# Canon explains RF lens technology and why bigger is better (sometimes)



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jun 18, 2019)

> Canon once again talks about the benefits of the bigger diameter RF mount over the older, and smaller lens mounts in the video above.
> So why’ll we wait for more RF lenses, we can at least learn a bit about them.
> From Canon Imagine Plaza:
> Canon proudly introduces a new imaging system, the EOS R System, with RF lenses at its core. But what makes these lenses so outstanding? This video introduces the innovative features of RF lenses that open up new possibilities in photographic expression.



Continue reading...


----------



## rjbray01 (Jun 18, 2019)

so there are three options ..

cheaper lenses at the same quality 
same price lenses at better quality
even more expensive lenses at much better quality

wonder which one we're going to get ... hmmm ...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 18, 2019)

I hear the words. I don’t see the evidence. Maybe someday.


----------



## Del Paso (Jun 18, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> I hear the words. I don’t see the evidence. Maybe someday.


The evidence: the exceptional quality achieved by Leica with wide -angle lenses, the Leica R lenses were always far behind (corner sharpness, contrast, etc...)
I've never had a DSLR lens that was as good as the 18, 21, 24, 28 & 35 mm Asph. M lenses, not even a Zeiss or a Canon. (Yes, I know, this isn't scientific).
Is the short flange distance the main reason ? I tend to believe it has at least a part to play, according to the Leica opticians, it definitely has!


----------



## hmatthes (Jun 18, 2019)

If you have troubles viewing it, go directly to


----------



## aquagene (Jun 18, 2019)

I really hope we start seeing the smaller lenses this video references. While having the unique L lenses is nice, it would be ideal if they expanded to have more lenses like the 35mm.


----------



## MrFotoFool (Jun 18, 2019)

Video won't play - give an error message. I will try the alternate link above.


----------



## Maximilian (Jun 18, 2019)

aquagene said:


> I really hope we start seeing the smaller lenses this video references. While having the unique L lenses is nice, it would be ideal if they expanded to have more lenses like the 35mm.


100% same opinion here.


----------



## BillB (Jun 18, 2019)

Maximilian said:


> 100% same opinion here.


A small mid range zoom would be good too.


----------



## MrFotoFool (Jun 18, 2019)

Ok now I could see it. So (according to video) the advantage of RF (shorter back distance) is less refraction but the disadvantage is more ghosting and flaring. They go to lengths to explain how they correct for this, but they also say how they correct for refraction in EF lenses. So both mounts have a problem and solution, it's just a different problem.

Also the final sample image (antelope or bighorn sheep grazing in a field) is underexposed and IMO a bad photo - certainly they could have used a better nature photo?


----------



## docsmith (Jun 18, 2019)

Uh oh....Canon is trying to keep our attention on RF lenses with fancy videos....not fancy newly released lenses. I wonder if they've hit a hitch it releasing the lenses announced in February.


----------



## Pape (Jun 18, 2019)

MrFotoFool said:


> Ok now I could see it. So (according to video) the advantage of RF (shorter back distance) is less refraction but the disadvantage is more ghosting and flaring. They go to lengths to explain how they correct for this, but they also say how they correct for refraction in EF lenses. So both mounts have a problem and solution, it's just a different problem.
> 
> Also the final sample image (antelope or bighorn sheep grazing in a field) is underexposed and IMO a bad photo - certainly they could have used a better nature photo?


i hope it doesnt mean next R camera got that bad dynamic range


----------



## BillB (Jun 18, 2019)

MrFotoFool said:


> Ok now I could see it. So (according to video) the advantage of RF (shorter back distance) is less refraction but the disadvantage is more ghosting and flaring. They go to lengths to explain how they correct for this, but they also say how they correct for refraction in EF lenses. So both mounts have a problem and solution, it's just a different problem.
> 
> Also the final sample image (antelope or bighorn sheep grazing in a field) is underexposed and IMO a bad photo - certainly they could have used a better nature photo?


Canon has a long tradition of putting out unpersuasive photographic examples what their new products can do


----------



## magarity (Jun 18, 2019)

MrFotoFool said:


> Also the final sample image (antelope or bighorn sheep grazing in a field) is underexposed and IMO a bad photo - certainly they could have used a better nature photo?


Maybe the antelope were just photobombing the sunset shot?


----------



## KirkD (Jun 18, 2019)

The new RF 50mm f1.2 is evidence of what an R lens mount system can do. Check out its image quality here https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=1225


----------



## unfocused (Jun 18, 2019)

The takeaway: Those R lenses have got to be high quality because the narrator speaks with a British accent. (Standard American reaction).


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 18, 2019)

Del Paso said:


> The evidence: the exceptional quality achieved by Leica with wide -angle lenses, the Leica R lenses were always far behind (corner sharpness, contrast, etc...)
> I've never had a DSLR lens that was as good as the 18, 21, 24, 28 & 35 mm Asph. M lenses, not even a Zeiss or a Canon. (Yes, I know, this isn't scientific).
> Is the short flange distance the main reason ? I tend to believe it has at least a part to play, according to the Leica opticians, it definitely has!


How many of your DLSR lenses cost $3K and up? I tend to believe that the Zeiss Otus lenses offer excellent IQ, equal of better to lenses with short flange distances. But like Leica ASPH lenses, they aren't cheap. The evidence definitely supports that more expensive lenses can deliver better IQ. But shorter flange? Not so much.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 18, 2019)

KirkD said:


> The new RF 50mm f1.2 is evidence of what an R lens mount system can do. Check out its image quality here https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=1225


Compare it to the Zeiss Otus 55mm for the EF mount.


----------



## Adelino (Jun 18, 2019)

BillB said:


> Canon has a long tradition of putting out unpersuasive photographic examples what their new products can do


The ones form the RF 85 1.2 are nice though.


----------



## Del Paso (Jun 18, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> How many of your DLSR lenses cost $3K and up? I tend to believe that the Zeiss Otus lenses offer excellent IQ, equal of better to lenses with short flange distances. But like Leica ASPH lenses, they aren't cheap. The evidence definitely supports that more expensive lenses can deliver better IQ. But shorter flange? Not so much.


Leica lenses cost more because they are produced in ridiculous quantities compared to Canon and Cosina made Zeiss lenses.
Price doesn't explain everything...but getting wide-angle lenses closer to the sensor can (mustn't) be an advantage.
This certainly doesn't apply to teles (Canon's big whites are at least as good as the discontinued Leica Apo teles, most certainly even better).
PS: I too prefer DSLR over mirrorless...


----------



## degos (Jun 18, 2019)

KirkD said:


> The new RF 50mm f1.2 is evidence of what an R lens mount system can do.



Yet Sigma got 99% of the way there with the wider 40mm 1.4 Art on the ancient and useless EF mount, and with a lot less vignetting to boot.

Oh, and at half the price.


----------



## MayaTlab (Jun 18, 2019)

degos said:


> Yet Sigma got 99% of the way there with the wider 40mm 1.4 Art on the ancient and useless EF mount, and with a lot less vignetting to boot.
> 
> Oh, and at half the price.



More like 120% IMO. The Sigma's performance is quite a bit better off axis (less astigmatism maybe - at least a better point light source performance - and better capacity to carry its central bokeh behaviour to the edges).

Some people, me included, hoped that the new mount would facilitate the design of lenses with lower vignetting, but the 50 RF isn't any better than its predecessor and just like it basically wastes its physical f1.2 aperture as a good part of the frame can't even see it past a typical portrait focusing distance.


----------



## KirkD (Jun 18, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> Compare it to the Zeiss Otus 55mm for the EF mount.


Stopping the RF 50 f1.2 lens down to f1.4 so I can compare apples to apples, the image quality of the Zeiss 55 f1.4 lens is very slightly better, but the Zeiss is $1,000 more at B&H, does not have autofocus, and does not open up to f1.2. I would like to see what a Zeiss f1.2 would cost if they made one. The Sigma 40mm f1.4 Art is phenomenal, but it might be a bit unfair to compare a lens designed at f1.4 with a lens designed to open up to f1.2. That being said, Sigma is amazing, and really forces the other manufacturers to up their game.


----------



## Don Haines (Jun 18, 2019)

KirkD said:


> Stopping the RF 50 f1.2 lens down to f1.4 so I can compare apples to apples, the image quality of the Zeiss 55 f1.4 lens is very slightly better, but the Zeiss is $1,000 more at B&H, does not have autofocus, and does not open up to f1.2. I would like to see what a Zeiss f1.2 would cost if they made one.



It would certainly cost more than the car that I am driving.......


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 18, 2019)

KirkD said:


> Stopping the RF 50 f1.2 lens down to f1.4 so I can compare apples to apples, the image quality of the Zeiss 55 f1.4 lens is very slightly better, but the Zeiss is $1,000 more at B&H, does not have autofocus, and does not open up to f1.2. I would like to see what a Zeiss f1.2 would cost if they made one. The Sigma 40mm f1.4 Art is phenomenal, but it might be a bit unfair to compare a lens designed at f1.4 with a lens designed to open up to f1.2. That being said, Sigma is amazing, and really forces the other manufacturers to up their game.


In other words, a lens for the EF mount offers equivalent image quality to a similar lens for the RF amount. As I keep saying, I’m still waiting to see (not hear marketing talk about) actual benefits from the short flange distance.

Incidentally, despite the Canon RF 50 mm being f/1.2 and the Zeiss Otis and Milvus 50 mm (-ish) lenses being f/1.4, all three of them deliver the same amount of light, 1.5 T-stops. 

I also find it amusing that Canon keeps talking about the ‘larger mount’. The throat diameter of the RF mount is 1 mm larger than that of the EF mount…a whole millimeter, wow, that’s almost a 2% difference!


----------



## MayaTlab (Jun 18, 2019)

KirkD said:


> The Sigma 40mm f1.4 Art is phenomenal, but it might be a bit unfair to compare a lens designed at f1.4 with a lens designed to open up to f1.2.


Not when a lens vignettes like the 50mm RF.
Vignetting is basically like reducing the aperture in the sagittal and sometimes tangential axis, and cuts the more aberrent light rays in the corners, so vignetting basically facilitates corner performance as well as increases DOF.
The 50mm RF's corners are sufficiently vignetted that they never ever see the lens' physical f1.2 aperture in both axis.
From that perspective while it's certainly a very well corrected lens in the corners, I don't see it as such an impressive feat in light of what the Sigma 40mm achieves. besides, the latter is a wider angle on a more challenging mount, so...

Just a little game, using Mirrorless Comparison's youtube review of the 50mm RF. I've selected their f1.2 and f1.4 samples, turned them to B&W and somewhat harmonised the brightness difference. Then I deliberately put a somewhat small dark circle in the centre of the frame. Now let's play. Which one if the f1.2 shot ? Which one if the f1.4  ?






So what is that small circle ? At this focusing distance this is the extent of the image area where you're going to see some difference between f1.2 and f1.4 on the 50mm RF. And note that the above shot is a 16:9 crop for a youtube video, so it's even less of the total area for a 3:2 picture. And even then I don't think that there's a lot of room to pretend that this small difference is going to make the shot - certainly not compared to other areas of bokeh performance.




At short - very short - focusing distances it seems to me that the 50 RF has less vignetting so you may see more tangible benefits to the aperture. But at portrait focusing distances its f1.2 physical aperture is rendered nearly useless by the vignetting.


----------



## pixel8foto (Jun 18, 2019)

MrFotoFool said:


> Also the final sample image (antelope or bighorn sheep grazing in a field) is underexposed and IMO a bad photo - certainly they could have used a better nature photo?


Doesn't look underexposed to me. It looks like the photographer has exposed to keep the colour in the sunset and avoid blowing highlights and then pushed the shadows after. I think I'd make the same choice.


----------



## jd7 (Jun 19, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> In other words, a lens for the EF mount offers equivalent image quality to a similar lens for the RF amount. As I keep saying, I’m still waiting to see (not hear marketing talk about) actual benefits from the short flange distance.
> 
> Incidentally, despite the Canon RF 50 mm being f/1.2 and the Zeiss Otis and Milvus 50 mm (-ish) lenses being f/1.4, all three of them deliver the same amount of light, 1.5 T-stops.
> 
> I also find it amusing that Canon keeps talking about the ‘larger mount’. The throat diameter of the RF mount is 1 mm larger than that of the EF mount…a whole millimeter, wow, that’s almost a 2% difference!


I thought the EF and RF mounts are both 54mm diameter? Have I missed something? Is "throat diameter" something different from what I'm talking about?


----------



## jd7 (Jun 19, 2019)

KirkD said:


> The new RF 50mm f1.2 is evidence of what an R lens mount system can do. Check out its image quality here https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=1225


My take is that the RF 50 f/1.2 is evidence of what a large, heavy and expensive 50mm lens can do these days. Whether it is evidence of what the RF lens mount can do, I'm not so sure. It doesn't seem to be blowing away lenses such as the EF mount Zeiss Otus 55 and the Sigma 50 Art, and as others have said above, optically the Sigma 40 Art seems even better than the RF 50 at a substantially lower price.

At this point, the only thing really interesting me about the R system is the ability to place a focus point just about anywhere in the frame ... and perhaps the slightly smaller and lighter camera body size (although that has disadvantages as well as advantages). Factoring in what I see as disadvantages (lesser battery life, having to use an EVF instead of an OVF (yeah I know some people prefer EVF), most RF native lenses are expensive and bulky), I am very happy sticking with DSLRs and the EF system for the time being.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jun 19, 2019)

Pape said:


> i hope it doesnt mean next R camera got that bad dynamic range


It’s very unlikely any ILC coming down the pipe will have “bad dynamic range.” None has from any major vendor in years.


----------



## Kit. (Jun 19, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> I also find it amusing that Canon keeps talking about the ‘larger mount’. The throat diameter of the RF mount is 1 mm larger than that of the EF mount…a whole millimeter, wow, that’s almost a 2% difference!


I don't see Canon talking about a 'larg_er_ mount'. I see Canon talking about a 'large mount' allowing to put a large glass element clos_er_ to the sensor.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 19, 2019)

jd7 said:


> I thought the EF and RF mounts are both 54mm diameter? Have I missed something? Is "throat diameter" something different from what I'm talking about?


Nope, I’ve missed something. Thanks fir the correction! You’re right, same diameter for EF and RF. (I was recalling that the Nikon Z mount is 1 mm larger in diameter.)

Makes the discussion of the ‘larger mount’ more ridiculous, as it pertains to ‘advantages’ over the EF mount, as some here claim (without evidence). Obviously the RF mount is larger than Sony’s E-mount.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 19, 2019)

Kit. said:


> I don't see Canon talking about a 'larg_er_ mount'. I see Canon talking about a 'large mount' allowing to put a large glass element clos_er_ to the sensor.


Not Canon. Forum members.

Even this main forum post (and thread) by CRguy started with, “Canon once again talks about the benefits of the _bigger diameter RF mount_...”


----------



## deleteme (Jun 19, 2019)

Del Paso said:


> The evidence: the exceptional quality achieved by Leica with wide -angle lenses, the Leica R lenses were always far behind (corner sharpness, contrast, etc...)
> I've never had a DSLR lens that was as good as the 18, 21, 24, 28 & 35 mm Asph. M lenses, not even a Zeiss or a Canon. (Yes, I know, this isn't scientific).
> Is the short flange distance the main reason ? I tend to believe it has at least a part to play, according to the Leica opticians, it definitely has!


The challenge for the M lenses is that they were designed for film. On digital sensors other than Leica M series cameras the IQ at the edges suffers. If Canon were to make tiny little manual focus lenses with no IS they would still have the hurdle of edge smearing.


----------



## koenkooi (Jun 19, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> Nope, I’ve missed something. Thanks fir the correction! You’re right, same diameter for EF and RF. (I was recalling that the Nikon Z mount is 1 mm larger in diameter.)
> 
> Makes the discussion of the ‘larger mount’ more ridiculous, as it pertains to ‘advantages’ over the EF mount, as some here claim (without evidence). Obviously the RF mount is larger than Sony’s E-mount.



ISTR that Canon said things like the electronic contacts were smaller so that the RF has more useable space while keeping the same diameter. I can't check that myself since I don't have a FF EF mount camera.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 19, 2019)

koenkooi said:


> ISTR that Canon said things like the electronic contacts were smaller so that the RF has more useable space while keeping the same diameter. I can't check that myself since I don't have a FF EF mount camera.


The contact area seems to protrude about the same distance into the mount on my R and 1D X. The no-mirror box on the R definitely looks spacious, though.


----------



## Architect1776 (Jun 19, 2019)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...



I would like to see Canon do like they did with many EFS lenses. There are some very sharp ones but inexpensive (10-18mm) and this could be translated into the RF mount. Most of us do not need the built like a tank lens just a good quality optically. Take out the IS once the IBIS is available in all the lenses that do not fully benefit from IS and IBIS is just fine. I would then like to see the lenses come down substantially in size and weight. Look at the old FD lenses for size inspiration, the FD 80-200mm is petite compared to the EF equivalent today. I have no problem with f4 lenses as we have insanely high ISOs available now. How did we ever survive with Kodachrome 64 and the slow lenses of the same period? Great shots were made then through real skill and talent.
Bottom line I would like smaller very sharp not super large aperture lenses to match the RF mount.


----------



## BillB (Jun 19, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> Not Canon. Forum members.
> 
> Even this main forum post (and thread) by CRguy started with, “Canon once again talks about the benefits of the _bigger diameter RF mount_...”


Canon talks about the mount permitting larger diameter lens elements closer to the lens, which would be the result of the shorter flange distance, since the RF mount opening is the same size as the EF. One effect is that the front lens can be smaller than that of comparable EF lenses. The difference between the front lens size of the RF 35 f1.8 and the EF 35 f2.0 is striking.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 19, 2019)

BillB said:


> Canon talks about the mount permitting larger diameter lens elements closer to the lens, which would be the result of the shorter flange distance, since the RF mount opening is the same size as the EF. One effect is that the front lens can be smaller than that of comparable EF lenses. The difference between the front lens size of the RF 35 f1.8 and the EF 35 f2.0 is striking.


Yes, with the RF version of the 35mm, Canon has managed to dramatically reduce the size of the front element compared to the EF 35/2 IS. In fact, they’ve managed to make the front element about as small as the one on the old EF 35/2 non-IS...

Now, you were saying something about the advantages of the RF mount?


----------



## BillB (Jun 19, 2019)

Architect1776 said:


> I would like to see Canon do like they did with many EFS lenses. There are some very sharp ones but inexpensive (10-18mm) and this could be translated into the RF mount. Most of us do not need the built like a tank lens just a good quality optically. Take out the IS once the IBIS is available in all the lenses that do not fully benefit from IS and IBIS is just fine. I would then like to see the lenses come down substantially in size and weight. Look at the old FD lenses for size inspiration, the FD 80-200mm is petite compared to the EF equivalent today. I have no problem with f4 lenses as we have insanely high ISOs available now. How did we ever survive with Kodachrome 64 and the slow lenses of the same period? Great shots were made then through real skill and talent.
> Bottom line I would like smaller very sharp not super large aperture lenses to match the RF mount.



The RP gives hope that some less expensive lenses may show up, as does the RF 35 f1.8. However these lenses are likely to be larger than an EFS 10-18. A lens equivalent to an EFS 10-18 that would cover a FF sensor would be 16-29. Even with variable maximum aperture this would be a larger and likely more expensive lens than the 10-18. For EF-S and EF-M size and prices, APS-C sized sensor coverage is part of the deal.


----------



## BillB (Jun 19, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> Yes, with the RF version of the 35mm, Canon has managed to dramatically reduce the size of the front element compared to the EF 35/2 IS. In fact, they’ve managed to make the front element about as small as the one on the old EF 35/2 non-IS...
> 
> Now, you were saying something about the advantages of the RF mount?


I said effect, advantage is your word.


----------



## rjbray01 (Jun 19, 2019)

Architect1776 said:


> I would like to see Canon do like they did with many EFS lenses. There are some very sharp ones but inexpensive (10-18mm) and this could be translated into the RF mount. Most of us do not need the built like a tank lens just a good quality optically. Take out the IS once the IBIS is available in all the lenses that do not fully benefit from IS and IBIS is just fine. I would then like to see the lenses come down substantially in size and weight. Look at the old FD lenses for size inspiration, the FD 80-200mm is petite compared to the EF equivalent today. I have no problem with f4 lenses as we have insanely high ISOs available now. How did we ever survive with Kodachrome 64 and the slow lenses of the same period? Great shots were made then through real skill and talent.
> Bottom line I would like smaller very sharp not super large aperture lenses to match the RF mount.



I can't help wondering if the evolution of cameras is going the way of cars ... where the price remains constant, whilst the features just keep getting better and better ... 

or 

the evolution of pocket calculators where they ran out of features and the price just went down and down

Obviously we want great IQ, great subject isolation/bokeh, great ease of use, and most of us would prefer small and lightweight too ...

How close are we to the point of diminishing returns ? 

If the evolution of the mobile phone camera market is anything to do by then I think we are getting pretty close.

I am no optical technician, but I assume that the RF lens mount genuinely is better, although I for one can still remember IBM bringing out "Microchannel Architecture" in their PS/2 range ... which was driven far more by commercial objectives than technological gain ...

Is the RF lens just another attempt at a manufacturer to hold on to its commercial lead ... or does it represent improve the value proposition ... 

I'm not in a position to judge who on this forum is correct from a technical perspective, but market forces will prevail eventually ... 

Personally, I won't be making the very expensive shift from my 5D Mark iv and EF lenses to any mirrorless solution until I feel I'm getting better considerably better value for money than what I've currently got ... 

As to whether the RF mount is really so much better ... well, if it is then surely all the camera manufacturers will be coming up with something similar as the science is now very well understood isn't it ?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 19, 2019)

BillB said:


> I said effect, advantage is your word.


So the effect of the RF mount is to allow similar-sized front elements as EF lenses. I’d say that’s not much of an effect at all. 

Note that I’m basing this on empirical evidence, not marketing statements. Honestly, I’d like to see these purported effects (preferably beneficial ones) of the RF mount. But outside of lens/body communication, I’ve not seen any actual evidence to date.


----------



## koenkooi (Jun 19, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> So the effect of the RF mount is to allow similar-sized front elements as EF lenses. I’d say that’s not much of an effect at all.
> 
> Note that I’m basing this on empirical evidence, not marketing statements. Honestly, I’d like to see these purported effects (preferably beneficial ones) of the RF mount. But outside of lens/body communication, I’ve not seen any actual evidence to date.



It's a bit strange the narrator says (paraphrasing) "Smaller front elements!" and the RF50 is about 5mm wider and the RF85 about 10mm wider than their EF f/1.2 counterparts.
The interview with the designers also had weird statements:

_ Q: Why f/1.2 instead of f/1.4?
A: Because it's harder to design._


----------



## unfocused (Jun 19, 2019)

rjbray01 said:


> I can't help wondering if the evolution of cameras is going the way of cars ... where the price remains constant, whilst the features just keep getting better and better ...
> 
> or
> 
> ...



I'd say "both and neither." And, we are past the point of diminishing returns.

While a car isn't quite a necessity, from a practical standpoint, it is in much of the developed world. Cameras however will never be a necessity for most people. Almost everyone wants to record and preserve moments from their lives, but not being able to do so would not have a major impact on the ability of most people to earn a living. 

Pocket calculators, like cameras, have pretty much been replaced by apps that are readily available on everyone's phone. But calculators were always viewed by most people as something that was handy to have, but not generating a lot of desire. Cameras, like cars, are something that give people perceived joy to own. In fact, it is probably that desire to own that is driving the industry right now as the majority of consumers are finding their phone cameras to be a perfectly usable and a much more convenient replacement.

I do think we reached that point of diminishing returns several years ago. What is driving sales (in my opinion) now days is the desire to have small incremental improvements that we think will help us take better pictures, but which, in all honesty are unlikely to make much difference in most cases. 

I'm as addicted as anyone (I recently ordered a Canon R), but I have to say, I have yet to see anything about this new lens mount that makes me think it will translate into better photographs for me. 

I think Canon took a huge risk when they adopted the new mount. Adapters for EF lenses reduced the risk and cost of adopting the new bodies, but I'm just now sure how successful their RF lens sales will be as long as most R buyers also own a DSLR. I think the general discussion on this thread is a good illustration of the difficulty they face in convincing people of the benefits of the RF mount.


----------



## gruhl28 (Jun 19, 2019)

What an annoying video. Starts with a photo where the stars are badly trailed, then the annoying voice and music, content wasn't explained well. Canon couldn't do better than this?


----------



## Larsskv (Jun 19, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> Yes, with the RF version of the 35mm, Canon has managed to dramatically reduce the size of the front element compared to the EF 35/2 IS. In fact, they’ve managed to make the front element about as small as the one on the old EF 35/2 non-IS...
> 
> Now, you were saying something about the advantages of the RF mount?



Referring to this and earlier posts about the RF mount. As I see it, the RF 50 proves advantages over the EF mount. It pretty much matches the Zeiss Otus 55 in a smaller package, despite being half a stop faster. The RF 28-70 f2 is also unmatched by the EF mount.


----------



## FramerMCB (Jun 19, 2019)

docsmith said:


> Uh oh....Canon is trying to keep our attention on RF lenses with fancy videos....not fancy newly released lenses. I wonder if they've hit a hitch it releasing the lenses announced in February.


No. Just a hitch with the Camera body they wanted to announce with their release... ;-)


----------



## FramerMCB (Jun 19, 2019)

Larsskv said:


> Referring to this and earlier posts about the RF mount. As I see it, the RF 50 proves advantages over the EF mount. It pretty much matches the Zeiss Otus 55 in a smaller package, despite being half a stop faster. The RF 28-70 f2 is also unmatched by the EF mount.


Excepting this proposition/question: could Canon have made these 2 lenses in the EF mount? I'm sure, if they had felt a market was there for it, that they could have made a 50mm f/1.2L Mk III that matches the RF version. They could have probably also made the 28-70mm f/2.0L for EF but they chose to roll these out in the RF mount probably to help convince people to buy an EOS R (and later the RP: and whilst I do see the argument, "who's going to buy a $1,200USD RP and put a near $3,000USD lens on it?", I don't necessarily agree).


----------



## David the street guy (Jun 19, 2019)

hmatthes said:


> If you have troubles viewing it, go directly to



Thanks!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 19, 2019)

Larsskv said:


> Referring to this and earlier posts about the RF mount. As I see it, the RF 50 proves advantages over the EF mount. It pretty much matches the Zeiss Otus 55 in a smaller package, despite being half a stop faster. The RF 28-70 f2 is also unmatched by the EF mount.


As @FramerMCB says, those RF lenses don’t mean an EF version isn’t possible. Would you argue an 800mm f/5.6 for RF is impossible? Incidentally, there are 2.5x T2 (f/1.9) cine zoom lenses in EF mount.


----------



## Photo Hack (Jun 19, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> As @FramerMCB says, those RF lenses don’t mean an EF version isn’t possible. Would you argue an 800mm f/5.6 for RF is impossible? Incidentally, there are 2.5x T2 (f/1.9) cine zoom lenses in EF mount.


Possible isn’t the same as probable. What would a 28-70 f2 in EF look like and what would it take to achieve the same performance, size, and price point?

I don’t know the answer but I would be willing to bet that front element and overall lens would be bigger, more expensive, and never have the benefit of a future IBIS body.

I don’t think marketing is the reason Canon was able to produce this lens on RF. What’s the excuse for all other manufacturers and Sigma for not producing the same type of lens? The best sigma could do is 24-35 f/2.

And further, can Canon produce the same RF 35 on EF and retain the same features? The advantages you’re waiting to see are already happening. The evidence is there whether you want to conclude so or not.

I also find it silly when people compare Leica and Zeiss lenses to Canon.... totally different price points. I mean really? When I see a manual focus lens that costs way more compared to Canon.... if that lens costs the same and has same size and performance as the Canon equivalent I’ll have an open ear.


----------



## Del Paso (Jun 19, 2019)

Normalnorm said:


> The challenge for the M lenses is that they were designed for film. On digital sensors other than Leica M series cameras the IQ at the edges suffers. If Canon were to make tiny little manual focus lenses with no IS they would still have the hurdle of edge smearing.


I strongly disagree!
The old M lenses suffer, this is true, but the new ones are tack-sharp right into the edges. I do use them on Leica digital bodies, and I guarantee you, they are really sharp!


----------



## BillB (Jun 19, 2019)

FramerMCB said:


> Excepting this proposition/question: could Canon have made these 2 lenses in the EF mount? I'm sure, if they had felt a market was there for it, that they could have made a 50mm f/1.2L Mk III that matches the RF version. They could have probably also made the 28-70mm f/2.0L for EF but they chose to roll these out in the RF mount probably to help convince people to buy an EOS R (and later the RP: and whilst I do see the argument, "who's going to buy a $1,200USD RP and put a near $3,000USD lens on it?", I don't necessarily agree).


Why are you sure that they could have made an EF 50 F1.2 that matched the RF? Or made a comparable EF 2.0 L?


----------



## Photo Hack (Jun 19, 2019)

I would also add this to the marketing idea. Consider the EF mount to Nikon way back in the day. Manufacturers know they’re going to be married to this mount for possibly 30 years. Do you think Canon is going to make the same mistake Nikon did or have the future in mind the same way they did when they developed the EF mount?

Nikon sure learned from their mistake and went with a drastically different mount for mirrorless. You can only get so far with creative marketing before you’re faced with the problem of physics. 

The 28-70 f2 I would argue is made a practical lens because of the new mount. I’m not sure what’s not obvious about that. 

I see that Sony plays on the ability to interchange lenses on crop and FF. That’s one way to market, but the reality is, their choice to use the same mount has crippled their ability to compete with Canon and Nikons mirrorless lenses. Especially as the market continues to shrink leaving pros and serious hobbyists who are going to expect faster zooms in a smaller package as we all strive to do more with less gear.


----------



## Larsskv (Jun 19, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> As @FramerMCB says, those RF lenses don’t mean an EF version isn’t possible. Would you argue an 800mm f/5.6 for RF is impossible? Incidentally, there are 2.5x T2 (f/1.9) cine zoom lenses in EF mount.



I don’t believe that Canon could make EF versions matching the RF 50 or RF 28-70 without adding size and weight. I don’t believe Sony could either, with their narrow APS-C designed FE mount.


----------



## BillB (Jun 19, 2019)

Reading CR for the humor. It does seem funny that there are people speculating in cyberspace about how Canon lens designers might or might not be able to fit a dozen or so pieces of glass together and whether it would make any difference whether they used an RF or an EF lens mount. Slow day on the rumor front.


----------



## Photo Hack (Jun 19, 2019)

We’re actually all engineers, marketing gurus, etc. on the side


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jun 19, 2019)

Photo Hack said:


> We’re actually all engineers, marketing gurus, etc. on the side


I’m an engineer and an etc; marketing ain’t my thang.


----------



## Kit. (Jun 20, 2019)

Photo Hack said:


> We’re actually all engineers, marketing gurus, etc. on the side


There's quite a lot of actual engineers by trade on the forum. And "marketing gurus" may also have something to do with marketing, e.g. being paid Sony trolls.


----------



## mjg79 (Jun 20, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> How many of your DLSR lenses cost $3K and up? I tend to believe that the Zeiss Otus lenses offer excellent IQ, equal of better to lenses with short flange distances. But like Leica ASPH lenses, they aren't cheap. The evidence definitely supports that more expensive lenses can deliver better IQ. But shorter flange? Not so much.



A fair question and it is quite a complex subject. Much of the debate on this area is a bit like arguing whether a V8 supercar is "better" than a V12. There's no exact answer even if one limits the analysis to just one or two areas - and in reality cars like cameras are complex pieces of technology where there will be various criteria.

If I had to summaries it simply I would say that while the throat opening of a mount doesn't have a huge impact though a wider opening, inevitably, will offer some slight advantages to a lens designer if one is looking for peak corner performance with wide aperture lenses and are happy to see the camera be physically bigger. Leica's M mount as well as Sony's FE shows that one can have high quality glass with a tight throat. Of perhaps more interest is the flange distance. This is where the biggest difference tends to show. All else being equal (that's a big 'if") a shorter flange distance will allow higher quality and smaller wide angle lenses. And that's about it. The impact of this is diminished by the reality of modern digital sensors. With film the difference was more pronounced.

At the end of the day though, good lens design is good lens design. If one wishes for a fast aperture, good corner performance, autofocus, IS etc well the lens likely will be large.

Looking at Sony we see from their lenses as well as from third parties that for 24mm and wider lenses there appear to be advantages. I've often been critical of Sony, their quality control in particular is abysmal, but they have some excellent lens designers from Minolta and Nikon now. And lenses like the 16-35 GM, 24 GM, Laowa 15/2, Sony 12-24/4 - all of these are theoretically superior - both in quality and also compactness - to an SLR lens. The advantage disappears very quickly. The Sony 35mm 1.4 ZA, aside from being one of the most badly built lenses in terms of quality control, isn't much smaller than an SLR lens. By 50mm the advantage seems to have completely disappeared in terms of size though it perhaps still affords a lens designer some ability to create higher grade optics. Perhaps - it's hard to say. And beyond 50 the question is pointless.

It's also part of a package. Note I say those lenses are theoretically better. I would far rather trust a Canon lens to be working and serviceable in 10 years for example and also to be built properly however we must acknowledge that the Sony 16-35 GM is in certain respects, especially size, a superior design to the 16-35L III. And in terms of ergonomics I think that a lens like a 70-200 or a fast 300 or 400mm lens will almost always balance better on a mount like the EF one than the FE or even R. The centre of gravity will simply be in a different spot.

Long term I actually think Canon is serious about maintaining EF mount cameras, especially for longer lenses. I think they are smart, for example, to make the RF 70-200L be extending and thus much smaller. I've used an A9 with the 70-200GM - the tech is great but the handling is quite unbalanced and certainly it doesn't feel as good to hold as a 1DX or 5D model with the Canon 70-200L. And the size difference is negligible. Perhaps the clearest example is the Sony 24-70GM - it's actually bigger than the Canon 24-70L and is very unbalanced on the Sony cameras.

Looking back I think many people overhyped mirrorless when it came to size and quality. There was an assumption we would end up with Leica M size and quality lenses with autofocus at reasonable prices. That was aways fantasy. In many ways I think the company that has come out best from this is Leica - I find myself with newfound admiration for their ability to make such high quality but small lenses - however they are simply willing to compromise in other areas - notably autofocus and price - that Canon, Sony and Nikon never would or could.

The answer has to be to not worry and to concentrate on photography. There are clearly a handful of use cases where mirrorless might offer some advantages but I feel the differences between systems are still far greater. I have been tempted by the A7R III with Loxia lenses for landscape photography, especially the 21mm/2.8 which shows a clear advantage over the Zeiss equivalent SLR lens in both optical quality and size. But it would mean giving up so much else that I like from Canon that I am unwilling to go. In time I will buy an R mount camera with their wide angle zoom which will almost certainly be better than the current 16-35L III and I will probably then adapt over most of my EF mount glass as it should work perfectly. Hopefully Zeiss and Voigtlander will make some small manual focus options for the R mount and we will be set. There will not be a small and high quality 24-70/2.8L or 35/1.4L, at least not if one wants autofocus and to not pay Leica money. That's life.

So which is better - the V8 or V12? It's entirely a subjective decision - do you prefer Ferrari or Lamborghini? Do you prefer Canon or Sony?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 20, 2019)

Larsskv said:


> I don’t believe that Canon could make EF versions matching the RF 50 or RF 28-70 without adding size and weight. I don’t believe Sony could either, with their narrow APS-C designed FE mount.


The RF 50/1.2 is substantially bigger and heavier than the EF 50/1.2. Granted, it’s a different design...but optically similar to the Sigma 50/1.4A and Zeiss 50/1.4, both of which are smaller and lighter than the RF 50. So I’m pretty confident that Canon could easily make an EF 50/1.2 of similar size/weight to the RF version. 

Agree that an EF 28-70/2 would be larger/heavier...but would it be enough of a difference to really matter for an already large and heavy lens? The fact that it’s 28mm instead of 24mm at the wide end suggests they were bumping up design limits.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 20, 2019)

mjg79 said:


> A fair question and it is quite a complex subject. Much of the debate on this area is a bit like arguing whether a V8 supercar is "better" than a V12. There's no exact answer even if one limits the analysis to just one or two areas - and in reality cars like cameras are complex pieces of technology where there will be various criteria.
> 
> If I had to summaries it simply I would say that the throat opening of a mount doesn't have a huge impact though a wider opening, inevitably, will offer some slight advantages to a lens designer if one is looking for peak corner performance with wide aperture lenses and are happy to see the camera be physically bigger. Leica's M mount as well as Sony's FE shows that one can have high quality glass with a tight throat. Of perhaps more interest is the flange distance. This is where the biggest difference tends to show. All else being equal (that's a big 'if") a shorter flange distance will allow higher quality and smaller wide angle lenses. And that's about it. The impact of this is diminished by the reality of modern digital sensors. With film the difference was more pronounced.
> 
> ...


To your point about corner performance, it’s interesting that the RF 50/1.2 is much larger and heavier than the EF version, but has stronger corner vignetting. 

Totally agree with the basic premise that all of these modern camera systems are excellent and the real limiting factor, if there is one, is the person pressing the shutter release.


----------



## Ozarker (Jun 20, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> The contact area seems to protrude about the same distance into the mount on my R and 1D X. The no-mirror box on the R definitely looks spacious, though.


I've had to think that when Canon states "larger mount" they are speaking of a comparison between the Canon vs Sony vs Nikon mounts. That's the only way I can reconcile it myself. Right now, I am simply living vicariously through the rest of you who have already entered the world of R/RF. Exciting. As usual, I enjoy your input into the discussions.


----------



## deleteme (Jun 20, 2019)

Del Paso said:


> I strongly disagree!
> The old M lenses suffer, this is true, but the new ones are tack-sharp right into the edges. I do use them on Leica digital bodies, and I guarantee you, they are really sharp!


I noted that on ANY OTHER body than a Leica M.
Leica has engineered their microlenses for their lenses and thus have superb performance edge to edge on digital M bodies. On Other FF MILCs they suffer from edge smearing unless one modifies the body with a thinner cover glass. While getting better M lens performance one has now sacrificed native lens performance.


----------



## Larsskv (Jun 20, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> The RF 50/1.2 is substantially bigger and heavier than the EF 50/1.2. Granted, it’s a different design...but optically similar to the Sigma 50/1.4A and Zeiss 50/1.4, both of which are smaller and lighter than the RF 50. So I’m pretty confident that Canon could easily make an EF 50/1.2 of similar size/weight to the RF version.



The computer generated mtf charts of the Canon RF 50 (which unfortunately is my best source of information) indicates that it is better at f1.2 than either the Sigma 50 ART or the Zeiss 50 Milvus are at f1.4 (as measured by lens rentals). 

The comparison tool at the digital picture shows they are close, but the difference in resolution in the comparison tool makes it hard to tell. 

Roger Cicala states at the RF 50 L product page;

“Take a Zeiss Otus, make it accurately autofocus, and improve its optics a little. That’s how good it is.”

In my opinion the size/weight increase of the RF compared the ART and the Milvus is very small considering the half stop faster lens, indicating advantages to the RF mount. 

Having owned the 50ART and owning the RF50, my opinion is that the RF 50 plays in a league of it’s own. Not necessarily in terms of sharpness, but especially in terms of bokeh and subject rendering. The RF 50 L gives me images that is razor sharp, with a look and feel to them that I would compare to the EF 50 L and EF 85 LII (which I love.)

The Sigma 50 ART images has a “sticker look to them. The subject that is in focus will often look like a sticker that has been added on a soft background. I couldn’t stand it and sold the Sigma after a couple of weeks after getting it.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 20, 2019)

Larsskv said:


> The computer generated mtf charts of the Canon RF 50 (which unfortunately is my best source of information) indicates that it is better at f1.2 than either the Sigma 50 ART or the Zeiss 50 Milvus are at f1.4 (as measured by lens rentals).
> 
> The comparison tool at the digital picture shows they are close, but the difference in resolution in the comparison tool makes it hard to tell.
> 
> ...


I think you’re reaching. Theoretical MTFs can’t be compared across manufacturers. The RF is a bit heavier, a bit better (although the vignetting is a bit worse), but it’s also a bit newer with newer coatings, etc. If the RF 50 is a good example of ‘benefit’ over lenses for the EF mount (and I’m not saying it is), that's a pretty weak argument.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jun 20, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> I think you’re reaching. Theoretical MTFs can’t be compared across manufacturers.



Agreed. Also Note that while Zeiss measures some sample of lenses for its published MTF, they do 10, 20, and 40 lp/mm; canon models 10 and 30, so there is only overlap in their contrast not resolution. 

Lensrentals will likely measure the RF, and has measured the 11 copies of the Zeiss (at 10, 20, 30, 40, and 50 lp/mm).


----------



## MadisonMike (Jun 20, 2019)

Photo Hack said:


> I would also add this to the marketing idea. Consider the EF mount to Nikon way back in the day. Manufacturers know they’re going to be married to this mount for possibly 30 years. Do you think Canon is going to make the same mistake Nikon did or have the future in mind the same way they did when they developed the EF mount?
> 
> Nikon sure learned from their mistake and went with a drastically different mount for mirrorless. You can only get so far with creative marketing before you’re faced with the problem of physics.
> 
> ...


I don't see Sony crippled at all. The GM lenses are really nice. Having shot both formats I don't see that anyone is losing anything by using Sony glass. The sharing of mount configuration was a compromise for sure, but crippling no way. It may make it more difficult to design a lens but it can and is being done.


----------



## caffetin (Jun 20, 2019)

Everything is OK with those lenses. I want to go with Canon r mount. But Thay are simply too expensive. I mean 3 basic lenses are close to new car.


----------



## Pape (Jun 20, 2019)

35mm 1,8 looks good to me and it got even IS


----------



## FramerMCB (Jun 20, 2019)

Larsskv said:


> I don’t believe that Canon could make EF versions matching the RF 50 or RF 28-70 without adding size and weight. I don’t believe Sony could either, with their narrow APS-C designed FE mount.


I didn't address in any way how big and/or heavy EF versions of the 2 lenses I mentioned might have been. Only that Canon's Engineers *probably* could have designed them...


----------



## Larsskv (Jun 20, 2019)

FramerMCB said:


> I didn't address in any way how big and/or heavy EF versions of the 2 lenses I mentioned might have been. Only that Canon's Engineers *probably* could have designed them...



The debate here, as I understand it, is whether or not the RF mount has advantages over the EF mount when it comes to lens design. In my opinion, all the RF lenses that has been released so far indicates similar or better optical quality in a smaller package, than the most comparable (aperture and quality wise) EF mount lens available.


----------



## Ozarker (Jun 20, 2019)

Just shoot.


----------



## mjg79 (Jun 21, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> To your point about corner performance, it’s interesting that the RF 50/1.2 is much larger and heavier than the EF version, but has stronger corner vignetting.
> 
> Totally agree with the basic premise that all of these modern camera systems are excellent and the real limiting factor, if there is one, is the person pressing the shutter release.



Indeed. Also re-reading what I wrote sounded like I was lecturing you, sorry if it came across like that, I was really using the way you had phrased that question as a springboard to a wider discussion.

The RF 50/1.2L is an interesting example really. In almost every respect it's optically "superior" to the EF 50/1.2L of course but much bigger. But the corner vignetting you point out really does suggest that factors beyond mount specification have a far bigger impact on a lens' performance. (The RF 35/1.8 suffers from a lot of vignetting too.) While I am sure certain aspects of mount specification do have some impact, the way people write about it recently has blown it out of all proportion. I am fairly sure that other factors such as how large the lens can be and the price point have far more impact - the Otus performance, even on Nikon's F-mount, shows what can be achieved.

One thought that strikes me through all of this is the long term importance of getting certain basic decisions right rather than agonising over a fraction of an inch here or there on the mount - and Canon really got it right that with the EF mount by going fully electronic. Which means I'l keep using my EF 50/1.2L on future R bodies seamlessly as for the things I use it for, almost exclusively portraits, it is perfect.


----------



## mjg79 (Jun 21, 2019)

MadisonMike said:


> I don't see Sony crippled at all. The GM lenses are really nice. Having shot both formats I don't see that anyone is losing anything by using Sony glass. The sharing of mount configuration was a compromise for sure, but crippling no way. It may make it more difficult to design a lens but it can and is being done.



I agree that it's silly to think Sony are crippled by this. The Leica M-mount is even narrower - whatever one thinks of Leica nobody would deny they have produced some amazing lenses. 

And when people say it makes it easier to design lenses, well I am sure that's true for wide aperture lenses, though not that essential given things like the Leica Noctilux, but we must remember cameras and lenses form a package. I have often been highly critical of Sony but if one looks at an A7R with a Loxia 21, well it's hard to imagine a better small landscape set up. That wouldn't have been helped, indeed the body probably would have been made larger, by a wider diameter mount.


----------



## Architect1776 (Jun 21, 2019)

BillB said:


> The RP gives hope that some less expensive lenses may show up, as does the RF 35 f1.8. However these lenses are likely to be larger than an EFS 10-18. A lens equivalent to an EFS 10-18 that would cover a FF sensor would be 16-29. Even with variable maximum aperture this would be a larger and likely more expensive lens than the 10-18. For EF-S and EF-M size and prices, APS-C sized sensor coverage is part of the deal.



I guess I look at the manual Olympus lenses of yore. They had the same parameters of distance, mirror box and FF format, yet for some reason were able to be made relatively small. They were all metal and well built with superb optics too. Just wondering what the problem is today? Yes adding AF does increase the size but that much?


----------



## BillB (Jun 21, 2019)

Architect1776 said:


> I guess I look at the manual Olympus lenses of yore. They had the same parameters of distance, mirror box and FF format, yet for some reason were able to be made relatively small. They were all metal and well built with superb optics too. Just wondering what the problem is today? Yes adding AF does increase the size but that much?



AF does increase the size of the lenses, as do faster apertures. There are a lot more electronics and moving parts in a modern lens. Also, you did not see a lot of 24-105, 16-35 or 70-200 zooms back in the day, so people had to make do with manual primes. Because people can choose modern good quality zooms, the market for primes has been a shrinking part of a shrinking market for a while now.

One of the first RF lenses that Canon released was the 35mm f1.8, which is probably as small as you are going to get these days. The cost of the 35mm is nearly half that of the 24-105, and it weighs a little less than half as much. So, if you buy a second prime (say an EF 85 f1.8 that you will adapt), your will be spending about the same as for the 24-105, and the two primes together will weigh nearly as much as the zoom. For a lot of people, the value proposition for a zoom looks pretty good.

The RF 35 makes a lot sense to me, and apparently it made sense to Canon as well. However, as far as small, reasonably priced primes are concerned, I am not sure where it goes from here. An 85mm? Something in the low 20's? We shall see.


----------



## mjg79 (Jun 21, 2019)

Architect1776 said:


> I guess I look at the manual Olympus lenses of yore. They had the same parameters of distance, mirror box and FF format, yet for some reason were able to be made relatively small. They were all metal and well built with superb optics too. Just wondering what the problem is today? Yes adding AF does increase the size but that much?



I have had little experience with those old Olympus lenses though have sometimes examined them in second hand shops and they always felt like very nice, high quality lenses. I have a lot of respect for Olympus and have a friend who has been around the world with various m4/3 cameras from them - he's the type who goes trekking through rainforests and across deserts and he swears by Olympus. The thought has often occurred to me that Canon and Nikon were lucky that it was Sony - with all their problems with quality control and sometimes strange (and sometimes brilliant) approaches - who challenged them in the full frame market - imagine had Olympus had the funds to have built the A7 series, how polished, how functional, how much better frankly it would have been. So I have no desire to run down Olympus but were those OM lenses really on a par optically with modern lenses?

I personally think it's all gone a bit mad in recent years with everyone obsessing over how sharp every f/1.4 lens is in the corners wide open. It seems pretty clear to me that this has driven lenses getting ever larger. The 35L for example was a very high quality lens but a desire for it to be better corrected and sharper in the corners made the Mark II bigger. It's an approach Sigma took with their Art lenses and Zeiss with their Otus lenses. From what I have read the latter work quite well on some medium format sensors - they took that, one might almost say, crude approach to getting good corners.

I actually think there will be some market for lenses that are not exactly perfect. Voigtlander seems to have spotted this - their 40/1.2, 50/1.2 and 21/3.5 are all lacking the amazing MTFs of lenses like Otuses but they are small and full of character. Leica has started to make lenses a bit bigger than in the past though they are still tiny compared to most but even they can't change the laws of physics. The Summilux-M 35, for example, is in most measurable senses, inferior to the larger (by rangefinder standards) Zeiss 35/1.4 ZM. However I've used both and can say though the Summilux has to my eyes a nicer rendering and the fact it is smaller appeals to me over the extreme corner sharpness at f/1.4 of the ZM. 

So "imperfect" lenses can represent a nice trade off with size and weight if one accepts corners at f/1.4 might not be perfect. Furthermore it often seems the case that less corrected lenses have a nicer rendering - I don't think I am alone in being unmoved by the RF 50/1.2L - it's a technical marvel, no doubt, but for photographing people, holds no appeal over the EF 50/1.2L for me.

So I'm really not saying the classic lenses are rubbish but I think we often have some rose tinted spectacles in assuming the smaller and jewel-like, built of metal, lenses of the 70s and 80s were as good optically as today's monster lenses. Nicer to hold? Definitely. A nicer rendering? Sometimes. But able to survive a hundred review websites screaming that the corner isn't perfectly sharp wide open? I think Voigtlander, Leica and Zeiss can get away with that but for the big manufacturers it is something they fear.


----------



## Architect1776 (Jun 23, 2019)

mjg79 said:


> I have had little experience with those old Olympus lenses though have sometimes examined them in second hand shops and they always felt like very nice, high quality lenses. I have a lot of respect for Olympus and have a friend who has been around the world with various m4/3 cameras from them - he's the type who goes trekking through rainforests and across deserts and he swears by Olympus. The thought has often occurred to me that Canon and Nikon were lucky that it was Sony - with all their problems with quality control and sometimes strange (and sometimes brilliant) approaches - who challenged them in the full frame market - imagine had Olympus had the funds to have built the A7 series, how polished, how functional, how much better frankly it would have been. So I have no desire to run down Olympus but were those OM lenses really on a par optically with modern lenses?
> 
> I personally think it's all gone a bit mad in recent years with everyone obsessing over how sharp every f/1.4 lens is in the corners wide open. It seems pretty clear to me that this has driven lenses getting ever larger. The 35L for example was a very high quality lens but a desire for it to be better corrected and sharper in the corners made the Mark II bigger. It's an approach Sigma took with their Art lenses and Zeiss with their Otus lenses. From what I have read the latter work quite well on some medium format sensors - they took that, one might almost say, crude approach to getting good corners.
> 
> ...



Digital created the pixel peeping clowns at 100% + that we photographers have to suffer with. At realistic viewing distances no one can tell the difference between a cheap or a most expensive lens, unless there is actually something wrong with the cheap lens.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jun 23, 2019)

Architect1776 said:


> Digital created the pixel



Indeed


----------



## Pape (Jun 23, 2019)

I wonder if those modern bigger lenses are actually medium format lenses with permanent speed booster group on them 
Like 75mm f1,8 medium format lens shrinked with 1.4x speed booster to get 50mm f1,2 full frame with better sharpness and light power.
Is there end on that road ,lenses just get bigger and bigger?


----------



## Timedog (Jun 23, 2019)

Pape said:


> I wonder if those modern bigger lenses are actually medium format lenses with permanent speed booster group on them
> Like 75mm f1,8 medium format lens shrinked with 1.4x speed booster to get 50mm f1,2 full frame with better sharpness and light power.
> Is there end on that road ,lenses just get bigger and bigger?


Ha this seems to especially be true with stuff like the Sigma 40mm art, which is heavier than the already huge RF 50, AND with a larger front filter thread, despite having smaller aperture. The more gigantic you make the lens the less engineering you have to do for great IQ, lol.


----------



## mjg79 (Jun 23, 2019)

Architect1776 said:


> Digital created the pixel peeping clowns at 100% + that we photographers have to suffer with. At realistic viewing distances no one can tell the difference between a cheap or a most expensive lens, unless there is actually something wrong with the cheap lens.



I think you're right, I feel like with hobbyist digital photography there are two groups - those who simply like photography and would have been enjoying film photography all the same and those who enjoy the technology, the challenge of mastering it, the sort of people who, were there no such thing as digital photography, might enjoy computer building or model trains etc as a hobby.

Part of the huge explosion in photography over the past 15 years I think is that once it went digital it could appeal to those two groups - sometimes their interests coincide, sometimes they have very different desires.


----------



## mjg79 (Jun 23, 2019)

Pape said:


> I wonder if those modern bigger lenses are actually medium format lenses with permanent speed booster group on them
> Like 75mm f1,8 medium format lens shrinked with 1.4x speed booster to get 50mm f1,2 full frame with better sharpness and light power.
> Is there end on that road ,lenses just get bigger and bigger?



I am pretty sure I read that people were able to mount Otus lenses on the new Fuji baby medium format and they performed well. It's just like the Canon 17mm TS lens is so exceptional in the corners if you don't shift it because its imaging circle is much, much bigger. There's nothing illegitimate about the approach I think, to a certain extent every lens will be slightly bigger than it needs to be but yes it does seem that it is a part of the arsenal used by, in particular, Sigma and Zeiss.

It's clearer still in the world of rangefinders. Zeiss adopted a different approach fro their ZM lenses usually using more elements to correct aberrations etc and larger elements for the corners and vignetting. They sacrificed size and weight. Leica has by and large continued with simpler designs with extremely expensively made elements to try to keep the size somewhat under control. Thus you arrive at the situation with the 35mm Summilux-M ASPH compared to the Zeiss 35mm 1.4 ZM - the latter is in many technical respects superior but it is a lot larger.

Really there's no right and wrong but, just speaking for myself, the way some of the Sigma Art lenses and Zeiss Otus lenses have gone would make me not want to use them even if you gave me them for free, photography is a hobby to be to enjoy. I was given a lot of hope when Canon brought out the Mark II 24-70/2.8 L - it does suggest at least they are going to try to keep size and weight under control. Alas it seems to be a rarity, a lens smaller than its predecessor I mean.


----------

