Canon's release of 600/800mm f11 lenses PROVES you don't need Cannons!

Started 4 months ago | Discussions
Wu Jiaqiu
Wu Jiaqiu Forum Pro • Posts: 26,848
Re: No ...

rogerstpierre wrote:

jwilliams wrote:

cosmicnode wrote:

jwilliams wrote:

Messier Object wrote:

But at the edges of the shooting envelope - in dim lighting when high shutter speeds need to me maintained - these lenses will struggle

Peter

Struggle? No more so than the fastest 800mm equiv. m43 lens. Nothing in m43 at 400 is faster than f5.6 which is the same as f11 on FF. The 800 sucks up as much light as any m43 400 lens available. Also Canons DPAF is quite good.

But the shutter speeds are 2 f stops faster for the m4/3 lens.

No they are not. You bump up the ISO 2 stops which gives equal noise to m43 2 stops lower and the SS is the same. Simple as that.

Except that getting accurate AF @ f11 is challenging. AF systems struggle with anything slower than f5.6. Birding in the forest @f5.6 requires ISO 1600-6400 for a decent speed. That pushes the FF sensor from 6400-256000. Not as simple as that.

i think we all agree that this lens is not really going to be that useful in lower light, i'd gladly use it an airshow or a race track in decent light or weather, birding in winter in northern europe....nope

-- hide signature --

the computer says no

 Wu Jiaqiu's gear list:Wu Jiaqiu's gear list
Fujifilm FinePix X100 Nikon D2Xs Nikon 1 V1 Nikon 1 J3 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 300mm f/4D ED-IF +3 more
Astrotripper Veteran Member • Posts: 8,288
Re: Moreover, they finally demonstrate where equivalence stops

Hubertus Bigend wrote:

Astrotripper wrote:

Canon’s DO is not the same thing as Nikon’s PF.

Canon's conventional, say, 300mm f/2.8 is not the same thing as Nikon's conventional 300mm f/2.8, either. The difference between Canon's DO and Nikon's PF designs is not so much more significant.

From what I read, the difference is fundamental. Canon's DO technology is based of diffraction (hence the name) while Nikon's PF on refraction with the use of fresnel lens (hence the name).

 Astrotripper's gear list:Astrotripper's gear list
Sigma DP2 Merrill Olympus PEN E-PL1 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GM5 Olympus E-M1 II Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 9-18mm F4.0-5.6 +14 more
Gary from Seattle Veteran Member • Posts: 4,841
Re: No ...

jwilliams wrote:

cosmicnode wrote:

jwilliams wrote:

Messier Object wrote:

But at the edges of the shooting envelope - in dim lighting when high shutter speeds need to me maintained - these lenses will struggle

Peter

Struggle? No more so than the fastest 800mm equiv. m43 lens. Nothing in m43 at 400 is faster than f5.6 which is the same as f11 on FF. The 800 sucks up as much light as any m43 400 lens available. Also Canons DPAF is quite good.

But the shutter speeds are 2 f stops faster for the m4/3 lens.

No they are not. You bump up the ISO 2 stops which gives equal noise to m43 2 stops lower and the SS is the same. Simple as that.

Bump the ISO 2 stops on a mediocre lens and you will get mediocre results. Probably competitive with the 75-300 or 100-300 or they would use this methodology on all of their lenses. They don't.

 Gary from Seattle's gear list:Gary from Seattle's gear list
Olympus E-M1 Olympus E-M1 II Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 75-300mm 1:4.8-6.7 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 60mm F2.8 Macro Panasonic Lumix G X Vario 35-100mm F2.8 OIS +3 more
Wu Jiaqiu
Wu Jiaqiu Forum Pro • Posts: 26,848
Re: No ...
2

Gary from Seattle wrote:

jwilliams wrote:

cosmicnode wrote:

jwilliams wrote:

Messier Object wrote:

But at the edges of the shooting envelope - in dim lighting when high shutter speeds need to me maintained - these lenses will struggle

Peter

Struggle? No more so than the fastest 800mm equiv. m43 lens. Nothing in m43 at 400 is faster than f5.6 which is the same as f11 on FF. The 800 sucks up as much light as any m43 400 lens available. Also Canons DPAF is quite good.

But the shutter speeds are 2 f stops faster for the m4/3 lens.

No they are not. You bump up the ISO 2 stops which gives equal noise to m43 2 stops lower and the SS is the same. Simple as that.

Bump the ISO 2 stops on a mediocre lens and you will get mediocre results. Probably competitive with the 75-300 or 100-300 or they would use this methodology on all of their lenses. They don't.

i think you miss the point of making smaller, lighter and cheaper prime telephoto lenses for use with their FF mirrorless cameras, i'll wait for the tests to see if they are mediocre or perform the same as any other lens stopped down to f/11, Canon makes loads of different telephoto lenses....get your wallet out and take your pick

-- hide signature --

the computer says no

 Wu Jiaqiu's gear list:Wu Jiaqiu's gear list
Fujifilm FinePix X100 Nikon D2Xs Nikon 1 V1 Nikon 1 J3 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 300mm f/4D ED-IF +3 more
Gary from Seattle Veteran Member • Posts: 4,841
Re: No ...

Wu Jiaqiu wrote:

Gary from Seattle wrote:

jwilliams wrote:

cosmicnode wrote:

jwilliams wrote:

Messier Object wrote:

But at the edges of the shooting envelope - in dim lighting when high shutter speeds need to me maintained - these lenses will struggle

Peter

Struggle? No more so than the fastest 800mm equiv. m43 lens. Nothing in m43 at 400 is faster than f5.6 which is the same as f11 on FF. The 800 sucks up as much light as any m43 400 lens available. Also Canons DPAF is quite good.

But the shutter speeds are 2 f stops faster for the m4/3 lens.

No they are not. You bump up the ISO 2 stops which gives equal noise to m43 2 stops lower and the SS is the same. Simple as that.

Bump the ISO 2 stops on a mediocre lens and you will get mediocre results. Probably competitive with the 75-300 or 100-300 or they would use this methodology on all of their lenses. They don't.

i think you miss the point of making smaller, lighter and cheaper prime telephoto lenses for use with their FF mirrorless cameras, i'll wait for the tests to see if they are mediocre or perform the same as any other lens stopped down to f/11, Canon makes loads of different telephoto lenses....get your wallet out and take your pick

Surely, wait for tests. But if fresnel lenses like this were the great future, it would rob sales of their top lenses. There will be a large cost in IQ or in speed and light transmission.

 Gary from Seattle's gear list:Gary from Seattle's gear list
Olympus E-M1 Olympus E-M1 II Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 75-300mm 1:4.8-6.7 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 60mm F2.8 Macro Panasonic Lumix G X Vario 35-100mm F2.8 OIS +3 more
Hubertus Bigend
Hubertus Bigend Forum Member • Posts: 71
Re: No ...

rogerstpierre wrote:

jwilliams wrote:

cosmicnode wrote:

jwilliams wrote:

Messier Object wrote:

But at the edges of the shooting envelope - in dim lighting when high shutter speeds need to me maintained - these lenses will struggle

Peter

Struggle? No more so than the fastest 800mm equiv. m43 lens. Nothing in m43 at 400 is faster than f5.6 which is the same as f11 on FF. The 800 sucks up as much light as any m43 400 lens available. Also Canons DPAF is quite good.

But the shutter speeds are 2 f stops faster for the m4/3 lens.

No they are not. You bump up the ISO 2 stops which gives equal noise to m43 2 stops lower and the SS is the same. Simple as that.

Except that getting accurate AF @ f11 is challenging. AF systems struggle with anything slower than f5.6. Birding in the forest @f5.6 requires ISO 1600-6400 for a decent speed. That pushes the FF sensor from 6400-256000. Not as simple as that.

"AF systems" are rather diverse nowadays... "Struggle with anything slower than f5.6" used to be true for mainstream DSLR AF systems, but mirrorless has come a long way. As I've learned here, the Sony A9 II AF, for example, is specified to function up to f16. If that 100-500 zoom is supposed to work with both converters which will be introduced alongside with it, which would be a strange introduction if it wouldn't, the Canon RF system will work at least up to f/14.

I suspect these lenses may turn out to be more usable than many seem to think. Still, too much of them is awkward for my taste, so that I actually feel I'm better off with my halfway equivalent and still more compact MFT options.

Wu Jiaqiu
Wu Jiaqiu Forum Pro • Posts: 26,848
Re: No ...
1

Gary from Seattle wrote:

Wu Jiaqiu wrote:

Gary from Seattle wrote:

jwilliams wrote:

cosmicnode wrote:

jwilliams wrote:

Messier Object wrote:

But at the edges of the shooting envelope - in dim lighting when high shutter speeds need to me maintained - these lenses will struggle

Peter

Struggle? No more so than the fastest 800mm equiv. m43 lens. Nothing in m43 at 400 is faster than f5.6 which is the same as f11 on FF. The 800 sucks up as much light as any m43 400 lens available. Also Canons DPAF is quite good.

But the shutter speeds are 2 f stops faster for the m4/3 lens.

No they are not. You bump up the ISO 2 stops which gives equal noise to m43 2 stops lower and the SS is the same. Simple as that.

Bump the ISO 2 stops on a mediocre lens and you will get mediocre results. Probably competitive with the 75-300 or 100-300 or they would use this methodology on all of their lenses. They don't.

i think you miss the point of making smaller, lighter and cheaper prime telephoto lenses for use with their FF mirrorless cameras, i'll wait for the tests to see if they are mediocre or perform the same as any other lens stopped down to f/11, Canon makes loads of different telephoto lenses....get your wallet out and take your pick

Surely, wait for tests. But if fresnel lenses like this were the great future, it would rob sales of their top lenses. There will be a large cost in IQ or in speed and light transmission.

as i and other have said, these lenses sacrifice aperture for size, weight and price....it's obvious

-- hide signature --

the computer says no

 Wu Jiaqiu's gear list:Wu Jiaqiu's gear list
Fujifilm FinePix X100 Nikon D2Xs Nikon 1 V1 Nikon 1 J3 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 300mm f/4D ED-IF +3 more
Hubertus Bigend
Hubertus Bigend Forum Member • Posts: 71
Re: Moreover, they finally demonstrate where equivalence stops

Astrotripper wrote:

Hubertus Bigend wrote:

Astrotripper wrote:

Canon’s DO is not the same thing as Nikon’s PF.

Canon's conventional, say, 300mm f/2.8 is not the same thing as Nikon's conventional 300mm f/2.8, either. The difference between Canon's DO and Nikon's PF designs is not so much more significant.

From what I read, the difference is fundamental. Canon's DO technology is based of diffraction (hence the name) while Nikon's PF on refraction with the use of fresnel lens (hence the name).

The term "diffractive lens" is just another name for Fresnel element. "Refractive", as I understand it, stands for an ordinary, non-Fresnel element or element combination. Both Nikon's PF and Canon's DO lenses are comprised of both; one or two Fresnel, i.e. diffractive elements, plus a couple of conventional lens elements.

Mark Ransom
Mark Ransom Veteran Member • Posts: 7,274
Re: No ...
1

Wu Jiaqiu wrote:

Gary from Seattle wrote:

Wu Jiaqiu wrote:

i think you miss the point of making smaller, lighter and cheaper prime telephoto lenses for use with their FF mirrorless cameras, i'll wait for the tests to see if they are mediocre or perform the same as any other lens stopped down to f/11, Canon makes loads of different telephoto lenses....get your wallet out and take your pick

Surely, wait for tests. But if fresnel lenses like this were the great future, it would rob sales of their top lenses. There will be a large cost in IQ or in speed and light transmission.

as i and other have said, these lenses sacrifice aperture for size, weight and price....it's obvious

And just as obvious, judging by the replies in this thread, there are some who will never accept that sacrifice.  That's their right, and I hope there continues to be choices for them.

 Mark Ransom's gear list:Mark Ransom's gear list
Pentax K-7 Pentax K-01 Olympus E-M5 II Pentax smc DA 15mm F4 ED AL Limited Pentax smc DA 18-135mm F3.5-5.6ED AL [IF] DC WR +6 more
Sranang Boi Senior Member • Posts: 2,218
Re: What are you going to do ...
2

jwilliams wrote:

Simon97 wrote:

If I were a Canon FF or even APSC user (I was an APSC user once), I would never consider such a slow long lens. For wildlife, shooting under the sun doesn't result in the most flattering images, I like shooting in overcast days to avoid the contrasty shadows. For sports, the shutter speed would be too slow. This would make these lenses pointless to me. Why they didn't go with f/8 is beyond me. Still slow, but with the DO optics, they still can be reasonably small.

What are you going to do in the m43 world then? There isn't a m43 400 faster than f5.6 which is exactly the same as f11 on FF. You want faster than that lens then you can get it in FF, but not in m43 as nothing exists. These are reasonably priced, reasonably sized lenses. They give FF shooters an alternative to the bigger, faster, heavier and more expensive super teles which are readily available if desired.

f5.6 in m43 is not the same as f11 in FF. Any light meter or exposure meter will tell you that. So stop posting lies.

 Sranang Boi's gear list:Sranang Boi's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DC-FZ1000 II Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX8 Panasonic G90 Panasonic Leica DG Summilux 15mm F1.7 ASPH Panasonic Leica 12-60mm F2.8-4.0 ASPH +1 more
pforsell
pforsell Veteran Member • Posts: 3,677
Re: Canon's release of 600/800mm f11 lenses PROVES you don't need Cannons!

Wu Jiaqiu wrote:

Gary from Seattle wrote:

Wu Jiaqiu wrote:

Gary from Seattle wrote:

Wu Jiaqiu wrote:

Gary from Seattle wrote:

Wu Jiaqiu wrote:

Doug Greenberg wrote:

But when you end up shooting at ISO 6400 there will be a price to pay in image quality. I would rather use an M43 rig combo of 300f4 and 1.4x teleconverter, 420mm f5.6, which is the FF equivalent of 840mm f5.6.

Doug Greenberg, Berkeley, CA

kind of

How, kind of? At 840mm you have a very small DOF and will often need about F5.6 - at least that is what I find.

so about the same dof as the canon 800mm/11 used with a 35mm sensor

Not sharp, poor contrast, etc.

are you talking about the 300mm/4 and 1.4 x tc? because it can't be about the unreleased lens from canon

Certainly not the 300, as compared to, though. I read one prerelease review of the cannon. Apparently that type of lens has a tendency for poor contrast and light gathering.

and here i was thinking they hadn't even been officially announced yet, pre release review of just a rumour....i'm impressed

Prerelease preview of a rumor. Awesome.

-- hide signature --

Peter

 pforsell's gear list:pforsell's gear list
Nikon D1X Nikon D2X Nikon D3X Nikon D3S Nikon D4S +25 more
pforsell
pforsell Veteran Member • Posts: 3,677
Re: Struggle? ...

cosmicnode wrote:

jwilliams wrote:

Messier Object wrote:

But at the edges of the shooting envelope - in dim lighting when high shutter speeds need to me maintained - these lenses will struggle

Peter

Struggle? No more so than the fastest 800mm equiv. m43 lens. Nothing in m43 at 400 is faster than f5.6 which is the same as f11 on FF. The 800 sucks up as much light as any m43 400 lens available. Also Canons DPAF is quite good.

But the shutter speeds are 2 f stops faster for the m4/3 lens.

No. Nothing whatsoever mandates that. Let's play a game. Let me set ISO 6400 and shutter speed of 1/125. The exposure meter recommends f/5.6. We'll go with those settings.

Then I start lowering the ISO from 6400 to 3200, 1600 and finally 800. I keep the shutter speed and aperture constant, as I am not shooting in any auto mode. Can you see that while the ISO goes down the shutter speed does not go down.

A couple of pictures speak more than a thousand words. These are shot almost at  sunset in the rain.

ISO 6400 - 1/125 - f/5.6

ISO 3200 - 1/125 - f/5.6

ISO 1600 - 1/125 - f/5.6

ISO 800 - 1/125 - f/5.6

-- hide signature --

Peter

 pforsell's gear list:pforsell's gear list
Nikon D1X Nikon D2X Nikon D3X Nikon D3S Nikon D4S +25 more
pforsell
pforsell Veteran Member • Posts: 3,677
Re: Canon's release of 600/800mm f11 lenses PROVES you don't need Cannons!

cosmicnode wrote:

Mark Ransom wrote:

cosmicnode wrote:

Mark Ransom wrote:

cosmicnode wrote:

Hubertus Bigend wrote:

You're still wrong. Yes, with FF you would have had to use ISO 7200. No, the result wouldn't have become worse. Not the file quality, not the depth of field, nothing. The f/11 lens is not even just a bit less "practical" there, except maybe if it would still be a bit larger and slightly less comfortable to handle, which is what these new Canon lenses seem to be at least in comparison to, say, the MFT 100-300, and there I'm not even speaking about versatility yet.

But, and that's the point here – f/11 as such is not the problem.

You don't seem to realise I am talking about the shutter speed not equivalents, if you look at the photo you will see it was taken on FF, That iso of 7200 is in the middle of a bright summers day. if you do the math for 1/1000 of a sec at f11 the iso would be 1800. That is the middle of the day , it obviously gets worse as the light disappears when you reach dawn or dusk or a overcast or rainy day you are struggling to get, a fast enough shutter speed to stop action. To many here are completely caught up on the theory of equivalents and cant see the requirement of a fast enough shutter speed to get the shot. this may not a problem with short focal lengths where you may not need such a fast shutter speed the ibis will help compensate but most turn ibis or vr off for long lenses and action.

And you can't seem to realize that nobody is arguing that F/11 is enough for everybody. It's nice to have choices, even if some of those choices will be more popular than others. The only claim being made is that if F/5.6 is enough on m4/3, then F/11 will be enough on FF. If it isn't enough for you, nobody should argue with that - it's your shot, your requirements.

The shutter speed is 2 stops faster on the m4/3. at f5.5 and according to he theories of equivalence that is the same as a f11 on FF, So a win on shutter speed for the f5.6 on m4/3 if everything else as you say is enough using f11 on FF.

Why do you keep dismissing the possibility of going 2 stops higher ISO on FF to keep the same shutter speed? If it's because you're already using the FF camera at its limits, it means you're outside the shooting envelope of m4/3 and we shouldn't even be having this discussion.

Both M4/3 and FF can have the same iso upper limit, you would in that event still be able to use a shutter speed 2 stops faster on m4/3. The quality of the image may be better on FF but the shutter speeds will be slower, this may be the difference between a noisy image on m4/3 and a blurred image on FF.

Nothing prevents using as fast or faster shutter speed with the FF camera. All you have to do is stop shooting in auto mode.

-- hide signature --

Peter

 pforsell's gear list:pforsell's gear list
Nikon D1X Nikon D2X Nikon D3X Nikon D3S Nikon D4S +25 more
pforsell
pforsell Veteran Member • Posts: 3,677
Re: Canon's release of 600/800mm f11 lenses PROVES you don't need Cannons!
1

cosmicnode wrote:

SteveY80 wrote:

cosmicnode wrote:

Mark Ransom wrote:

cosmicnode wrote:

Hubertus Bigend wrote:

You're still wrong. Yes, with FF you would have had to use ISO 7200. No, the result wouldn't have become worse. Not the file quality, not the depth of field, nothing. The f/11 lens is not even just a bit less "practical" there, except maybe if it would still be a bit larger and slightly less comfortable to handle, which is what these new Canon lenses seem to be at least in comparison to, say, the MFT 100-300, and there I'm not even speaking about versatility yet.

But, and that's the point here – f/11 as such is not the problem.

You don't seem to realise I am talking about the shutter speed not equivalents, if you look at the photo you will see it was taken on FF, That iso of 7200 is in the middle of a bright summers day. if you do the math for 1/1000 of a sec at f11 the iso would be 1800. That is the middle of the day , it obviously gets worse as the light disappears when you reach dawn or dusk or a overcast or rainy day you are struggling to get, a fast enough shutter speed to stop action. To many here are completely caught up on the theory of equivalents and cant see the requirement of a fast enough shutter speed to get the shot. this may not a problem with short focal lengths where you may not need such a fast shutter speed the ibis will help compensate but most turn ibis or vr off for long lenses and action.

And you can't seem to realize that nobody is arguing that F/11 is enough for everybody. It's nice to have choices, even if some of those choices will be more popular than others. The only claim being made is that if F/5.6 is enough on m4/3, then F/11 will be enough on FF. If it isn't enough for you, nobody should argue with that - it's your shot, your requirements.

The shutter speed is 2 stops faster on the m4/3. at f5.5 and according to he theories of equivalence that is the same as a f11 on FF, So a win on shutter speed for the f5.6 on m4/3 if everything else as you say is enough using f11 on FF.

I don't understand why the f/11 aperture would stop you from choosing whatever shutter speed you need?

Obviously you'd be using a 2-stop higher ISO when doing so, but that's where equivalence does come in.

You reach a point where there is not enough light available when you reach the upper limit of your iso setting in your camera earlier ,where you have to reduce shutter speeds, you simply cannot choose whatever shutter speed you want, there are limitations. these are supertelephoto lenses to avoid shake its best to at least use a shutter speed equivalent to the focal length.

What limitations?

What prevents one from choosing ISO 1000, 1/4000, f/11 at sunset? What limitation exactly? I have 7 full frame bodies and none of them have that kind of limitation.

-- hide signature --

Peter

 pforsell's gear list:pforsell's gear list
Nikon D1X Nikon D2X Nikon D3X Nikon D3S Nikon D4S +25 more
pforsell
pforsell Veteran Member • Posts: 3,677
Re: Canon's release of 600/800mm f11 lenses PROVES you don't need Cannons!

cosmicnode wrote:

pforsell wrote:

cosmicnode wrote:

Mark Ransom wrote:

cosmicnode wrote:

Hubertus Bigend wrote:

cosmicnode wrote:

Hubertus Bigend wrote:

Richandhiscat wrote:

MHshooter wrote:

You don't always need hulking $15,000 f4 long-telephotos to do a job. Most cases, whatever is being shot using focal lengths like that will be cropped so even if the likely inexpensive f11 lenses are not fantastic on the edges, it won't matter.

Why are you posting in the m4/3 forum?

Perhaps because those Canon lenses are in principle very similar to what we already have been having for years in Four Thirds and Micro Four Thirds, and what he say may be true for some of them, too?

They are 2 shutter speeds slower in poor light than a F5.6 lens. 3 shutter speeds slower than the Olympus 300mm f4 with equivalent 600mm FOV.

No, they aren't. Because the camera is already 2 shutter speeds faster than Olympus, as it can and will be used with 2 steps more ISO, if necessary, without getting into a disadvantage.

How is that, fit a 5.6 lens onto the canon and it's 2 shutter speeds faster than f11, you are confusing equivalent depth of field with shutter speed between formats. 100 ISO and f5.6 will give the same shutter speed on any format. The Canon has 2 stops better noise control dynamic rang etc, not shutter speed.

Way to miss the point. 100 ISO and F/5.6 will give the same shutter speed as 400 ISO and F/11. The bigger sensor will let you use a higher ISO without any penalties. If you still want to use the lower ISO, nobody is stopping you from buying a bigger more expensive lens.

The point is that you will not always be able to use 100 iso on m4/3 the other morning when reading of these f11 lenses ...

These Canon lenses are for Canon full frame, not m3/4. They do the same job on FF camera as f/5.6 lenses on m3/4.

I know that, thanks for the selective editing!

the point is that when the m4/3 and FF reaches the max iso of 25600 to get 1/1000 sec shutter speed at f11 m4/3 can can retain this shutter speed at f5.6 where the Canon has to drop to 1/250 sec when the light is poor. and when using a 300 f4 on m4/3 it can still shoot at 1/1000sec when the Canon has to drop to 1/125sec.

This is all false. Nothing forces the photographer to use a slower shutter speed even if the ISO setting is maxed out. The FF shooter can keep on shooting at 1/1000 no problem. Or 1/2000 if need be. But then again you already knew this.

For example on my Nikon D4s I never go beyond ISO 1000 because there's no point. Sure, there's settings up to ISO 400,000 but since going beyond ISO 1000 brings nothing to the table, I don't bother. The camera noise decreases all the way from ISO 100 to ISO 1000 but not beyond. That doesn't restrict my shutter speed or aperture settings one bit. In your example I'd shoot ISO 1000, 1/1000 and f/11 no problem.

On my D5 on the other hand ISO settings up to ISO 32,000 decrease the noise in images, so it behaves differently. And according to my first tries the highest ISO I need to go with D6 is ISO 12,800. The jury is still out, but I think it is close.

-- hide signature --

Peter

 pforsell's gear list:pforsell's gear list
Nikon D1X Nikon D2X Nikon D3X Nikon D3S Nikon D4S +25 more
Mark Ransom
Mark Ransom Veteran Member • Posts: 7,274
Re: What are you going to do ...
1

Sranang Boi wrote:

jwilliams wrote:

Simon97 wrote:

If I were a Canon FF or even APSC user (I was an APSC user once), I would never consider such a slow long lens. For wildlife, shooting under the sun doesn't result in the most flattering images, I like shooting in overcast days to avoid the contrasty shadows. For sports, the shutter speed would be too slow. This would make these lenses pointless to me. Why they didn't go with f/8 is beyond me. Still slow, but with the DO optics, they still can be reasonably small.

What are you going to do in the m43 world then? There isn't a m43 400 faster than f5.6 which is exactly the same as f11 on FF. You want faster than that lens then you can get it in FF, but not in m43 as nothing exists. These are reasonably priced, reasonably sized lenses. They give FF shooters an alternative to the bigger, faster, heavier and more expensive super teles which are readily available if desired.

f5.6 in m43 is not the same as f11 in FF. Any light meter or exposure meter will tell you that. So stop posting lies.

Change your light meter to have a 2 stop higher ISO for the FF, then tell me what it thinks the difference is.

 Mark Ransom's gear list:Mark Ransom's gear list
Pentax K-7 Pentax K-01 Olympus E-M5 II Pentax smc DA 15mm F4 ED AL Limited Pentax smc DA 18-135mm F3.5-5.6ED AL [IF] DC WR +6 more
Sranang Boi Senior Member • Posts: 2,218
Re: What are you going to do ...
1

There is no option on light meters to select different light readings for different sensor sizes! Where did you get this wisdom from?

 Sranang Boi's gear list:Sranang Boi's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DC-FZ1000 II Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX8 Panasonic G90 Panasonic Leica DG Summilux 15mm F1.7 ASPH Panasonic Leica 12-60mm F2.8-4.0 ASPH +1 more
Messier Object Veteran Member • Posts: 9,595
Re: Struggle? ...

jwilliams wrote:

Messier Object wrote:

Canon is and will keep making big fast long lenses for those who want and need them.

These slower, smaller, lighter lenses will offer opportunity for those who don't want to spend big $ or carry big/heavy lenses. And they may be attractive to those APS-C (1.6x crop factor) users who otherwise worry that their current EF lenses will be too short if they moved to EOS-R.

But at the edges of the shooting envelope - in dim lighting when high shutter speeds need to me maintained - these lenses will struggle

Struggle? No more so than the fastest 800mm equiv. m43 lens. Nothing in m43 at 400 is faster than f5.6 which is the same as f11 on FF. The 800 sucks up as much light as any m43 400 lens available. Also Canons DPAF is quite good.

My statement has nothing to do with m43 lenses.

Peter

Mark Ransom
Mark Ransom Veteran Member • Posts: 7,274
Re: Struggle? ...
2

Messier Object wrote:

jwilliams wrote:

Messier Object wrote:

Canon is and will keep making big fast long lenses for those who want and need them.

These slower, smaller, lighter lenses will offer opportunity for those who don't want to spend big $ or carry big/heavy lenses. And they may be attractive to those APS-C (1.6x crop factor) users who otherwise worry that their current EF lenses will be too short if they moved to EOS-R.

But at the edges of the shooting envelope - in dim lighting when high shutter speeds need to me maintained - these lenses will struggle

Struggle? No more so than the fastest 800mm equiv. m43 lens. Nothing in m43 at 400 is faster than f5.6 which is the same as f11 on FF. The 800 sucks up as much light as any m43 400 lens available. Also Canons DPAF is quite good.

My statement has nothing to do with m43 lenses.

Do you think that m4/3 lens owners don't sometimes struggle exactly as you describe, for the same reasons?

 Mark Ransom's gear list:Mark Ransom's gear list
Pentax K-7 Pentax K-01 Olympus E-M5 II Pentax smc DA 15mm F4 ED AL Limited Pentax smc DA 18-135mm F3.5-5.6ED AL [IF] DC WR +6 more
Mark Ransom
Mark Ransom Veteran Member • Posts: 7,274
Re: What are you going to do ...
3

Sranang Boi wrote:

There is no option on light meters to select different light readings for different sensor sizes! Where did you get this wisdom from?

I know, from equivalence, that a FF camera can deliver the same IQ as m4/3 when used at an ISO 2 stops higher.  I've also seen it demonstrated many times, both on this forum and elsewhere.  And I'm pretty sure that ISO is one of the settings on a light meter.

 Mark Ransom's gear list:Mark Ransom's gear list
Pentax K-7 Pentax K-01 Olympus E-M5 II Pentax smc DA 15mm F4 ED AL Limited Pentax smc DA 18-135mm F3.5-5.6ED AL [IF] DC WR +6 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads