CWaterston
Leading Member
- Messages
- 524
- Reaction score
- 482
I still don't understand why an RF mount even exists.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Has Viltrox AF 85/1.8 RF been removed from Viltrox homepage?
- Thread starter Stig Nygaard
- Start date
tkbslc
Forum Pro
To sell cameras and lenses?
Sittatunga
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 8,317
- Solutions
- 33
- Reaction score
- 5,390
You're just stirring, aren't you.
Because the EF-M mount is narrow enough to restrict fast and long FF lens design. And Pentax's mirrorless cameras with a DSLR mount vanished without trace very quickly. And a new mount with a much faster communications protocol and on-sensor AF opens up new possibilities.
tkbslc
Forum Pro
Ironically, it's 1mm wider than Sony E and the same flange depth.
Canon's lens designs seem to waste that fat RF lens mount by often not even covering the whole sensor and having horrible vignetting that needs software to fix.
Certainly, doesn't seem like they are getting any benefits over Sony glass in that regard.
They could have made EF-M work for full frame if they wanted. Then they would actually have a half-decent APS-C lineup already, rather than having to start over with 2 boring kit lenses.
SafariBob
Veteran Member
This is true imo, nevertheless a wider throat is supposed to allow faster lenses, and smaller wide angles. Supposedly less vignetting too.
Sittatunga
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 8,317
- Solutions
- 33
- Reaction score
- 5,390
Not where it counts, when you take the sizes of the bayonet lugs and the positions of the electrical contracts. Nnowak made this point strongly in the EOS M forum when people were speculating about that in the months before the RF mount was announced.
How many of these have you actually used? I've used the RF 16mm and yes, it's designed for software correction of its distortion. Here's roughly what happens;
Look at the latest lenstip.com reviews of the Sony E PZ 10-20mm, the E 11mm f/1.4 and the E 15mm f/1.4 G. Remember that these are only APS-C lenses before you try to repeat that with a straight face. That 11mm is effectively less than a stop faster than the equivalent RF 16mm, but the Sony lens is £500 and the Canon lens is £300.
I don't think they're interested in a range of good RF mount APS-C lenses. The R7 interests me only as a teleconverter for the big white lenses and the TS-E lenses. It's virtually the size of my EOS R, so I'm not interested in it as a successor to my EOS M cameras. The R10 is a better value and more interesting successor to the 850D. It's a gateway to get people to buy the RF lenses some people sneer at, then to buy an FF body to see what all the fuss is about, then some really nice RF lenses, then a better body, then...
And all without involving third-party lens manufacturers.
tkbslc
Forum Pro
I've used 16mm, 24-105 7.1 and 24-240mm. All disappointing in terms of corner sharpenss due to the corrections requited. At least 16mm is good enough for the cost and size utility. I sold the other two.
I'm not sure how a smaller mount would have changed these designs any is the point.
I'm not sure how a smaller mount would have changed these designs any is the point.
Last edited:
Sittatunga
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 8,317
- Solutions
- 33
- Reaction score
- 5,390
It wouldn't have done. It's the big expensive L lenses that are the justification for the RF mount being the size of the EF mount.
Those three lenses are the ones that have no competition at their size and price levels, and are perfectly reasonable sizes for APS-C cameras (which will need far less correction and have corners much closer to the central performance). There are no other AF 16mm prime lenses available - there's the 14mm Samyang with horrible moustache distortion or the better 14mm f/2.4 manual focus Samyang at twice its price. The 24-105mm nearest in price to the cheap Canon one is the Sigma that, with the EF adapter weighs 2½a much and costs 40% more, if you already have the mount adapter. Do you know of a better 10x FF zoom than the 24-240? I've not heard of one, but that type of lens has too many compromises for me to have thought of buying one.
sportyaccordy
Forum Pro
Truthfully the RF's "big mount" promises never became reality. A lot of if not all wide angle RF glass has extreme distortion that's cleaned up by software. The big mount was supposed to improve inherent optical performance. And the standard RF glass is cool but nothing special. The FE 50 1.2 GM for example kind of took the wind out of the RF 50 1.2L's sails IMO. Only truly impressive RF lens design is the 28-70/2L, but it doesn't come cheap in price/size/weight.
So I don't think it's unfair for people to compare what was marketed vs what was delivered and be potentially disappointed with the gap.
antonio-salieri
Well-known member
- Messages
- 225
- Reaction score
- 223
The truth is more that Canon has not come out with much in the way of ultra-wide RF lenses. There is no successor for the EF 11-24mm yet, for instance. (When that lens is released, I would expect it to be enhanced in terms of size and/or performance.) The 15-35mm is perfectly reasonable in terms of distortion, though I don't know if that's wide enough for you. The 16mm is a very cheap small prime, so it's not really an extreme lens. Obviously, just because a lens is designed for the RF mount does not mean it's gonna be an outstanding optic.
Don't own the 50mm f/1.2 myself. I'm sure Sony's is quite nice, but that doesn't make the Canon one bad either; based on everything I see, all the high-end 50mm lenses from the major manufacturers are solid... which is to be expected today.
Personally, I really like the 85mm f/1.2, especially as compares with the old one. It's really great to shoot at f/1.2 now.
Comparing the RF lenses vs. the EF lenses that preceded them... you can see significant improvements, e.g., in the 85mm f/1.2 lens. And generally the RF L lenses are very good. But as we all know, it was perfectly possible to make really, really good lenses for the DSLR flange distance (look at some of the excellent optics for the EF mount!), so ... I mean, if you expected that RF lenses would be magic, I'm not sure what you were expecting. The same applies to FE lenses or really lens mounts generally, of course.
sportyaccordy
Forum Pro
What they have come out with has generally not been great on the distortion end. The 15-35 is basically the only UWA with decent optical distortion correction. Every other RF UWA seems like Canon didn't even bother with optical correction on distortion and just planned to rely on software from the jump. Not great for a new mount with big optical promise.
It's not bad, but the Sony manages to have the same speed and performance in a smaller package, despite having an
EF lenses aren't really relevant IMO. Any modern lens should outperform lenses from 10, 20, 35 years ago. What's relevant is Canon's modern competition, and in that context, on average I think RF is kind of lagging IMO.
antonio-salieri
Well-known member
- Messages
- 225
- Reaction score
- 223
That's true, but I don't think any of their other ultrawides are really supposed to be pushing the optical bounds. Well, there's the 14-35 (the slow counterpart to the fast 15-35) and the cheap 16mm. Anything else? I guess the weird dual fisheye thing but I don't really count it.
They definitely could come out with better ultrawide stuff. Honestly, if I were really into ultrawide stuff, I'd go with the Sigma 14mm (EF) or Laowa 9mm manual (M-mount).
Sure, but I think in this particular case it's more that all the major manufacturers have a really good 50mm lens, as opposed to any of them being un-impressive.
Of course, and RF as a general system is better than the EF system. But there is nothing wrong with the EF mount itself and so there are some really, really great optics released on it (and other DSLR mounts), including in the past 10 years (look at some of the Sigma art lenses).
I guess I would say that mirrorless mounts are not necessarily going to have a ton of inherent advantages, except maybe at the extremes/a tiny bit in size. Did the shorter flange distance help them make the 85mm f/1.2 that was that good? I mean, maybe. But the 85mm f/1.4 made for DSLRs by Sigma a few years ago shows that there was not really a problem with the EF mount when it comes to making great optics.
(There is a question, I guess, about whether or not it is easier to design outstanding optics for mirrorless. But I don't design lenses, so I don't really know anything, and obviously even if it was a bit more work a lot of great optics were designed for DSLRs.)
tkbslc
Forum Pro
Sony has a full line of professional lenses of all kinds from multiple brands, so I disagree.
Yeah, it's fine. Like I said, I kept it. Tamron and Samyang make AF 18 and 20mm primes that are cheap and small, so I don't really consider it special. Didn't specifically need a 16mm, just a wide angle.
Didn't even mention the 14-35L or 15-30 or 24mm f1.8.
Who needed it to be 24-105? Would have rather had a GOOD 24-85 or 28-105. EF-S 18-55 IS was a fine lens.
It's not even really that usable out to 24mm, so what's the point?
Nikon 24-200 and Tamron 28-200 are much better and would fit the same role in my kit. I'm not so rigid in my comparisons.
c h u n k
Senior Member
Can we please just stop with the Sony vs Canon urination contest? Its even dumber these days than it was 5 years ago and it was pretty dumb then. Both systems are absurdly good to the point its hard to believe we arent living in a sci-fi movie. Its all about either which system you happened to pick early on and are invested/locked into or what is more enjoyable/efficient to shoot with. Feel, menus/UI, customizations, and I guess to some tiny extent, which color look makes it easier to process for you. Other than that, when Sony shooters come to Canon forums for these types of debates, I just instantly know their work doesnt, AT ALL, reflect any gear limitations. Like for sure no lens offered by one brand and not the other is going to do a thing to improve your work. Please, PLEEEEASE, show me some photos and prove me wrong. Show me a photo you made that cant be done on Canon because Sony is so much better.
As a side, talking about how kit lenses werent all that impressive is LOL. Imagine that.
As a side, talking about how kit lenses werent all that impressive is LOL. Imagine that.
c h u n k
Senior Member
What is any of that based on? The 7D sold a ton of cameras. Was the go-to for MANY sports and wildlife photogs. The same is proving true for the R7. Matter of fact, most people Ive had discussions with that bought the R7 also have a FF R, including myself. I have the R6 and R7. I prefer the R7 for some things and the R6 for others. Even plenty of people with the R5 and option for reasonable resolution in crop mode still opted to add it as a second camera....and its AWESOME.Not where it counts, when you take the sizes of the bayonet lugs and the positions of the electrical contracts. Nnowak made this point strongly in the EOS M forum when people were speculating about that in the months before the RF mount was announced.
How many of these have you actually used? I've used the RF 16mm and yes, it's designed for software correction of its distortion. Here's roughly what happens;
Any black corner would be quite a long way outside the crop needed to get it into a rectangle - it wouldn't be part of the picture even if it got illuminated on the sensor. The extreme corners of the 3:2 rectangle are a little worse than those of the EF 16-35mm f/4 if you pixel peek, but that lens is the times the size and four times the price of the RF 16mm. I also compared my favourite EF-M 11-22mm at that session and its corners were slightly worse than the stretched ones of the RF lens.
Look at the latest lenstip.com reviews of the Sony E PZ 10-20mm, the E 11mm f/1.4 and the E 15mm f/1.4 G. Remember that these are only APS-C lenses before you try to repeat that with a straight face. That 11mm is effectively less than a stop faster than the equivalent RF 16mm, but the Sony lens is £500 and the Canon lens is £300.
I don't think they're interested in a range of good RF mount APS-C lenses. The R7 interests me only as a teleconverter for the big white lenses and the TS-E lenses. It's virtually the size of my EOS R, so I'm not interested in it as a successor to my EOS M cameras. The R10 is a better value and more interesting successor to the 850D. It's a gateway to get people to buy the RF lenses some people sneer at, then to buy an FF body to see what all the fuss is about, then some really nice RF lenses, then a better body, then...
And all without involving third-party lens manufacturers.
--
**********-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-**********
Some of my photos here: https://flic.kr/ps/2i6XL3
“You're off to Great Places! Today is your day! Your mountain is waiting, So... get on your way!” --Dr. Seuss
thunder storm
Forum Pro
- Messages
- 12,666
- Solutions
- 7
- Reaction score
- 5,956
The point was: Sony doesn't need a crazy big mount like the RF mount to achieve the same if not better performance. The G-Master weights around 200 grams less, has faster AF, focusses internally, and is less expensive too.
You would expect lenses with a bigger mount to perform better compared to lenses using a smaller mount. Despite Canons marketing blah blah Canon failed here. The IBIS is a bit better, but that's about it. Sony manages to squeeze the same performance out a mount being just one mm bigger.
The reason for rhe RF mount is to create a monopoly to sell new lenses at premium prices. The rest is nonsense.
I think that FE 50mm f/1.2 GM is magic.
thunder storm
Forum Pro
- Messages
- 12,666
- Solutions
- 7
- Reaction score
- 5,956
There's no urination contest. We're just concluding there's no reason for the RF mount being bigger than the FE mount, and probably even M.
It needs a comparison to get that conclusion.
tkbslc
Forum Pro
It wasn’t Sony vs Canon. It was EF-M vs RF. Sony was just mentioned because they did FF on a mount smaller than EF-m. Sony lenses were mentioned as proof you can do it.
RF fractured the systems and now it’s being locked down. Seems like a loss for everybody but Canon
Sittatunga
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 8,317
- Solutions
- 33
- Reaction score
- 5,390
I agree with all that. You've restated the first part of my paragraph very clearly. Did any of you use any EF-S lenses for sports or wildlife?
Last edited:
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum