There is no such thing as an FE-mount.

No. Regardless of the size of the sensor, the mount is E-Mount. E for 18, in reference to the 18mm distance between the flange and sensor. There is no such thing as an FE-Mount. Got it? 🤦

If you go to sony.com and search for lenses, they just have two lens mounts listed: A and E.

But some E-mount lenses are E lenses, and some E-mount lenses are FE lenses.

One of the better galleries I have seen in a while.

I think perception is reality. Yes, I get Canon sensors are not as good as Sony. I have poured through the evidence and yes it's absolutely 100% truth. That being said Canon's output, just like Fuji's output is subjectively better than others. If this was just the opinion of a few people it would be a hard argument to make, but I think this is a widely shared view. Even with Canon's shortcomings, the way they render images (the overall look) is subjectively very attractive and appealing. And while there is more to a camera than it's output, at the end of the day it is the output that matters because that is the final product. Subjective analysis it may be, but if that is how most consumers gauge a product than charts and graphs and DXO really have very little value.

To your point. it would be helpful if dpreview was consistent in their galleries. I would love to see these same images shot on a Sony, Fuji, and Nikon. Maybe it's more gut.

I am okay with subjective assessments and I don't put too much stock in pure numerical advantages, but you are presenting your subjective assessment as a consensus assessment. This just isn't the case and there have been blind case studies that show that when people don't know the camera that took a photo, they don't overwhelming prefer Canon or any other brand. Each blind study reveals its own winner, but its not cut and dry enough to say any one brand subjectively produces better results for "most consumers."

I don't agree that its a widely shared view that any brand has consistently superior subjective "look", setting aside the numerical measurements. Further, in the sample presented here, I don't perceive anything to be a "Canon look". They look like nice photos, but I would believe you if you told me they were captured by any modern digital camera.

"I think this is a widely shared view"
More like a widely shared myth. In every single blind test I have seen so far Sony somehow comes out on top with Fuji in the mid-field and Nikon-Canon sharing last place. It's all subjective for sure but I highly doubt that a majority prefers Canon color "science".

Yes, there is such a thing as Canon colors or a Canon look...it's the best around. In the video world, the same thing is said about the Arri look..the Arri colors.

Both Canon and Fuji have a kind of artistic way of rendering, whereas Sony tends to be more clinical.

And yes it is is subjective, but art is subjective. Not everything can be reduced to a spec sheet.

As to those blind tests of camera preference...first of all, there haven't been that many. It's not like it's a peer reviewed area of science studied in grad schools. I think one time Tony Northrup put one out. Which brings me to my next point: why trust these blind tests? Who conducts them? What is their methodology? If the people involved know they are part of some blind preference test, that possibly changes their way of judging. So the point is that claiming some unnamed blind test is no more valid than simply asserting that most people prefer Canon colors.

We do not need a blind test, the Sony forum is filled with threads on how to get good skin tones, how to fix colors, and how to emulate Canon colors. That is telling.

If you want to perpetuate your belief system rather than actually run tests to confirm it, so be it. There have been good blind tests, you can choose to ignore them. More confirmation bias.

This is an outdated micro-religion that Canon has magically better colors or some specific look. At most, Canon's white balance errs on the warm side, if you like that *default*, you can emulate it on any camera. I used Canon for decades and loved it. I switched to Sony and never once noticed a difference with color working with raw files on both. My story is anecdotal, but there has been no scientific confirmation of preference for any brands "colors" or "look" either, so its just gut feelings and forum posts. Your opinion is fine, but don't be surprised when more and more people call you on the idea that *most consumers* hold the same belief.

Northup's test was a joke. At the time he almost admitted it. And this joke test has been amplified into "two studies have shown" through social media.

I shoot a Canon 5DS R every week on a similar event next to a Sony A7 III, both with very good glass (L glass on the 5DS R and Zeiss glass on the A7 III). The Sony files can be made attractive. The Canon files look great straight out of the gate. Canon does have a knack for rendering skin tone beautifully.

They wouldn't be ridiculed by true pros, because both the R and the RP are not professional cameras. And those huge new RF L lenses are mostly overkill optics for the non-pro photographers who could have been interested in getting into the RF mount system, if there were cheaper and smaller RF lenses available to begin with. Because, honestly, the R cameras alone are not really that exciting, specially when we have to adapt old EF lenses to them, which we can do with Sony bodies just as well. I mean, I have no problem with adapting lenses, but then what's the point really. Why not just use a proper EF mount camera instead.

> Should Canon make them EF or RF.

Canon has the market share and budget to introduce whatever they want. A Nikon Z6 50mm f1.8 arrived yesterday. I'm disappointed to see that these DSLR manufacturers (including Sony as their 55mm ZA f1.8 is very long if not big) are not taking advantage of the wide lens mount and short flange distance to make very compact lenses–think Leica M. One of the important advantages of mirrorless for me is very compact lenses. In ten years, people will look back and ask what photographers were thinking of buying these 1.2 Kg expensive bricks for lenses (think Sigma Art, think Leica SL, think Panasonic S, think Canon R; Nikon Z and Sony E are sort of sitting on the fence with some slightly slower, reasonably compact optics).

These smaller lenses should not be less in quality btw. Just smaller and somewhat less expensive (not as fast, not as much glass). But in the same quality gamma as Sony's Sonnar or Canon's L. I'm not looking for small cheap crappy kit style mini-zooms or even primes.

"Resolution and contrast is as good as or even better than from the Zeiss 28mm f1.4 Otus..." Camera Labs. Only Loca wide open and fussy bokeh keep it from a top rating.

Zeiss Otus: $5000.
Nikon 35mm S $850

I call that pretty remarkable actually.

actually, the usual participants seem to be leaving this article alone. I guess they are busily making up their talking points.

Maybe they went on holiday for Memorial Day.

Xerojay, this sure sounded to ME to be a Sony Troll: "But where is the higher image quality that the new mount promised? The new mount would be so much better because it was wider. But apparently we either pay a lot more or we get the same as we had before." But it could just be a disgruntled Canon owner who expected un-realistic miracles from the R-mount.

Why would there be Sony bashing on a Canon thread? All I ever see is anger expressed because of incessant taunting by Sony fans.

Un-realistic miracles from the R-mount? That's what canon has on the lens page. They're the ones promising "stunning clarity and sharpness" and saying the lens was "designed for optical excellence".

cdembrey, Where does that quote that you used ever mention Sony at all?! It sounds to ME like you're taking anything negative toward Canon as Sony trolling.
What I do see here are comments like this:
"The lens almost half of Sony shooters wish to have..."
and
"Classic Canon colors. No subpar Sony colors here."

Those are Canon fans bashing Sony, not the other way around.

"As expected, lots of Sony Trolls."

Funny, just in the post below this Mr. @mpb002 said: "Classic Canon colors. No subpar Sony colors here." I would say, as expected, lots of Canon trolls.

So, you are both spreading this stupid BS propaganda and lies because ...
No reason?
If I'd show you Canon and Sony images side by side, could you even tell which is which?

I will get an RP with this lens once I can get both for $1200. It will happen.

Lol not even a year.

Why a decade, the Sony a7 dropped to very low prices in 3-4 years or less? It's now less than half what the RP costs, used of course. Waiting a few years is boring though, if it happens in a year or less that would be great.

But where is the higher image quality that the new mount promised? The new mount would be so much better because it was wider. But apparently we either pay a lot more or we get the same as we had before.

this is pretty cheap and smaller looking compared to the nikon z 35 f1.8s lens.

Who said that mirrorless technology provides better image quality?

Spectro, you're right. So where is that extra quality that the amazing new mounts would bring?

If memory serves correct, both EF and RF share the same (or very similar) mount diameter. The biggest difference here is the flange distance.

It was the new Nikon mount that was much wider when compared to their previous iteration.

pannumon, https://www.canon.co.uk/lenses/rf-lenses/

"RF Lenses
Explore the range of next generation EOS R System lenses designed for optical excellence.

Lenses for a new era
RF lenses offer higher quality and speed with a performance optimised for the EOS R camera. They are fast and bright with unique qualities that offer new levels of intuitive control."

Canon said it.

And they also say:

"A new chapter in image quality
The RF 35mm F1.8 MACRO IS STM employs an advanced optical design, including Super Spectra Coating. The RF Mount lens mount places the lens closer to the sensor for stunning clarity and sharpness."

@pantunes I think it is very limited to some lenses. Larger aperture potential maybe at the wider angle. Like the Nikon F couldn't do a 50mm f1.2 with AF as it would be too big or you just lose too much glass to the sensor. It is possible to allow for maybe more sharpness on ultra wide. The S lenses are showing they are sharper then the old F mount lenses on the same aperture and focal length. A 35mm focal length is the same on all lenses that is physic, what designers can do is shorten the optic infront of the 35mm focal distant to be more compact. Manual lenses can be more compact because they don't have AF or VR, but I don't want manual focus lenses. I don't think telephoto lenses benefit as much from the wider mount, just the wider lenses. Canon EF mount was already pretty big, you see it more on nikon transition to milc then on canon.

I don't see it as "no better than" or "same price." Looks like there are a few improvements over the EF/2, at a lower cost point.

As far as differences: The RF 35/1.8 is 30g lighter than the EF 35/2 (305g vs 335g), has a shorter minimum focus distance (0.17m vs 0.24m), and is 1/3-stop faster.

From a cost perspective: Using Amazon as reference, the RF is $100 less expensive ($449 vs $549).

it's cheaper at release than the 35mm 2.0 IS USM (499 versus 849), faster with 1.8 versus 2.0 and offers a much shorter MFD with it being 17cm versus 25cm.

it also offers a much higher performing MTF, which would indicate that it would do better than the Canon EF 35mm 2.0 with high resolution cameras.

what more would you expect from a fairly cheap full frame lens - it basically bests it's EF counterpart in every way and it is 70% of the price at launch.

@PAntunes that's called marketing. Like the new $24,000 Leica that will awake "the drifter" in you lol.

Marketing? I would call it lying...

Sigh.....

it's not lying. there are demonstratable differences between the two lenses you are comparing, including their base MTF's and the new one was released 30% cheaper than the EF version and is better in every way. what more do you want? an L prime lens for 499?

Not to mention it's clear that the element design is COMPLETELY different between RF and EF simply because of the registration distance and what it allows.

Heck Canon even made a presentation specifically about these two lenses and the benefits of the RF mount

Not sure what you are expecting, or if you are simply nitpicking.

@ PAntunes
The claim Canon made was
"RF Lenses
Explore the range of next generation EOS R System lenses designed for optical excellence.

Lenses for a new era
RF lenses offer higher quality and speed with a performance optimised for the EOS R camera. They are fast and bright with unique qualities that offer new levels of intuitive control."
Nowhere was it said they will be better because of the mount.
What is true is that they will be better because they are new designs for a new body. Some lenses may well be optimized to higher IQ as a consequence of a shorter flange distance but not all. I am also puzzled as to where your evidence of the same performance as the EF 35 f2 comes from?

AFAIK only Nikon claimed better IQ because of their mount and that would be because they were getting scolded by the internet trolls for years.

rrc1967, this lens doesn't even have the stunning clarity and sharpness. Even if you don't compare it to a specific lens, it doesn't deliver on canon's promises.

looks fine to me. again, that's a matter of interpretation because they didn't compare it to anything else to establish a baseline.

doing a quick check against some underwelcome lenses;

"Five aspherical elements and one ED glass element in a state-of-the-art optical path suppress aberration for outstanding clarity and beautiful rendering throughout the range. "

another..

"Aspherical lens elements minimise distortion while ED (Extra-low Dispersion) glass elements provide superior contrast, resolution, and colour fidelity."

here's another..

"... reduces ghosting and interior flare across a wide range of wavelengths for even greater image clarity.2 extra-low dispersion (ED) elements offers superior sharpness and color correction by effectively minimizing chromatic aberration, even at the widest aperture setting."

They all state things like this. have you never looked at product literature before?

@PAntunes
There are two ideas in that sentence. The first is the claim that the RF mount brings the lens closer to the sensor. The second idea of stunning clarity has to follow as the lens used on any other mount would not deliver this.
Your conflation is intended by the marketers but the actual parsing doesn't actually prove anything.

IMO this would level the playing field against some with baked in , or automatic corrections.

I processed 448A3322.CR3 in the latest DPP4 (which I'm not really a fan of) with the Fine Detail Picture Style and DLO enabled (but nothing else) and it's kinda night-and-day vs DPReview's ACR11 version... with DPP being the Sunny one...

By using such gear for OOC JPEGs you are simply wasting it.

"buying what gear? the cheapest 35mm that canon offers?"
- FF gear. And I think I'm going to keep my 3x cheaper (than the cheapest, apparently) 40 pancake.

"not everyone believes that to be a pro you have to shoot raw"
- I don't care what snapshooters, dilettantes and blind people prefer. I'm not a pro and I shoot RAW for myself, because I actually care how it looks.

"I know a fair amount of pros that use JPEG. they simply nail their exposures and white balance."
- Which isn't even possible to do every single time. But it tells a lot about their professionalism.

I see people trying to justify using this kind of gear with all sorts of superstitious mantras, like "Canon colors" or "Micro contrast" and other ignorant nonsense. Which means that they don't even understand what makes it ("such gear") so special. And the answer is - The same thing that makes RAWs much nicer than JPEGs. The higher image quality. Which comes from the extra information that larger sensors can gather.

The OOC JPEG is just a vague interpretation of that information, which most of the time isn't representing the reality correctly. In other words, none of them look lifelike. And picking cameras by their default output is very amateurish.