I started with google, and ended up on ebay, maybe that's the problem, as Marktplaats is ook mijn nationale ebay.
Ah, o.k., you did your research a whole lot better.
For portraits you of course don't have to stop down. And at 24mm you get sharp corners when stopping down, unlike some very modern lenses (yes I mean the RF 24-105 and RF 24-240
Now I'm tempted to find such a deal to. :-D
You're not wrong that manual focus lenses are easier to use than ever before. But saying you get "perfect focus every shot" I know is hyperbole. How do I know? Because I own dozens of vintage manual focus lenses and have used them with both the R and R5 with focus peaking enabled.You're moving the goalpost. It was about Dustin Abbott, not about manual focus lenses.The downside?? The truth is, manual focus lenses are a cop out. It's a lot harder to do an AF lens with IS than an old school manual lens. Canon did it at the same aperture for half the price of the Otus... The Otus is a nice optic for what it is: a borderline unusable anachronism from a bygone age.Sorry, DA compared the EF 85mm f/1.4 L IS USM to three other lenses, the Sigma Art, the Tamron f/1.8 VC, and yes, also that Otus. And yes, the Canon L was a bit disappointing wide open, but that was also compared to the other two options. Dustin Abbott did mention - as always - the downside of manual focus lenses.To be fair, there is some evidence that copy variation is slightly worse with this lens. That said, DA seems to be a bit of a lens snob. I was put off when he compared the Canon EF 85mm f/1.4 L to the Zeiss Otus 85mm. Forgetting the fact that the Canon is half the price, he also seemed to ignore the reality of shooting with a fast 85mm constrained to manual focus.Dustin Abbott says in this review of this lens: “Not particularly sharp at any focal length”.
Since I got the impression that my images with this lens were very sharp, I decided to do some pixel peeping of my own. I also own the RF 24-105mm F4 L IS USM which was used for this comparison.
A book shelf with books was shot as test target with the R5 from a tripod using both lenses at 50mm focal length. The aperture was set to f/5.0 being the largest aperture for the RF 24-240mm at 50mm, ASA setting was 400. Three images were taken with the same settings but with different locations of the AF-point: utmost left, center and utmost right. Its purpose was to verify that the sensor plane was parallel to the plane of the test target.
A crop of 900x1600 pixels was made of the left edge of the image in DPP using the raw images without any sharpening. The images were converted to jpeg for this forum.
Results: center sharpness was the same, even at 200%. But surprisingly the edge sharpness was also the same, even maybe slightly better for the non-L lens. I realise that there is more than sharpness to characterize the qualities of a lens, but still I found this result remarkable. By the way, I also own the RF 50mm f/1.2 which was included in the test and destroys everything else at that focal length but that is what you expect.
RF 24-105mm F4 L IS USM: edge sharpness
RF 24-240mm F4-6.3 IS USM: edge sharpness
As more people start shooting 4k and then 8k manual focus will start to become more and more impossible... fact. It doesn't matter how good the optics are if you can't get it in focus.
Your statement about manual focus lenses is nonsense too. The focus assist of my R enables me to have perfect focus every shot with my Samyang 50mm f/1.2 XP. All it takes is just a little time, so for the speed you're limited, but for accuracy there are zero problems. The era manual focus lenses become usable has just started.
DA said that on a tripod the Sigma Art and Otus were sharper but hand held the Canon 85mm f1.4 was maybe sharper because the other two lenses are have no stabilizaiton and the Canon 85mm f1.4 was close in sharpness to the the other two lenses. Neither DA or Cristopher Frost in their reviews conside the relatively awesome better speed of the focus in the EF 85mmf1.4L IS USM which is critical in opinion when doing indoor actions sports in a dark gym and for some event shooting. I have the Sigma 85mmf1.4 Art and it is a hair sharper on the EOS R. I think it might be even better on the R5 with more pixels this remains for me to be seen. The Simga 85 and 135 that have are both sharp but are pretty heavy that I will not us when there is a long carry when the heavy weight matters. My similar L grade EF glass is lighter and sharp enough so ordinary people usually with not notice the peepers concerns. I use the Sigmas for stationary portraits and for use on a tripod. The Sigmas are also not as good for SOOC JPEGs due a slight or subtle green look requiring postprocessing to get to the typical great Canon colors. I am sure others may think the Canon colors are too red but I am not one of them.Sorry, DA compared the EF 85mm f/1.4 L IS USM to three other lenses, the Sigma Art, the Tamron f/1.8 VC, and yes, also that Otus. And yes, the Canon L was a bit disappointing wide open, but that was also compared to the other two options. Dustin Abbott did mention - as always - the downside of manual focus lenses. He did also mention sharpness and contrast isn't everything in a portrait lens. He mentioned the Canon having the best light transmission, and nice bokeh.To be fair, there is some evidence that copy variation is slightly worse with this lens. That said, DA seems to be a bit of a lens snob. I was put off when he compared the Canon EF 85mm f/1.4 L to the Zeiss Otus 85mm. Forgetting the fact that the Canon is half the price, he also seemed to ignore the reality of shooting with a fast 85mm constrained to manual focus.Dustin Abbott says in this review of this lens: “Not particularly sharp at any focal length”.
Since I got the impression that my images with this lens were very sharp, I decided to do some pixel peeping of my own. I also own the RF 24-105mm F4 L IS USM which was used for this comparison.
A book shelf with books was shot as test target with the R5 from a tripod using both lenses at 50mm focal length. The aperture was set to f/5.0 being the largest aperture for the RF 24-240mm at 50mm, ASA setting was 400. Three images were taken with the same settings but with different locations of the AF-point: utmost left, center and utmost right. Its purpose was to verify that the sensor plane was parallel to the plane of the test target.
A crop of 900x1600 pixels was made of the left edge of the image in DPP using the raw images without any sharpening. The images were converted to jpeg for this forum.
Results: center sharpness was the same, even at 200%. But surprisingly the edge sharpness was also the same, even maybe slightly better for the non-L lens. I realise that there is more than sharpness to characterize the qualities of a lens, but still I found this result remarkable. By the way, I also own the RF 50mm f/1.2 which was included in the test and destroys everything else at that focal length but that is what you expect.
RF 24-105mm F4 L IS USM: edge sharpness
RF 24-240mm F4-6.3 IS USM: edge sharpness
I don't know why you are framing Dustin Abbott as a reviewer with a total lack of nuance, but you don't impress me with that kind of nonsense, sorry.
Like i said:You're not wrong that manual focus lenses are easier to use than ever before. But saying you get "perfect focus every shot" I know is hyperbole. How do I know? Because I own dozens of vintage manual focus lenses and have used them with both the R and R5 with focus peaking enabled.You're moving the goalpost. It was about Dustin Abbott, not about manual focus lenses.The downside?? The truth is, manual focus lenses are a cop out. It's a lot harder to do an AF lens with IS than an old school manual lens. Canon did it at the same aperture for half the price of the Otus... The Otus is a nice optic for what it is: a borderline unusable anachronism from a bygone age.Sorry, DA compared the EF 85mm f/1.4 L IS USM to three other lenses, the Sigma Art, the Tamron f/1.8 VC, and yes, also that Otus. And yes, the Canon L was a bit disappointing wide open, but that was also compared to the other two options. Dustin Abbott did mention - as always - the downside of manual focus lenses.To be fair, there is some evidence that copy variation is slightly worse with this lens. That said, DA seems to be a bit of a lens snob. I was put off when he compared the Canon EF 85mm f/1.4 L to the Zeiss Otus 85mm. Forgetting the fact that the Canon is half the price, he also seemed to ignore the reality of shooting with a fast 85mm constrained to manual focus.Dustin Abbott says in this review of this lens: “Not particularly sharp at any focal length”.
Since I got the impression that my images with this lens were very sharp, I decided to do some pixel peeping of my own. I also own the RF 24-105mm F4 L IS USM which was used for this comparison.
A book shelf with books was shot as test target with the R5 from a tripod using both lenses at 50mm focal length. The aperture was set to f/5.0 being the largest aperture for the RF 24-240mm at 50mm, ASA setting was 400. Three images were taken with the same settings but with different locations of the AF-point: utmost left, center and utmost right. Its purpose was to verify that the sensor plane was parallel to the plane of the test target.
A crop of 900x1600 pixels was made of the left edge of the image in DPP using the raw images without any sharpening. The images were converted to jpeg for this forum.
Results: center sharpness was the same, even at 200%. But surprisingly the edge sharpness was also the same, even maybe slightly better for the non-L lens. I realise that there is more than sharpness to characterize the qualities of a lens, but still I found this result remarkable. By the way, I also own the RF 50mm f/1.2 which was included in the test and destroys everything else at that focal length but that is what you expect.
RF 24-105mm F4 L IS USM: edge sharpness
RF 24-240mm F4-6.3 IS USM: edge sharpness
As more people start shooting 4k and then 8k manual focus will start to become more and more impossible... fact. It doesn't matter how good the optics are if you can't get it in focus.
Your statement about manual focus lenses is nonsense too. The focus assist of my R enables me to have perfect focus every shot with my Samyang 50mm f/1.2 XP. All it takes is just a little time, so for the speed you're limited, but for accuracy there are zero problems. The era manual focus lenses become usable has just started.
It's true that you can get close pretty easily, but as for "perfect focus every shot"? Not a chance in heck. Not unless you use 10x zoom for every shot and carefully set focus on a tripod of a perfectly static subject. Then maybe you could get "perfect focus every shot".
But as for shooting hand held and shooting a model, event, wedding, or sports?
I only have this to say: "Good Luck With That"
--
From 1/250th and faster IS is not an advantage.DA said that on a tripod the Sigma Art and Otus were sharper but hand held the Canon 85mm f1.4 was maybe sharper because the other two lenses are have no stabilizaitonSorry, DA compared the EF 85mm f/1.4 L IS USM to three other lenses, the Sigma Art, the Tamron f/1.8 VC, and yes, also that Otus. And yes, the Canon L was a bit disappointing wide open, but that was also compared to the other two options. Dustin Abbott did mention - as always - the downside of manual focus lenses. He did also mention sharpness and contrast isn't everything in a portrait lens. He mentioned the Canon having the best light transmission, and nice bokeh.To be fair, there is some evidence that copy variation is slightly worse with this lens. That said, DA seems to be a bit of a lens snob. I was put off when he compared the Canon EF 85mm f/1.4 L to the Zeiss Otus 85mm. Forgetting the fact that the Canon is half the price, he also seemed to ignore the reality of shooting with a fast 85mm constrained to manual focus.Dustin Abbott says in this review of this lens: “Not particularly sharp at any focal length”.
Since I got the impression that my images with this lens were very sharp, I decided to do some pixel peeping of my own. I also own the RF 24-105mm F4 L IS USM which was used for this comparison.
A book shelf with books was shot as test target with the R5 from a tripod using both lenses at 50mm focal length. The aperture was set to f/5.0 being the largest aperture for the RF 24-240mm at 50mm, ASA setting was 400. Three images were taken with the same settings but with different locations of the AF-point: utmost left, center and utmost right. Its purpose was to verify that the sensor plane was parallel to the plane of the test target.
A crop of 900x1600 pixels was made of the left edge of the image in DPP using the raw images without any sharpening. The images were converted to jpeg for this forum.
Results: center sharpness was the same, even at 200%. But surprisingly the edge sharpness was also the same, even maybe slightly better for the non-L lens. I realise that there is more than sharpness to characterize the qualities of a lens, but still I found this result remarkable. By the way, I also own the RF 50mm f/1.2 which was included in the test and destroys everything else at that focal length but that is what you expect.
RF 24-105mm F4 L IS USM: edge sharpness
RF 24-240mm F4-6.3 IS USM: edge sharpness
I don't know why you are framing Dustin Abbott as a reviewer with a total lack of nuance, but you don't impress me with that kind of nonsense, sorry.
It's all close, but the Canon was the softest wide open, and had the most CA.
I don't do that kind of shooting, but i believe you. And i agree that can be a huge advantage. I think both my 105mm Art and RF 85mm f/2.0 aren't up to these tasks, however, if i need fast AF i switch to my 50mm Art or 24-70mm mkII.
I'm just an amateur, when i'm done with the weight I'm done with shooting. I can imagine weight is a factor when you have to get a job done.
I'm with you on that last one. I turned up the reds slightly in my R to compensate a bit. This makes the Sigmas red enough, and still the Canon lenses not too red for me.
Sigma is a great lens for people just starting out with photography!From 1/250th and faster IS is not an advantage.DA said that on a tripod the Sigma Art and Otus were sharper but hand held the Canon 85mm f1.4 was maybe sharper because the other two lenses are have no stabilizaitonSorry, DA compared the EF 85mm f/1.4 L IS USM to three other lenses, the Sigma Art, the Tamron f/1.8 VC, and yes, also that Otus. And yes, the Canon L was a bit disappointing wide open, but that was also compared to the other two options. Dustin Abbott did mention - as always - the downside of manual focus lenses. He did also mention sharpness and contrast isn't everything in a portrait lens. He mentioned the Canon having the best light transmission, and nice bokeh.To be fair, there is some evidence that copy variation is slightly worse with this lens. That said, DA seems to be a bit of a lens snob. I was put off when he compared the Canon EF 85mm f/1.4 L to the Zeiss Otus 85mm. Forgetting the fact that the Canon is half the price, he also seemed to ignore the reality of shooting with a fast 85mm constrained to manual focus.Dustin Abbott says in this review of this lens: “Not particularly sharp at any focal length”.
Since I got the impression that my images with this lens were very sharp, I decided to do some pixel peeping of my own. I also own the RF 24-105mm F4 L IS USM which was used for this comparison.
A book shelf with books was shot as test target with the R5 from a tripod using both lenses at 50mm focal length. The aperture was set to f/5.0 being the largest aperture for the RF 24-240mm at 50mm, ASA setting was 400. Three images were taken with the same settings but with different locations of the AF-point: utmost left, center and utmost right. Its purpose was to verify that the sensor plane was parallel to the plane of the test target.
A crop of 900x1600 pixels was made of the left edge of the image in DPP using the raw images without any sharpening. The images were converted to jpeg for this forum.
Results: center sharpness was the same, even at 200%. But surprisingly the edge sharpness was also the same, even maybe slightly better for the non-L lens. I realise that there is more than sharpness to characterize the qualities of a lens, but still I found this result remarkable. By the way, I also own the RF 50mm f/1.2 which was included in the test and destroys everything else at that focal length but that is what you expect.
RF 24-105mm F4 L IS USM: edge sharpness
RF 24-240mm F4-6.3 IS USM: edge sharpness
I don't know why you are framing Dustin Abbott as a reviewer with a total lack of nuance, but you don't impress me with that kind of nonsense, sorry.
It's all close, but the Canon was the softest wide open, and had the most CA.
I don't do that kind of shooting, but i believe you. And i agree that can be a huge advantage. I think both my 105mm Art and RF 85mm f/2.0 aren't up to these tasks, however, if i need fast AF i switch to my 50mm Art or 24-70mm mkII.
I'm just an amateur, when i'm done with the weight I'm done with shooting. I can imagine weight is a factor when you have to get a job done.
I'm with you on that last one. I turned up the reds slightly in my R to compensate a bit. This makes the Sigmas red enough, and still the Canon lenses not too red for me.
Sigma ART Canon EF mount series are in my view great sharp prime lenses. I have the 50, 85 and 135 Art as well as many of the Canon primes at the same FL. The Sigmas are big and heavy and need a little red tweak but they are sharper than any of three Canon EF 50mm (f1.0, f1.4, & f1.8), two Canon EF 85mm (f1.2 ii, f1.4) and Canon 135mm (f2). The sharpness difference in corners was not really noticeable to my standard at 20MP sensor camera but began to be weakly observable in the corners at 30MP. Now have a R5 on preorder and expect the Sigmas corners will show up even more. However, others around me rarely notice this and think I am crazy for using the big heavy monsters. Due to their bulk and weight I use only the my Canon primes which are smaller and have better trustable color for SOOC JPEGs, except in special circumstance in the field where I then do carry them. It also important to note the fact that the Art lenses were half to a third the price of my Canon primes so I do have nearly as money in them as the Canon. lenses. I actually bought all three in excellent nearly new condion used for less than the cost of the any of the RF mount f1.2 Canon primes ($2500) which I did not buy.Sigma is a great lens for people just starting out with photography!From 1/250th and faster IS is not an advantage.DA said that on a tripod the Sigma Art and Otus were sharper but hand held the Canon 85mm f1.4 was maybe sharper because the other two lenses are have no stabilizaitonSorry, DA compared the EF 85mm f/1.4 L IS USM to three other lenses, the Sigma Art, the Tamron f/1.8 VC, and yes, also that Otus. And yes, the Canon L was a bit disappointing wide open, but that was also compared to the other two options. Dustin Abbott did mention - as always - the downside of manual focus lenses. He did also mention sharpness and contrast isn't everything in a portrait lens. He mentioned the Canon having the best light transmission, and nice bokeh.To be fair, there is some evidence that copy variation is slightly worse with this lens. That said, DA seems to be a bit of a lens snob. I was put off when he compared the Canon EF 85mm f/1.4 L to the Zeiss Otus 85mm. Forgetting the fact that the Canon is half the price, he also seemed to ignore the reality of shooting with a fast 85mm constrained to manual focus.Dustin Abbott says in this review of this lens: “Not particularly sharp at any focal length”.
Since I got the impression that my images with this lens were very sharp, I decided to do some pixel peeping of my own. I also own the RF 24-105mm F4 L IS USM which was used for this comparison.
A book shelf with books was shot as test target with the R5 from a tripod using both lenses at 50mm focal length. The aperture was set to f/5.0 being the largest aperture for the RF 24-240mm at 50mm, ASA setting was 400. Three images were taken with the same settings but with different locations of the AF-point: utmost left, center and utmost right. Its purpose was to verify that the sensor plane was parallel to the plane of the test target.
A crop of 900x1600 pixels was made of the left edge of the image in DPP using the raw images without any sharpening. The images were converted to jpeg for this forum.
Results: center sharpness was the same, even at 200%. But surprisingly the edge sharpness was also the same, even maybe slightly better for the non-L lens. I realise that there is more than sharpness to characterize the qualities of a lens, but still I found this result remarkable. By the way, I also own the RF 50mm f/1.2 which was included in the test and destroys everything else at that focal length but that is what you expect.
RF 24-105mm F4 L IS USM: edge sharpness
RF 24-240mm F4-6.3 IS USM: edge sharpness
I don't know why you are framing Dustin Abbott as a reviewer with a total lack of nuance, but you don't impress me with that kind of nonsense, sorry.
It's all close, but the Canon was the softest wide open, and had the most CA.
I don't do that kind of shooting, but i believe you. And i agree that can be a huge advantage. I think both my 105mm Art and RF 85mm f/2.0 aren't up to these tasks, however, if i need fast AF i switch to my 50mm Art or 24-70mm mkII.
I'm just an amateur, when i'm done with the weight I'm done with shooting. I can imagine weight is a factor when you have to get a job done.
I'm with you on that last one. I turned up the reds slightly in my R to compensate a bit. This makes the Sigmas red enough, and still the Canon lenses not too red for me.
They don't exist because almost all reviews happen when the lens comes out with the best available camera. They don't get a lot of clicks for reviewing an old lens with a new body. The RF24-240 came out before the R5.
www.flickr.com
