|
|
| Re: RF-L or FE-GM (No Trolls, Gatekeepers, or Dismissive Responses) | |
rscheffler wrote:
freaklikeme wrote:
Steve Spencer wrote:
aCuria wrote:
rscheffler wrote:
Does Sony really have that much of a weight advantage? Sure the a7 series is small and light but generally the equivalent lenses across systems with the same or similar focal length and aperture specs are very similar in size and weight. Where Sony may have an advantage for casual travel photography is the variety of super zoom options. Which is great if you want a single camera-lens combo and which might be exactly what the OP needs.
But is the Sony 70-200/4 smaller and lighter than the Canon 70-200/4, for example? Or the 28-70/2.8 options? Or in and around 16-28/2.8? While going with these gives up single-lens convenience and versatility, one also gains one to two stops where one can better exploit some aspects of FF, such as shallower DOF work, when desired. Or better light gathering capability vs. slow lenses and/or smaller formats.
I agree though that Canon hasn't really given small and light FF bodies much consideration beyond the RP/R8 bodies, which aren't exactly competing at the higher end, though the R8's guts are solidly mid-range and in some performance metrics outperform the Sony a7 non-R series. An R5II equivalent 'rangefinder' body style would be very interesting with a top left corner EVF.
In hindsight I think the OP would have benefitted from spending one of his shopping days in Japan at Yodobashi simply comparing every system under the sun for his carry requirements. And base his system decision first on which is most comfortable to carry with the lens(es) he most uses, regardless of sensor format. Point being that if a FF system is ultimately too heavy and will be left behind in the hotel during the latter stages of a trip, then it provides no benefit. OP might as well just use a phone in that case. So his decision to use the m43 system when the Canon became too heavy, seems to point to the solution given he's not printing or exhibiting large images and primarily shooting for personal satisfaction.
Sony's weight advantage, if any, depends on which lenses are important to you.
For example the RF 28-70 is much heavier
R1 (1,115g)
A9iii (702g)
RF 28-70/2L (1,430g)
FE 28-70/2 GM (918g)
RF 24-70/2.8L (900g)
FE 24-70/2.8 GM II (695g)
RF 50/1.2L (950g)
FE 50/1.2 GM (778g)
RF 35/1.4L VCM (555g)
FE 35/1.4 GM "VCM" (524g)
RF 70-200/2.8L (1,200g) w tripod mount
FE 70-200/2.8 GM II (1,125g) w tripod mount
These lenses are not exactly equivalent.
RF 24-105/4-7.1 IS STM (395g)
RF 24-50/4.5-6.3 IS STM (210g)
FE 28-60/4-5.6 "VCM" (167g)
RF 24-105/4L IS USM (700g)
FE 24-105/4 G OSS "VCM" (663g) <- needs a refresh
FE 20-70/4 G "VCM" (488g)
RF 28-70/2.8 IS STM (495g)
FE 24-50/2.8 G "VCM" (440g)
Although it is true that some of the older RF lenses were heavier, in general newer ones have been very close to Sony lenses in weight.
Here are some examples:Let's look at the trinity of ultra wide to wide, wide to short tele, and short tele to long tele at both f/2.8 and f/4
Ultra wide to wide:
at f/2.8
RF 15-35 f/2.8L IS - 840g
RF 16-28 f/2.8 IS STM - 445g
FE 12-24 f/2.8 GM - 847g
FE 16-35 f/2.8 II GM - 547g
FE 16-24 f/2.8 G - 409g
at f/4
RF 14-35 f/4L IS - 540g
FE 12-24 f/4 G - 565g
FE 16-35 f/4 G PZ - 353g.
Wide to short tele:
at f/2.8
RF 24-70 f/2.8L IS - 900g
RF 24-105 f/2.8L IS Z - 1,330g
RF 28-70 f/2.8 IS STM - 495g
FE 24-70 f/2.8 II GM - 695g
FE 24-50 f/2.8 G - 440g
at f/4
RF 20-50 f/4L Z - 420g
RF 24-105 f/4L IS -700g
FE 20-70 f/4 G - 488g
FE 24-105 f/4L OSS G - 663g
Short tele to longer tele
at f/2.8
RF 70-200 f/2.8L IS without tripod ring - 1,070g
RF 70-200 f/2.8L IS Z without tripod ring - 1,107g
RF 100-300 f/2.8L IS with tripod ring - 2,650g
FE 70-200 f/2.8 II IS GM - 1,045g
at f4 and f/4.5 at widest aperture
RF 70-200 f/4L IS - 695g
RF 100-500 f/4.5-7.1L IS without tripod ring - 1,365g
FE 70-200 f/4 II IS Macro GM without tripod ring - 794g
FE 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 IS GM- without tripod ring - 1,395g
FE 100-400 f/4.5 IS GM - with tripod ring - 1,840g
Now it is clear that Canon makes some f/2.8 lenses (15-35; 24-70; 100-300) that do not seem to be designed for low weight. You can still get a pretty low weight 16-28 f/2.8 IS STM, 28-70 f/2.8 IS STM, and 70-200 f/2.8L IS combo that cover 16-200 at f/2.8 and weighs 2,010g. A trinity of f/2.8 lenses that fully covers 16-200 at f/2.8 for Sony would weigh more at 2,287g and the Canon kit would have IS with both the wider lenses, but the Sony would have better build quality with those two wider lenses. You could also get a lighter kit with Sony if you leave a gap between 50 and 70, then you could go with the 16-25 f/2.8 G, the 24-50 f/2.8 G, and the 70-200 f/2.8 II GM. That would weigh just 1,894g or 116g lighter than the lightest Canon trinity, but the Canon trinity again has IS at both the wider lenses. All in all, it isn't clear to me that Sony really has much of an advantage at f/2.8 if you want light weight at least with first party lenses.
Now let's look at f/4. The lightest Canon kit that fully covers 16-200 would be the RF 14-35 f/4L IS, the RF 24-105 f/4L IS, and the RF 70-200 f/4L IS that together weigh 1,935g, but if you leave a gap between 50 and 70 and swap in the RF 20-50 f/4L IS Z the 3 lenses would weigh 1,655g. The lightest Sony trinity that covers 16-200 at f/4 is the 16-35 f/4 G PZ, the 20-70 f/4 G, and the 70-200 f/4 II G Macro, which weighs 1,635g and again the wider two lenses do not have OSS. So the Sony kit is lighter, but only by 20g if you can live with a gap between 50 and 70. What if we want to cover at least 400mm on the long end. With Canon that kit would look like the 14-35 f/4L IS, the 24-105 f/4L IS, and the 100-500 f/4.5-7.1L IS, which together weigh 2,605g. The most similar Sony kit to that is 12-24 f/4 G, the 24-105 f/4 OSS G, and the 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 GM, which together weigh a very similar 2.623g.
When I put these trinities together. I don't see much in the weight difference between brands. That weight difference seems to be just a few lenses 15-35 f/2.8L IS, 24-70 f/2.8L IS, and 28-70 f/2, which either Canon did not try to make that small and/or for which they need new models, and Canon does have light options for these lenses for people who want to minimize weight. Overall, however, I am struck by how similar the weights are for the similar lenses.
I think there is a similar story for primes. I will return to that with another post tomorrow, but now I am going to bed.
TLDR: there isn't much to the weight difference between brands, IMO, and especially if you want to put together the lightest kit possible.
Just a nitpick- you can go lighter on the Sonys with the Sigma 16-28/2.8 and 28-70/2.8, which they don't make for Canon. There's little separating them optically, so they should count for something, even if it's coming from a third party.
OK, but you don't need those for Canon because of Canon's own versions that are extremely similar in size, weight and price. Yes, Canon has pretty much excluded third party AF lenses from RF mount, but at least offers models such as these that are price competitive with third party options for other systems.
I agree with Steve's point that for the most part, there is not much size and weight difference for lenses of the same focal length, aperture and age range across systems. Everyone is putting their lenses on plastic composite diets to bring weight down as much as possible. Even Nikon with their new 24-70/2.8 and 70-200/2.8, though I'm not a fan of the latter having the zoom ring at the front of the lens.
I think bottom line is that every system is quite evenly matched, as much as some may not want to admit this, when it comes to core capabilities and options. Therefore brand has less relevance and OP should just focus on what feels best for him, hands-on.
Having used STM for a long time with my EF cameras, I never loved Canon’s inconsistent STM implementations.
Sometimes Canon’s STM implementations are incompetent. 85/2 STM is super slow, 18-45 is noisy and whines and so on.
Sometimes STM is ok, like the 28-70 STM. It’s not quite as fast as 24-70 nano USM but at least it’s not noisy. However if nano USM and VCM is faster, it begs the question why Canon as a first party uses the stm motor at all.
It’s not like VCM motors are expensive, even the $299 Viltrox AF 26/2.8 uses them.
Nano USM and VCM are consistently faster focusing, more quiet or both. I just wish Canon would make all their lenses using the best possible focus motor for the lens and not cut any corners for any lens at any price
It feels like some of these decisions were made by the marketing department rather than the engineers at Canon.
As it stands, I would prefer third-party lenses with VCM motors over some of Canon’s STM glass
|
