RF, EOS R and new Tele Lenses

[Kayaker72]

So, not to keep going on about the R, but I have been waiting on more detailed pre-reviews than just the night of release that we saw a plethera of. First one came out:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tU2xjMMbPkc

Jarid Polin is a Nikon shooter and really doesn't do much to hide his bias. So, for him to be pleasantly surprised is something. Again hearing about how good the R feels in hand. Overall, the R seems like a real winner, especially at the price point.

I will also say, I am entertained by all the references (here and in other places) to how similar the R is to a DSLR.....so, just use a DSLR

That said, the video of the video from the EVF does make it look nice. Toggling between a FF and APS-C mode in an EVF would be a nice feature.

But, this is still a step down from my 5DIV, as far as I am concerned. A better body, few more features and something else that I do not current have will be necessary to get people like me to convert. So, I am interested in the lenses only available in RF. Otherwise, I am years away.


With that in mind, I really want to know more about the 400/600 III vs the 400/600 II. Will we see a replacement to my newly purchased (and quickly becoming loved) 500 II?

The MTF charts of the new lenses actually are lower than the older versions. Canon did modify their presentation of the MTF chart (like they weren't confusing enough), but there is a significant drop, so unless they modified their method as well, there could be a price paid in IQ for the lower weight.

[HDNitehawk]

Canon has told a few vendors they are modifying the MTF's. Since version II was at almost 1 maybe they thought it necessary to modify so the new RF line can show improvement over older excellent models.

Once you see the right MTF's the new lens is near identical.

[HDNitehawk]

The RF white paper has information about the new MTF charts.
No F8 lines now.
Changing format makes sense, some lenses were running out of headroom to show improvement.
Only wide open makes sense to with current lenses.

What doesn’t make sense is Canon marketing. Why wouldn’t they announce the change and put a positive spin on it?
instead they lead people to believe IQ is getting worse.

[Karsaa]

What i am interested is to see how this new R body works on nigh time. Since i 95% shoot at night time. I just changed my 5dsr to 5div to have actually proper body for stars, milky way and auroras. Next thing to get is the 2nd body to have more stills shootings since the 5d4 is on heavily time lapse duty.

[Kayaker72]

My comment was probably a blowing off steam type of thing... has been a bit of a rough patch recently on a personal level.

However, in my opinion Canon does choose to product differentiate on some odds things. The 5D Mark II and 6D only have one reliable autofocus point. The 6DII has a sensor that does not appear terribly competitive in 2018 (although the wife bought one anyway).

If you want a full frame camera with competent autofocus AND a modern sensor for a DSLR you have to buy the 5D IV at a minimum. That said, they do have the refurbished lens program which can be a substantial savings. They also have the largest used gear market, again allowing substantial savings.

Nikon and Sony do not seem to have quite the same approach towards product differentiation although they have their other faults.

Dave

Sorry to hear about the personal issues. We've all been there. Good luck with everything.

The merits of Canon's product announcements have been discussed at length in other forums. This group has tended to stay above the fray. But it is interesting. Ultimately, Canon does what Canon does. It makes sense for them.

What is nice about the R is that it does seem to be a body that they added a lot too that is at a very nice price point. To get a 5DIV sensor at $2,300 in a new camera (I got my 5DIV on a refurbished sale) is a steal in Canonland. While I will wait on reviewers, the Canon AF may be as good or better than any other mirrorless camera.

For a lot of people, I can see picking the R over the 6DII or even 5DIV right now. Just to name a few, it has future compatibility/side to side AF ability/low light AF ability over the 5DIV, the above issues, and sensor over the 6DII.

So, right now I am left with the opposite feeling to what you described with Canon. Usually, I see distinct price points coupled with distinctly different products and it makes sense to me (as a consumer, I may not like it, but it makes sense). Here, I think Canon went lower on price, a bit higher on specs to enter the market. But, now I am left scratching my head a bit as the R really muddys the water in terms of product/price point differentiation.

What i am interested is to see how this new R body works on nigh time. Since i 95% shoot at night time. I just changed my 5dsr to 5div to have actually proper body for stars, milky way and auroras. Next thing to get is the 2nd body to have more stills shootings since the 5d4 is on heavily time lapse duty.

While I haven't heard of anyone using it for astro yet, if you get into the video David linked, they talk a lot about low light focusing. It very much helps to have a fast lens as the more light that hits the sensor the better. But this could be a beast of a camera for low light/nightscapes.

[DavidEccleston]

B&H Panel: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YU2ngPExP04

[Kayaker72]

The RF lenses are looking very nice. Bryan has now reviewed the RF 24-105 and the review for the RF 50 f/1.2 was posted today. Plus, a number of other reviewers have been posting their thoughts.

The review I am waiting for is the 28-70 f/2. Everyone is referring to it with superlatives, but I've yet to see a really thorough review.

I just scrolled through the 50 f/1.2. Looks great. One thing I like about TDP reviews is all the comparisons. While very impressed with the wide open IQ I have to say, that is a big lens. I mean, I consider my Sigma 50A to be big and the RF is bigger. I know many will prefer the native Canon glass, assume native AF is better, etc, but I have had very good luck with Sigma and really like a number of their lenses. I would trade my 50A for something optically equivalent but smaller/lighter. The Canon RF 50 f/1.2 is the former, but not that latter (plus...RF mount).

But, overall, it is nice to see Canon come out of the gate with some nice offerings in the RF lineup. As the need to differentiate becomes more important, great glass is one of the best ways to do it.

[Sean Setters]

I mean, I consider my Sigma 50A to be big and the RF is bigger. I know many will prefer the native Canon glass, assume native AF is better, etc, but I have had very good luck with Sigma and really like a number of their lenses. I would trade my 50A for something optically equivalent but smaller/lighter. The Canon RF 50 f/1.2 is the former, but not that latter (plus...RF mount).

Note that I accidentally put the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 Art in place of the 50mm Art in the RF 50mm f/1.2L comparison images. I uploaded a fixed version of the sans-hood and with hood images, but... it takes forever for the server nodes to propagate the change (I fixed the error hours ago and the correct picture still isn't showing).

Anyway, the RF 50 is definitely larger than the Sigma 50A, but... the difference isn't quite as large as the original comparison shows.

[Kayaker72]

Note that I accidentally put the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 Art in place of the 50mm Art in the RF 50mm f/1.2L comparison images. I uploaded a fixed version of the sans-hood and with hood images, but... it takes forever for the server nodes to propagate the change (I fixed the error hours ago and the correct picture still isn't showing).

Anyway, the RF 50 is definitely larger than the Sigma 50A, but... the difference isn't quite as large as the original comparison shows.

Ha....that certainly explains part of it.

But, I was hoping that, as part of "mirrorless" the lenses would be smaller...at least by a bit. Instead, a bit bigger (granted, f/1.2 vs f/1.4)….but maybe not as much as it first appeared....

[Tounis]

Ha....that certainly explains part of it.

But, I was hoping that, as part of "mirrorless" the lenses would be smaller...at least by a bit. Instead, a bit bigger (granted, f/1.2 vs f/1.4)….but maybe not as much as it first appeared....

I was surprised to see that Canon started its mirrorless range with lenses that big too. I'm curious to see if they bring more compact alternatives later. They would interest me more than a 28-70 f/2.