R8 is Full Frame; R50 succeeds the M50?

sportyaccordy wrote:

Sittatunga wrote:

sportyaccordy wrote:

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

It is, that's why i referred to it. See https://www.lenstip.com/643.6-Lens_review-Sony_FE_20-70_mm_f_4_G_Distortion_and_field_of_view.html for example. You're comparing a £480 4.4× kit zoom with a £1400 3½× standard zoom.

OK, we can make a comparo to the most direct competitor- the EF 24-105 STM. OK, a little heavier and more expensive, but a much better lens overall as a result IMO, including half the distortion at the wide end. Cheaper and lighter isn't automatically better or higher value and this is just one of many examples of that in the RF lineup.

You brought up the 24-105mm lens, the only thing comparable about it is that it uses a huge amount of distortion to allow other optical corrections to be made while keeping the lens portable and affordable. R Ken loves that lens, but he's not such a purist about the way it gets its results. You keep missing my point that correcting geometric distortion electronically is getting to be a feature of modem lens design and isn't necessarily a Bad Thing.

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

not

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.

E mount is over 10 years in. They still haven't got a 16mm prime, though their choice at 14mm looks tasty. Their cheapest prime that's wider than 28mm is the FE 24mm f /2.8 G, at more than twice the price of Canon's 16mm but still with 8.6% barrel distortion, see https://www.lenstip.com/603.6-Lens_review-Sony_FE_24_mm_f_2.8_G_Distortion.html .

Well if you rigidly limit your search to what the RF 16/2.8 offers (a 1st party 16mm that puts price and weight above all else) then yes nobody has anything like it. I don't think people buy lenses that way.

Again, you've missed the point. That Sony 24mm covers over 20° less parallel to the long edge of the sensor and doesn't cost much more than double the price of the canon 16mm. It's their cheapest prime lens wider than 28mm so perhaps it's affordable, but it's not that UWA. As a G lens it's one step lower than a Canon L yet it still has nearly 9% native barrel distortion.

For example I do really like the RF 14-30/4L. I wish we had something covering that range on Sony FE, but we don't so I compromised and got the 16-35/4 ZA. Doesn't have everything I want but it gets close enough and has good IQ & overall performance. And there are plenty of other choices, including a few that were available at the time where RF is now.

Canon could accelerate the growth of their selection by opening up the mount but they chose not to. Then on top of that make weird decisions with a lot of the lenses they choose to offer. It's a strange system.

-- hide signature --

Sometimes I take pictures with my gear- https://www.flickr.com/photos/41601371@N00/