DPReview.com is closing April 10th - Find out more

R8 is Full Frame; R50 succeeds the M50?

Started 1 month ago | Discussions thread
Sittatunga Veteran Member • Posts: 5,406
Re: Slower and slower lenses.
1

sportyaccordy wrote:

Alastair Norcross wrote:

dmanthree wrote:

John Crowe wrote:

Of course this should be in the Rumours forum.

What continually mystifies me is the move to slower and slower lenses. The big advantage to mirrorless, originally touted, was the ease of making faster and lighter lenses. Now Canon is favouring slow mediocre lenses instead.

The problem is that there's no middle ground. You either pony up for some high-end glass, like those f1.2 lenses, or you get very slow mediocre (at best) lenses.

What?! 16 F2.8, 24 F1.8, 35 F1.8, 50 F1.8, 85 F2. None of those lenses is slow. I own four of them, none of which is mediocre, either.

I think you may be too close to the lenses to be objective. But all of those lenses are behind the competition in at least one way (slow AF), with some having other flaws (I'm sorry, but the software correction on the 16 is beyond the pale...

An awful lot of modern lenses have very similar distortion levels to that £300 ultrawide, if not similar prices. For two quick examples, there's the Sony FE 20-70mm that's £1300, or the £500 E 11mm, effectively the exact APS-C equivalent to 16mm f/2.8 on full-frame. Or my RX100 II for that matter. But we're getting a long way from that 24-50mm lens.

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
KEG
KEG
KEG
KEG
KEG
KEG
KEG
KEG
KEG
KEG
KEG
KEG
KEG
KEG
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow