertures? I find them much more useful for small focal lengths. 24mm, 28mm, 35mm, for example, to really get unique looks. For longer focal lengths images often look artificial, like a person zoomed into a room with a backdrop, and tend to get much more similar with differences often too minor to really make a difference. Esp. amateurs think images to look pro if shot wide open at f1.2. Funnily people often travel to great locations to make a photography session, but then use a Sigma 105/1.4 or 85/1.2 to obliterate the background and nothing can be seen of the nice location.
They can have their uses, of course. Oftentimes I feel them overhyped, however.
I agree with you. It is fun to see how much the technology can be pushed in many ways but there’s a) the real-world application of some things and b) the cost of it. I know a lot has been made about how with the Z and RF mounts that the E mount is now inferior because of the various dimensions including the throat size and how the design of the newer mounts will let Nikon and Canon do a lot more. I think that’s absolutely true but how much of it will really translate into real-world benefits for most people? The “limitations” of E mount has not stopped Sony or other lens manufacturers from making some stellar optics that are also practical to carry.
I think the jury is still out on the throat diameter thingy,
- Nikon/Sony 35 1.8. Nikkor has better aberration control while Sony has better sharpness.
- Canon/Sony 24-105. Sony has better sharpness on the wider FL
Even the seemingly non compromised 1200 gr RF 85 1.2 has questionable corner resolution. However their new 70-200 looks spot on, great sharpness, great size. https://www.digitalcameraworld.com/reviews/canon-rf-85mm-f12l-usm-review
IMHO, Sony needs to make more 1.4 unicorn lenses like GM 24; sensible size, nice rendering, adequate sharpness & abberation control.
Your post makes me wonder whether you have any ideas about size and weight of lenses like a 135/1.4, a halo lens in the 3500$-4000$ realm, only a minority would buy.
By now you should know, too, that the Sony lens mount is be able to sustain fast lenses easily (I forgot the minimum f-stop, but it was around 0.8 I think). So only because Sony is not making a halo lens like the 28-70/2, which is extremely expensive (3200 Euros), that doesn't mean it is the lens mount preventing that.
Sony's general manger Kenji Tanaka “Yes we could, but there is no market demand" ... “Maybe some demand exists for an f/1.2, but an f/1.0? Technically we could produce an f/1.0, but it would not make business sense.”
The Canon 85 is a very good lens. but I don't see big differences, not some leaving it "far behind", see that video, too
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1624897/0#15066877
The Canon 85/1.2 DS is furthermore more than twice the price, the standard "almost" twice the price of the GM, here. So wouldn't be worth that money for *me*. CAs are exaggerated by you here, similarly to AF, which is absolutely fine, albeit not the fastest. I use the lens at weddings for years now and AF performance is not an issue.
In my personal opinion there are more than enough options now with Sony, esp. when including Sigma, an 85 f1.2 doesn't make one's images better compared to an f1.4. I find large apertures for WA make a much bigger visual impact. The 24GM and 35/1.2 Art fill the gap nicely.
The Canon 28-70/2 sounds great on paper and I'm sure it's a great lens but considering it's heavier than the Sony 100-400 GM, I would much prefer carrying faster primes like the FE 24/1.4 GM and FE 50/1.4 ZA (or 55/1.8) instead. Not only it's a cheaper proposition, it would make my bag lighter without sacrificing IQ.
Exactly I mean you really want faster and better IMO and a 28070/2 gives you neither plus lot a moola and weight.
|
