R8 is Full Frame; R50 succeeds the M50?

sportyaccordy wrote:

Sittatunga wrote:

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.

Me not agreeing with you <> me missing your point. I get that software correction is gaining popularity- I just don't like or see the point of it, especially to the extremes to which Canon

And Sony and Fuji and micro four-four-thirds. You're getting very hung up about Canon who are late to the party again.

leans on it, both for geometric and vignetting corrections.

.

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.

No, I haven't missed the point. Again you are limiting the comparisons to first party lenses. Why?

Because the manufacturer generally only gets a say in the design of its own lenses.

I agree that the 24G relies too much on software correction. Thankfully there are alternatives that don't, like the Tamron 24/2.8

6% distortion according to lenstip.com

and Viltron + Samyang 24/1.8s

Lenstip.com "...moustache distortion. If you limit your measurements to a smaller section of the frame, situated within 1:1 markings, distortion increases to a level of −3.19%. It is definitely nothing to be proud of."

(the Samyang 24/2.8 has the same issues IMO), as well as several lenses with wider FOVs more comparable to the RF 16/2.8.

So if someone doesn't like Sony's way they can go a different way. No such alternatives in Canon RF land,

Plenty of alternatives in Canon EF land. EF mount lenses generally work better hand-held on my R than hand-held on my 5Ds unless I restrict myself to Live View EFCS on the 5Ds, which is a lot slower.

which makes any issues lenses have that much more glaring.

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/