Will be slower, 15ms is for 16:9 scan, how many bits?
it won't be close to Z6III
Would be bad if Sony use a7iv sensor in v, personally, I have a1ii and don't care.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
How Much Longer Will You Wait?
- Thread starter Batdude
- Start date
Sittatunga
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 8,312
- Solutions
- 33
- Reaction score
- 5,390
The cropping happens because you stretch the image into a curved sided quadrilateral to correct the distortion and crop that to output a rectangular (straight sided) image. DPP4 (and JPEGs straight from the camera and the viewfinder display) show the corrected image which corresponds to the output of a rectangular projection lens of the same nominal focal length. You don't get the option of the uncorrected output. The distortion correction is automatic if you output to JPEG or use a decent RAW converter with a profile for that specific lens. PhotoLab often gives a slightly wider angle when correcting barrel distortion, particularly if you crop to, say, 16:9 aspect ratio. These days most reasonably sized mirrorless camera wideangle lenses from every manufacturer are designed with distortion to be corrected electronically, because you don't see the distortion through the viewfinder as you would with an SLR.I’ve been looking at reviews of this 24 1.8 lens and they say when you apply lens correction for that massive distortion it has, the image then gets cropped heavily. Why does it get cropped so much and is this a software thing that can be corrected later on, let’s say Lightroom, or is this a problem of the actual physical lens therefore I will always have to deal with that issue as long as I own that lens?The canon RF 24mm f/1.8 already exists. What do you complain about??? This costs around 500 USD if I’m not mistaken.Again, more affordable third party options, again an example is a more affordable 24mm prime lens, even a F2 Canon version would be good enough for me for the type of low light photography I do.
Now, per other people’s responses maybe there is an EF version of a less expensive 24mm Canon lens to use with the AF adapter? I will continue doing more research but unfortunately I have to sleep now as I have to get up really early tomorrow so we’ll catch up.
Thank you everybody
Thanks
The example below is from the RF 16mm which (according to Optical Limits) has nearly double the distortion of the RF 24mm, so it's a lot more dramatic than what you would see with the 24mm. The LHS is the corrected image (I used the GIMP's distortion correction with an enlarged canvas to show the curved edges, then spent a lot of time in AutoCAD tracing the various crop lines), the RHS is uncorrected. The red frames are the SOOC and DPP4 output, magenta is the default (3:2 aspect ratio) PhotoLab output and the green frames are the 16:9 aspect ratio PhotoLab output.
Last edited:
I think we will have to wait and see. Gerald Undone and fstoppers report thte C50 to be 18ms in open gate 3:2, but no clue if that supports 14bit RAW output.
18ms, 14bit, perfect dynamic range, 32MP would still be a solid upgrade over 15ms, 12bit, compromised DR, 24MP.
robgendreau
Forum Pro
I guess you were put on notice of a prime you were interested in you weren't aware of, but otherwise I didn't see in this long thread what specificially you're missing out on.
And I assume you mean autofocus lenses (since there are third party RF mount manual focus lenses, in cine versions, macro, etc). And I assume you are ignoring EF lenses for some reason. And third party EF lenses. But gee...that's an awfully large numer of lenses, especially affordable lenses. Did you not shoot Canon before mirrorless? if not, perhaps you aren't aware of what's already out there.
I doubt Canon will license Sigma etc to do RF lenses that compete with their own. Why in the world would they? they already compete with their own line of EF lenses. And the strategy has worked; they're doing better for it.
So I'd suggest selling before you get too invested. Move to another brand after verifying they have what you need. No sense waiting.
I’m beginning to get the feeling that I won’t be happy with the 24mm just because of this massive crop issue and so going down a little wider at 20mm will compensate for that lost cropped area. That’s crazy.The cropping happens because you stretch the image into a curved sided quadrilateral to correct the distortion and crop that to output a rectangular (straight sided) image. DPP4 (and JPEGs straight from the camera and the viewfinder display) show the corrected image which corresponds to the output of a rectangular projection lens of the same nominal focal length. You don't get the option of the uncorrected output. The distortion correction is automatic if you output to JPEG or use a decent RAW converter with a profile for that specific lens. PhotoLab often gives a slightly wider angle when correcting barrel distortion, particularly if you crop to, say, 16:9 aspect ratio. These days most reasonably sized mirrorless camera wideangle lenses from every manufacturer are designed with distortion to be corrected electronically, because you don't see the distortion through the viewfinder as you would with an SLR.I’ve been looking at reviews of this 24 1.8 lens and they say when you apply lens correction for that massive distortion it has, the image then gets cropped heavily. Why does it get cropped so much and is this a software thing that can be corrected later on, let’s say Lightroom, or is this a problem of the actual physical lens therefore I will always have to deal with that issue as long as I own that lens?The canon RF 24mm f/1.8 already exists. What do you complain about??? This costs around 500 USD if I’m not mistaken.Again, more affordable third party options, again an example is a more affordable 24mm prime lens, even a F2 Canon version would be good enough for me for the type of low light photography I do.
Now, per other people’s responses maybe there is an EF version of a less expensive 24mm Canon lens to use with the AF adapter? I will continue doing more research but unfortunately I have to sleep now as I have to get up really early tomorrow so we’ll catch up.
Thank you everybody
Thanks
The example below is from the RF 16mm which (according to Optical Limits) has nearly double the distortion of the RF 24mm, so it's a lot more dramatic than what you would see with the 24mm. The LHS is the corrected image (I used the GIMP's distortion correction with an enlarged canvas to show the curved edges, then spent a lot of time in AutoCAD tracing the various crop lines), the RHS is uncorrected. The red frames are the SOOC and DPP4 output, magenta is the default (3:2 aspect ratio) PhotoLab output and the green frames are the 16:9 aspect ratio PhotoLab output.
Don't fall into that rabbit hole.I’m beginning to get the feeling that I won’t be happy with the 24mm just because of this massive crop issue and so going down a little wider at 20mm will compensate for that lost cropped area. That’s crazy.The cropping happens because you stretch the image into a curved sided quadrilateral to correct the distortion and crop that to output a rectangular (straight sided) image. DPP4 (and JPEGs straight from the camera and the viewfinder display) show the corrected image which corresponds to the output of a rectangular projection lens of the same nominal focal length. You don't get the option of the uncorrected output. The distortion correction is automatic if you output to JPEG or use a decent RAW converter with a profile for that specific lens. PhotoLab often gives a slightly wider angle when correcting barrel distortion, particularly if you crop to, say, 16:9 aspect ratio. These days most reasonably sized mirrorless camera wideangle lenses from every manufacturer are designed with distortion to be corrected electronically, because you don't see the distortion through the viewfinder as you would with an SLR.I’ve been looking at reviews of this 24 1.8 lens and they say when you apply lens correction for that massive distortion it has, the image then gets cropped heavily. Why does it get cropped so much and is this a software thing that can be corrected later on, let’s say Lightroom, or is this a problem of the actual physical lens therefore I will always have to deal with that issue as long as I own that lens?The canon RF 24mm f/1.8 already exists. What do you complain about??? This costs around 500 USD if I’m not mistaken.Again, more affordable third party options, again an example is a more affordable 24mm prime lens, even a F2 Canon version would be good enough for me for the type of low light photography I do.
Now, per other people’s responses maybe there is an EF version of a less expensive 24mm Canon lens to use with the AF adapter? I will continue doing more research but unfortunately I have to sleep now as I have to get up really early tomorrow so we’ll catch up.
Thank you everybody
Thanks
The example below is from the RF 16mm which (according to Optical Limits) has nearly double the distortion of the RF 24mm, so it's a lot more dramatic than what you would see with the 24mm. The LHS is the corrected image (I used the GIMP's distortion correction with an enlarged canvas to show the curved edges, then spent a lot of time in AutoCAD tracing the various crop lines), the RHS is uncorrected. The red frames are the SOOC and DPP4 output, magenta is the default (3:2 aspect ratio) PhotoLab output and the green frames are the 16:9 aspect ratio PhotoLab output.
It's totally pointless to obsess over digital corrections nowadays. What actually SHOULD count is the final result:
- Are you happy with the sharpness / overall resolution you get out of the lens?
- Are you happy with the vignette and noise performance in the corners after correction?
If so: Just ignore digital corrections. Digital corrections enabled designs that have not been possible before and some (if not most) of the lenses like the RF 20mm 1.4 VCM perform better with digital corrections in terms of detail / sharpness than "better" optical designs in the past.
And btw: The example shown is not from the RF 24mm 1.8. The 24mm is much less extreme, you can check RAW + corrected here (look for "Distortion"):
https://opticallimits.com/canon/canon-rf/canon-rf-24mm-f-1-8-is-stm-macro-review/
Last edited:
RF 16, not RF 24 - very different lenses.I’m beginning to get the feeling that I won’t be happy with the 24mm just because of this massive crop issue and so going down a little wider at 20mm will compensate for that lost cropped area. That’s crazy.
The example below is from the RF 16mm
Sorry what do you mean?RF 16, not RF 24 - very different lenses.I’m beginning to get the feeling that I won’t be happy with the 24mm just because of this massive crop issue and so going down a little wider at 20mm will compensate for that lost cropped area. That’s crazy.The example below is from the RF 16mm
Well, based on samples some YouTubers have shown the cropped area is considerable so I will have to think about this one, or do more research.Don't fall into that rabbit hole.I’m beginning to get the feeling that I won’t be happy with the 24mm just because of this massive crop issue and so going down a little wider at 20mm will compensate for that lost cropped area. That’s crazy.The cropping happens because you stretch the image into a curved sided quadrilateral to correct the distortion and crop that to output a rectangular (straight sided) image. DPP4 (and JPEGs straight from the camera and the viewfinder display) show the corrected image which corresponds to the output of a rectangular projection lens of the same nominal focal length. You don't get the option of the uncorrected output. The distortion correction is automatic if you output to JPEG or use a decent RAW converter with a profile for that specific lens. PhotoLab often gives a slightly wider angle when correcting barrel distortion, particularly if you crop to, say, 16:9 aspect ratio. These days most reasonably sized mirrorless camera wideangle lenses from every manufacturer are designed with distortion to be corrected electronically, because you don't see the distortion through the viewfinder as you would with an SLR.I’ve been looking at reviews of this 24 1.8 lens and they say when you apply lens correction for that massive distortion it has, the image then gets cropped heavily. Why does it get cropped so much and is this a software thing that can be corrected later on, let’s say Lightroom, or is this a problem of the actual physical lens therefore I will always have to deal with that issue as long as I own that lens?The canon RF 24mm f/1.8 already exists. What do you complain about??? This costs around 500 USD if I’m not mistaken.Again, more affordable third party options, again an example is a more affordable 24mm prime lens, even a F2 Canon version would be good enough for me for the type of low light photography I do.
Now, per other people’s responses maybe there is an EF version of a less expensive 24mm Canon lens to use with the AF adapter? I will continue doing more research but unfortunately I have to sleep now as I have to get up really early tomorrow so we’ll catch up.
Thank you everybody
Thanks
The example below is from the RF 16mm which (according to Optical Limits) has nearly double the distortion of the RF 24mm, so it's a lot more dramatic than what you would see with the 24mm. The LHS is the corrected image (I used the GIMP's distortion correction with an enlarged canvas to show the curved edges, then spent a lot of time in AutoCAD tracing the various crop lines), the RHS is uncorrected. The red frames are the SOOC and DPP4 output, magenta is the default (3:2 aspect ratio) PhotoLab output and the green frames are the 16:9 aspect ratio PhotoLab output.
It's totally pointless to obsess over digital corrections nowadays. What actually SHOULD count is the final result:
- Are you happy with the sharpness / overall resolution you get out of the lens?
- Are you happy with the vignette and noise performance in the corners after correction?
If so: Just ignore digital corrections. Digital corrections enabled designs that have not been possible before and some (if not most) of the lenses like the RF 20mm 1.4 VCM perform better with digital corrections in terms of detail / sharpness than "better" optical designs in the past.
And btw: The example shown is not from the RF 24mm 1.8. The 24mm is much less extreme, you can check RAW + corrected here (look for "Distortion"):
https://opticallimits.com/canon/canon-rf/canon-rf-24mm-f-1-8-is-stm-macro-review/
But, maybe you and others could help me out. I had the Fujifilm 16 1.4 and unfortunately I don’t have that lens anymore to compare and I wonder how much of a cropped difference I was getting without even realizing it. I have no idea what amount of cropped area/lens correction that 16mm was getting in Lightroom. Now I’m really curious
Please note Canon does make quite a few lenses that no other brands have similar capabilities - if you need such features - Canon is the only choice
Some examples:
24-105 f2.8 with optional electrical zoom
20, 24, 35, 50, 85 VCM f1.4 with similar weight and shape that require no gimbal recalibration and have ultra fine aperture control, minimal focus breathing
3D lenses - Canon has one full frame and two APSC 3D lenses
RF 200-800 - no other brand has a similar lens with such zoom range and reach
RF 1200 f8
Some examples:
24-105 f2.8 with optional electrical zoom
20, 24, 35, 50, 85 VCM f1.4 with similar weight and shape that require no gimbal recalibration and have ultra fine aperture control, minimal focus breathing
3D lenses - Canon has one full frame and two APSC 3D lenses
RF 200-800 - no other brand has a similar lens with such zoom range and reach
RF 1200 f8
Fortunately, you don't have to calculate any of that. The lens AoV is 24mm equivalent after any distortion correction. The actual optics on these lenses are wider than the stated focal length and distortion correction is a mandatory feature. The end result you get is what you would get on a 24mm lens
--
PicPocket
Last edited:
Sittatunga
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 8,312
- Solutions
- 33
- Reaction score
- 5,390
It's not a massive crop issue, it's just the geometry of transforming image distortion and if you read the Optical Limits or Lenstip reviews you'll see that the RF 24mm lens' distortion is equalled or exceeded by many other lenses. SOOC or with DPP4 it still give a 24mm lens' field of view after corrections. My RF 16mm (with nearly double the distortion of the RF 24mm) gives the same distortion-corrected field of view as my EF 16-35mm at 16mm, almost to the pixel. It's more like the field of view of a full-frame 14mm lens with PhotoLab's distortion correction at a 3:2 aspect ratio, and getting on for a full-frame 12mm field of view at a 16:9 crop ratio. I don't know the sale of goods regulations where you live, but here if you buy it mail order you've got 14 days to return it for a full refund if it's not what you expected.I’m beginning to get the feeling that I won’t be happy with the 24mm just because of this massive crop issue and so going down a little wider at 20mm will compensate for that lost cropped area. That’s crazy.The cropping happens because you stretch the image into a curved sided quadrilateral to correct the distortion and crop that to output a rectangular (straight sided) image. DPP4 (and JPEGs straight from the camera and the viewfinder display) show the corrected image which corresponds to the output of a rectangular projection lens of the same nominal focal length. You don't get the option of the uncorrected output. The distortion correction is automatic if you output to JPEG or use a decent RAW converter with a profile for that specific lens. PhotoLab often gives a slightly wider angle when correcting barrel distortion, particularly if you crop to, say, 16:9 aspect ratio. These days most reasonably sized mirrorless camera wideangle lenses from every manufacturer are designed with distortion to be corrected electronically, because you don't see the distortion through the viewfinder as you would with an SLR.I’ve been looking at reviews of this 24 1.8 lens and they say when you apply lens correction for that massive distortion it has, the image then gets cropped heavily. Why does it get cropped so much and is this a software thing that can be corrected later on, let’s say Lightroom, or is this a problem of the actual physical lens therefore I will always have to deal with that issue as long as I own that lens?The canon RF 24mm f/1.8 already exists. What do you complain about??? This costs around 500 USD if I’m not mistaken.Again, more affordable third party options, again an example is a more affordable 24mm prime lens, even a F2 Canon version would be good enough for me for the type of low light photography I do.
Now, per other people’s responses maybe there is an EF version of a less expensive 24mm Canon lens to use with the AF adapter? I will continue doing more research but unfortunately I have to sleep now as I have to get up really early tomorrow so we’ll catch up.
Thank you everybody
Thanks
The example below is from the RF 16mm which (according to Optical Limits) has nearly double the distortion of the RF 24mm, so it's a lot more dramatic than what you would see with the 24mm. The LHS is the corrected image (I used the GIMP's distortion correction with an enlarged canvas to show the curved edges, then spent a lot of time in AutoCAD tracing the various crop lines), the RHS is uncorrected. The red frames are the SOOC and DPP4 output, magenta is the default (3:2 aspect ratio) PhotoLab output and the green frames are the 16:9 aspect ratio PhotoLab output.
Last edited:
Sittatunga
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 8,312
- Solutions
- 33
- Reaction score
- 5,390
According to the Lenstip review your Fuji 16mm was very good for distortion. The thing is though, you can't just crop your way out of distortion, you have to stretch the distortion out of the image first, the corners get stretched more than the centre, and almost all of the cropping is due to getting it back to a straight sided image. The image I showed was from a 16mm full-frame lens with more than double the distortion of the RF 24mm and about 23° wider field of view.Well, based on samples some YouTubers have shown the cropped area is considerable so I will have to think about this one, or do more research.Don't fall into that rabbit hole.I’m beginning to get the feeling that I won’t be happy with the 24mm just because of this massive crop issue and so going down a little wider at 20mm will compensate for that lost cropped area. That’s crazy.The cropping happens because you stretch the image into a curved sided quadrilateral to correct the distortion and crop that to output a rectangular (straight sided) image. DPP4 (and JPEGs straight from the camera and the viewfinder display) show the corrected image which corresponds to the output of a rectangular projection lens of the same nominal focal length. You don't get the option of the uncorrected output. The distortion correction is automatic if you output to JPEG or use a decent RAW converter with a profile for that specific lens. PhotoLab often gives a slightly wider angle when correcting barrel distortion, particularly if you crop to, say, 16:9 aspect ratio. These days most reasonably sized mirrorless camera wideangle lenses from every manufacturer are designed with distortion to be corrected electronically, because you don't see the distortion through the viewfinder as you would with an SLR.I’ve been looking at reviews of this 24 1.8 lens and they say when you apply lens correction for that massive distortion it has, the image then gets cropped heavily. Why does it get cropped so much and is this a software thing that can be corrected later on, let’s say Lightroom, or is this a problem of the actual physical lens therefore I will always have to deal with that issue as long as I own that lens?The canon RF 24mm f/1.8 already exists. What do you complain about??? This costs around 500 USD if I’m not mistaken.Again, more affordable third party options, again an example is a more affordable 24mm prime lens, even a F2 Canon version would be good enough for me for the type of low light photography I do.
Now, per other people’s responses maybe there is an EF version of a less expensive 24mm Canon lens to use with the AF adapter? I will continue doing more research but unfortunately I have to sleep now as I have to get up really early tomorrow so we’ll catch up.
Thank you everybody
Thanks
The example below is from the RF 16mm which (according to Optical Limits) has nearly double the distortion of the RF 24mm, so it's a lot more dramatic than what you would see with the 24mm. The LHS is the corrected image (I used the GIMP's distortion correction with an enlarged canvas to show the curved edges, then spent a lot of time in AutoCAD tracing the various crop lines), the RHS is uncorrected. The red frames are the SOOC and DPP4 output, magenta is the default (3:2 aspect ratio) PhotoLab output and the green frames are the 16:9 aspect ratio PhotoLab output.
It's totally pointless to obsess over digital corrections nowadays. What actually SHOULD count is the final result:
- Are you happy with the sharpness / overall resolution you get out of the lens?
- Are you happy with the vignette and noise performance in the corners after correction?
If so: Just ignore digital corrections. Digital corrections enabled designs that have not been possible before and some (if not most) of the lenses like the RF 20mm 1.4 VCM perform better with digital corrections in terms of detail / sharpness than "better" optical designs in the past.
And btw: The example shown is not from the RF 24mm 1.8. The 24mm is much less extreme, you can check RAW + corrected here (look for "Distortion"):
https://opticallimits.com/canon/canon-rf/canon-rf-24mm-f-1-8-is-stm-macro-review/
But, maybe you and others could help me out. I had the Fujifilm 16 1.4 and unfortunately I don’t have that lens anymore to compare and I wonder how much of a cropped difference I was getting without even realizing it. I have no idea what amount of cropped area/lens correction that 16mm was getting in Lightroom. Now I’m really curious
The RF 16mm is notorious for its distortion and purists hate it; my favourite APS-C lens, the less wide EF-M 11-22mm was originally praised for its lack of distortion. Even so, with all that correction the full-frame RF 16mm looks better at pixel level in the distortion corrected corners from my 30 megapixel EOS R than the 11mm setting of the zoom does at equivalent apertures at pixel level in the distortion corrected corners from my 24 megapixel EOS M100.
Last edited:
Quote from optical limits on the Fujinon:Well, based on samples some YouTubers have shown the cropped area is considerable so I will have to think about this one, or do more research.Don't fall into that rabbit hole.I’m beginning to get the feeling that I won’t be happy with the 24mm just because of this massive crop issue and so going down a little wider at 20mm will compensate for that lost cropped area. That’s crazy.The cropping happens because you stretch the image into a curved sided quadrilateral to correct the distortion and crop that to output a rectangular (straight sided) image. DPP4 (and JPEGs straight from the camera and the viewfinder display) show the corrected image which corresponds to the output of a rectangular projection lens of the same nominal focal length. You don't get the option of the uncorrected output. The distortion correction is automatic if you output to JPEG or use a decent RAW converter with a profile for that specific lens. PhotoLab often gives a slightly wider angle when correcting barrel distortion, particularly if you crop to, say, 16:9 aspect ratio. These days most reasonably sized mirrorless camera wideangle lenses from every manufacturer are designed with distortion to be corrected electronically, because you don't see the distortion through the viewfinder as you would with an SLR.I’ve been looking at reviews of this 24 1.8 lens and they say when you apply lens correction for that massive distortion it has, the image then gets cropped heavily. Why does it get cropped so much and is this a software thing that can be corrected later on, let’s say Lightroom, or is this a problem of the actual physical lens therefore I will always have to deal with that issue as long as I own that lens?The canon RF 24mm f/1.8 already exists. What do you complain about??? This costs around 500 USD if I’m not mistaken.Again, more affordable third party options, again an example is a more affordable 24mm prime lens, even a F2 Canon version would be good enough for me for the type of low light photography I do.
Now, per other people’s responses maybe there is an EF version of a less expensive 24mm Canon lens to use with the AF adapter? I will continue doing more research but unfortunately I have to sleep now as I have to get up really early tomorrow so we’ll catch up.
Thank you everybody
Thanks
The example below is from the RF 16mm which (according to Optical Limits) has nearly double the distortion of the RF 24mm, so it's a lot more dramatic than what you would see with the 24mm. The LHS is the corrected image (I used the GIMP's distortion correction with an enlarged canvas to show the curved edges, then spent a lot of time in AutoCAD tracing the various crop lines), the RHS is uncorrected. The red frames are the SOOC and DPP4 output, magenta is the default (3:2 aspect ratio) PhotoLab output and the green frames are the 16:9 aspect ratio PhotoLab output.
It's totally pointless to obsess over digital corrections nowadays. What actually SHOULD count is the final result:
- Are you happy with the sharpness / overall resolution you get out of the lens?
- Are you happy with the vignette and noise performance in the corners after correction?
If so: Just ignore digital corrections. Digital corrections enabled designs that have not been possible before and some (if not most) of the lenses like the RF 20mm 1.4 VCM perform better with digital corrections in terms of detail / sharpness than "better" optical designs in the past.
And btw: The example shown is not from the RF 24mm 1.8. The 24mm is much less extreme, you can check RAW + corrected here (look for "Distortion"):
https://opticallimits.com/canon/canon-rf/canon-rf-24mm-f-1-8-is-stm-macro-review/
But, maybe you and others could help me out. I had the Fujifilm 16 1.4 and unfortunately I don’t have that lens anymore to compare and I wonder how much of a cropped difference I was getting without even realizing it. I have no idea what amount of cropped area/lens correction that 16mm was getting in Lightroom. Now I’m really curious
"The distortion level of the Fujinon is marginal at just ~0.7% (barrel-style). The lens is fully corrected thus auto-correction is not necessary here."
So there is not much going on in terms of what you call "crop" (that's not what it is and not proper wording). The RF 24mm has -5% barrel distribution for reference, quite a bit more, bit that doesn't necessarily mean that the Fujinon delivers more detail on "equal sensors" (e.g. both 24MP). That's a different metric, it just says that one is them relies more on SW corrections to deliver the final image.
JohnSil
Senior Member
LOL, Baddude, I'm new to Canon also, or at least I was when the Canon T-90 came out!!! LOL
I haven't used a 3rd party lens since Pentax used a screw mount!
For ten years I used a 50mm 1.4 and that was it! You're making me feel inadequate!
My lenses take me from 17mm to 500mm. If I need a 1000mm I use a 2x or get closer. If I need wider than 17mm and stitch once and I have a 9mm. If I stitch again I have a 5mm etc. all the way to 360degrees!!!
Again I'm feeling a bit deprived...., none of my lenses have a dock. Wassupwitdat??? LOL
John
Last edited:
boldcolors
Senior Member
That track record has no meaning anymore on mirrorless. None what so ever. I have several old 3rd party lenses from Sigma. Some really old ones from a time when Sigma almost ALWAYS had focus issues no matter what you did. And they work flawlessly on RF cameras with high accuracy. I can't tell if they are slower vs Canons own. They are that good.
I can imagine the newer releases with native RF mount are even better/faster. I know exactly why Canon is not allowing full frame 3rd party. They know all this.
Last edited:
I assumed (perhaps incorrectly) that you were saying after looking at the image just above your comment that due to "this massive crop issue" you didn't think that the 24mm would work for you.Sorry what do you mean?RF 16, not RF 24 - very different lenses.I’m beginning to get the feeling that I won’t be happy with the 24mm just because of this massive crop issue and so going down a little wider at 20mm will compensate for that lost cropped area. That’s crazy.The example below is from the RF 16mm
The massive crop as shown in the image is not for a 24mm lens, but rather (as stated) a 16mm lens which relies heavily on software corrections (RF16).
Were you referring to a "massive crop issue" for a 24mm lens that you had seen somewhere else ?
thunder storm
Forum Pro
- Messages
- 12,654
- Solutions
- 7
- Reaction score
- 5,952
That's the case with a lot of compact bright 24mm lenses.
The Samyang FE 24mm f/1.8 and Sigma FE 24mm f/2.0 dg dn have a lot of optical distortion as well. Even the RF 24mm f/1.4 VCM has a huge amount of distortion. The FE 24mm f/1.4 GM has a low amount of distortion, but amongst mirrorless 24mm lenses that's almost an exception to the rule.
The Samyang lens is EXACTLY a Canon mirrorless issue - it was a EF mount lens that worked perfectly on an EF mount DSLR and simply wouldn't work on a Canon mirrorless later than R5, even with a genuine Canon adapter.
I have read of a number of issues with Sigma lenses not working properly on Canon mirrorless cameras - specifically the pulsing AF issue on the Sigma 150-600mm lenses.
There has also been a number of other 3rd party lenses (even RF mount versions - a couple of Samyangs that I remember reading about here) that stopped working after Canon firmware updates (presumably due to Canon's aggressive strategy of keeping 3rd party makers out of RF lenses).
I am not suggesting that mirrorless is any worse than DSLR, because it probably isn't - rather simply stating that before the Pergear I owned two EF mount 3rd party lenses from different brands and both had issues, one with 2 different DSLRs and the other with 2 different mirrorless. So view it as you will but in my book that is a 100% failure rate.
I don't buy a lens to last only as long as a specific camera body - there is an expectation that the lens will work with future bodies as well. With Canon the ONLY way to ensure that with any degree of certainty is to buy Canon lenses - with any 3rd party lens there will be an element of risk, however small.
Perhaps being pedantic, but there are no 3rd party native RF (FF) mount lenses that are approved by Canon AFAIK, only RF-S (APS-C) lenses.
sportyaccordy
Forum Pro
Not seeing why 3rd party lenses made for RF would be problematic when 3rd party lenses for RF-S aren't.
Plus your 3rd party AF lenses are pretty ancient. That Sigma lens is 15 years old. I dont think its crazy to say they might have got a little better at lens design and manufacturing over that time :-D
W/your Samyang........ that kind of speaks specifically to the follies of the whole "just adapt EF glass" mantra that gets chanted. You have no idea what's actually going to work from the EF world if it's not Canon branded. But if Canon allows something to be made for RF mount, obviously it's going to work for RF mount. I get it, bitten once twice shy but I also feel like your fears are a bit unfounded given all the other evidence of 3rd party glass functionality and reliability in 2025.
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum