- Jun 22, 2021
- 267
- 287
I call these “sales tax lenses”. Because their cost is about the sales tax on the alternative lenses.
Upvote
0
I rather always have a corrected viewfinder… like 99.999% of users. Without corrected viewfinder you cannot tell straight lines or leading lines, let alone the extreme vignetting and guessing how much of the image will be cut off when correcting.It seems a bit silly that you can't turn off distortion correction in camera, what if people want to use that distortion for an artistic effect? They should just leave it up to the user if they want to turn the correction on or off.
Trouble is: these electronic corrections come at a cost, namely decrease of sharpness due to "corner stretching". But I guess this is acceptable for a $300 lens, designed mostly for street and vlogging.No. They make some very fine and expensive lenses for the nerds who are allergic to corrections, and they make some lenses that perform nicely as an engineered system for people who want to take great pictures with a light and inexpensive lens.
Then again, those $100,000 Mercedes S-class sedans drive like crap with all the computerized traction control systems turned off. Can't Mercedes design a decent car anymore? I also hear the U.S. Air Force has some planes that won't even fly without computers ensuring stability. Talk about a step backward! Why can't they all be as smart as me and design things right?
I would also suggest along the same lines that this RF 16mm is a worthy addition to the 24-240mm all-purpose lens. Together they capture a range of focal lengths that, while not extending to 400mm, is probably still in the 95% of desirable pictures. Throw in the 600mm f:11 as a third and you have a range that is light weight, affordable and yet truly amazing.Well, $300 is a pretty low cost, relatively speaking. I really do think Canon is planning on launching a sub-$800 FF EOS R, and the RP is now $1000. Having an inexpensive FF body with only costly lenses for it is not a recipe for success. But consider – the combination of the RF 16/2.8, RF 24-105 non-L, and RF 100-400 gives a user a very large focal range for a $1350 outlay.
Yes that's pretty much the only lens. The ef 50mm f1.2 L was the most intrinsically un-sharp L prime Canon have ever made. Great Bokeh, contrast and flare resistance. Amazingly well built...but weak if wide open sharpness was your only metric. Even stopped down it never really came close to even a 24-70L at 50mm's level of sharpness. I always found the ef 50mm f1.2L's AF to be inconsistent and ponderous in low light too.The RF 50/1.2 is literally ten times sharper than the EF 50/1.2. The RF 24-105/4 has the sharpness of the EF MkII but the size of the far smaller EF MkI. And the EF version is far optically worse than the 85DS or 28-70/2 as these lenses don't even exist in EF. That's before you even look at IS, or optic quality for a given size. No Victor, you're quite wrong on this point as you seem to be on everything else.
Very well said.No. They make some very fine and expensive lenses for the nerds who are allergic to corrections, and they make some lenses that perform nicely as an engineered system for people who want to take great pictures with a light and inexpensive lens.
Then again, those $100,000 Mercedes S-class sedans drive like crap with all the computerized traction control systems turned off. Can't Mercedes design a decent car anymore? I also hear the U.S. Air Force has some planes that won't even fly without computers ensuring stability. Talk about a step backward! Why can't they all be as smart as me and design things right?
Yes and yes. Every new Digic generation has allowed more DLO to be done in video, with Digic X you get everything minus diffraction correction, if I remember correctly.A general question as I am clueless - are distortion corrections applied to video? I'd imagine that took a lot more processing power?
Jeah, well, but it IS a lense at the lowest possible cost? Especialy at this quite good quality at this price point and small size?Wasn't the RF mount supposed to allow easier engineering of better designs without these optical weaknesses? Watching this review, the way the focus sounds like the original nifty fifty... It feels like they just slapped this together for lowest possible cost.
Cool, thanks!Yes and yes. Every new Digic generation has allowed more DLO to be done in video, with Digic X you get everything minus diffraction correction, if I remember correctly.
1: I'd suggest you take a look at TDP...This line of reasoning is moronic, given that, as I already explained, correction of distortion results in destination pixel being AT WORST the average of two source pixels (linearly), and this very forum is full of pros ranting that 22MP is indeed enough for professional work. And again, the review shows the corners are far less sharp than that.
It's a waste of my time to make me write the same explanation over and over. Just read what I wrote the first time and learn from it and stop making me repost and repost.
As to Mercedes driving like crap, suffice to say I recall an esteemed automotive journalist writing, that Mercedes must tire of delivering a car it thinks measures up, upon which BMW releases a model that not so much moves the goalposts but chucks them over the horizon. My 2000 M5 is still driving like new and handling great and resale value is a high multiple of any contemporary Mercedes.
I've checked the R5 manual at https://cam.start.canon/fa/C003/manual/html/UG-03_Shooting-1_0190.html:Cool, thanks!
This point made me wonder whether mirrorless lenses could now be made as small as typical Leica rangefinder lenses, at least if they were manual focus. And how much additional size would be required to add autofocus?The lack of a mirror allows mirrorless designs to get as close as they want to the film or sensor. In SLR lenses, that is not possible, so where some lens designs would naturally have elements where the mirror is, those designs must be compromised to allow space for the mirror. It's why the EF 35/1.4 was something like ten times the volume of the Leica M 35/1.4 despite not being appreciably better optically.