httivals
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 Re: Debating switching from Sony to Canon | |
No doubt that the Canon RF lenses are not as lightweight as the equivalent lenses for the Sony E mount. OTOH, the Canon R5 has vastly better image stabilization than the Sony bodies. Depends what's more important to you.
The lighweight Canon RF primes all appear to have compromises, although the 35mm f1.8 is very good and has lens IS. It may not be as well built (it seems a bit cheap; I prefer the build of the EF 35mm f2IS, but it becomes too big and heavy with an adapter), but on balance I think I prefer the Canon RF 35mm f1.8 to the Sony 35mm f2.8 ZA and the Sony 35mm f1.8. Also, as you point out, the Canon 70-200mm RF zooms are exceptional, compact, and lightweight - I opted for the f4 RF zoom.
For my uses, the combined Canon EF and RF lenses better meet my needs than does Sony. I'll probably keep an A7RIV to use with a few of the Sony primes, but I'd rather have a Canon 15-35 RF and Canon 70-200mm F4, along with the R5 and its fantastic image stabilization than the Sony equivalents. I love my Sony 16-35mm GM, but it doesn't have image stabilization and there isn't a good (for me) 70-200mm or 70-300mm Sony lens to go with it. The Canon EF 70-300mm L with an adapter is another fantastic compact, high quality, relatively light zoom option for the R5. I found it frustrating to use with an adapter on the A7RIV.
I wish the RF 15-35mm were a bit lighter, but it has benefits over the 16-35mm GM - image stabilization and 15mm at the wide end. I can also delude myself to thinking that heavier means better built and will last longer, although that's pure speculation.
For me the L zooms are more important than the GM primes, although the GM primes are exceptional. I'd also rather spend $4K each on two R5 bodies than $6,500 each on two A1 bodies (I always like two of the same identical bodies), but it's really the lenses that make the difference to me.
swldstn wrote:
OK, I shoot both Canon and Sony. Shot Canon for 25 years but 7 years ago added Sony because Canon could not compete with the Nikon D800 and 36 Mpixels. So I bought an A7R to use for landscape with my adapted Canon glass to use along with my 5D III for events and 1DX for sports/wildlife. Have been using Sony ever since and currently using an A7RIV and A9. My two TS lenses were actually easier to focus and use with the EVF.
Now also have an R5 since getting back with Canon's EOS R at the end of 2019.
On native lenses right now, today, for 14, 20, 24, 35, 50, and 135 Sony has Canon beat IMHO. Faster AF with their linear motor technology and more compact with no loss of optical quality. Canon trinity of zooms at 15-355, 24-70, and 70-200 f/28L lenses are better.
Then there is the 28-70/2L. I have never used it but its really the same weight at a traditional 70-200/2.8 so they won me with the RF 70-200/2.8L IS but lost me with that one. No direct experience with the RF 100-500 but not convinced it offers more than the Sony 100-400 or 200-600. Will have to test it. At 400/2.8 and 600/4 I think it's a tie.
Both Cameras offer a lot I think and while you can prefer one system or the other and make reasons to justify your purchase ignoring one for the other is foolish. i.e I could sell my R5 and other Canon gear and save me $15,000 and put $8000 back in the bank after buying an A1 (and may do it unless Canon gets going on real RF primes other than 35/1.2) I'm thinking that chasing f/1.2 without learning how to make lighter primes like Sony has is not in their best inters. A 35/1.4 should be 550gm and not 950gm to be really useful in the street. The Canon RF 135mm will probably be 1400 gm instead of 950 gm as well. So far, with the exception of the RF 70-200/2.8L IS, Canon's glass is about 20-25% heavier than Sony's equivalent. This may be fine for those interested in the very best optical quality but is it really worth it? Once the big spenders have bought how do you plan to attract the next level who will by Sigma or Tamron since you are too expensive. The cost/quality of Sony's 24/1.4, 35/1.4, 50/1.2, and 135/1.8 should is a lesson Canon should learn from.
|
