R8 is Full Frame; R50 succeeds the M50?

Sittatunga wrote:

sportyaccordy wrote:

Sittatunga wrote:

......

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?

There's not a lot of difference though, is there.

Sony 11mm from Optical Limits' review

Canon 16mm from Optical Limits' review

OK fair enough on the 11/1.8. But just looking at some other lenses... Canon RF stands out. For example the 24-105 STM has almost 7% distortion at 24mm. Data isn't out for the 20-70 but I haven't seen any Sony zooms that come close. Even the maligned 24-70/4 only has 3.8% distortion at the wide end.

And there's simply more choice elsewhere. There are a bunch of UWA FF primes on Sony that don't have nearly 10% distortion thanks in large part to 3rd party offerings. RF 16/2.8 will probably be the only affordable FF native UWA on RF for years to come. So to me, OK, if Canon wants to lock down their lens mount, fine. But IMO that means every lens they offer has to be competitive and well rounded, and their lens lineup has to cover all the bases. 5 years in it's obvious they won't achieve either objective.