R8 is Full Frame; R50 succeeds the M50?

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, 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.

Dont know about the RX but neither of those E mount lenses are anywhere near as bad as the RF 16 distortion wise. It's basically a fisheye lens corrected to rectilinear. The overall trend of more and more software correction is annoying to me but Canon has taken it to an extreme with RF glass, often for no good reason IMO. The 16/2.8 would be just as great with an extra 100g or w/e of corrective elements to have a more naturally rectilinear image. What good are high res sensors when so much of the image is synthesized and "corrected" by software?