R8 is Full Frame; R50 succeeds the M50?

thunder storm wrote:

Sittatunga wrote:

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,

That's a zoom.

or the £500 E 11mm, effectively the exact APS-C equivalent to 16mm f/2.8 on full-frame.

That's a fair comparison. But to sportyaccordys point: it's not only that 16mm, even the 24mm prime suffers from a lot of distortion. The FE mount has better options here.

Not for the 16mm. That 11mm APS-C exact equivalent to Canon's 16mm was announced last June, is bigger, heavier and £500, not £300. There isn't a 16mm FE prime yet.

But we're getting a long way from that 24-50mm lens.