The hybrid primes won’t be all we get for fast wide-angle L prime lenses
- Thread starter Canon Rumors
- Start date
the 24 1.4 will probably be the best seller out of the 1.4 trio, but as we have come to know it will under-perform in some meaningless metric and thus Canon is doomed again.
Upvote
0
While I applaud your persistence in continuing to ask, at some point you should realize that no one will provide an example because such examples don't exist. Not that a rhetorical question serves no purpose...
Upvote
0
I agree with everything that you said, although I decided to at least wait until I can rent the 1.4 because I will want to sometimes use an extension tube. The EF 1.4 just wasn't good enough in that one area.They do!they really seem not to like my money...
If (IF!) they will release a 35 1.2 I will pre-order it and sell the 1.4 - I do not mind this 1.4 and the ergonomics are great apart from the thin AF ring, but it does not have the magic of the 2 other RF 1.2 primes I have. I know that the software corrections are a deliberate compromise and that in normal circumstances they have near-0 impact, but maybe I am a bigot but I prefer optically corrected lenses.
I am not regretting the decision to buy the 1.4 since a) this is still a rumor after all and b), assuming the rumor is true in this regard, who knows how long we'll be actually waiting for the 35 1.2? I have been needing a 35 for too long.
Upvote
0
I have to agree with you. While the rf 16 is similar enough in quality to the ef 14mm Lii, the 14 is chromatic and can be somewhat corrected depending on what software (Darktable is free and suprisingly very good at this, but it's not automatic like dxo photolab which can't produce as good results) you use and how much time you want to use. So, I believe a new L lens design would be able to produce sharper corners. Either with newer optical technology or improved chromatic aberration correction. That's just my belief and I can't really prove anything.
Upvote
0
I have noticed at least with R5 and rf 16, selecting a small focus point towords the left or right side will result in an incorrect decision by the autofocus. The solution is manual focus, but if you need autofocus, it's likely to miss.
Upvote
0
I am glad that Canon is producing two lines of wide-angle prime lenses. One is smaller hybrid designs designed for both video and photo users while another line is going to be heavier and focus more solely on the photo aspect. I did purchase the RF 35 mm f1.4 VCM for both the very limited video that I do as well as for travel photography. With that said, I am going to wait another 12-18 months before purchasing any additional wide-angle prime lenses so I can compare these two different lines and then make the most informed decisions.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
It's hackneyed to go for the rule-of-thirds but that's usually what I go for. It's certainly better than a centered subject. I can't recall often putting the subject purposefully on the edge of a composition but it's probably happened a few times.
Upvote
0
Hmm, hyperfocal at f/11 is like 15cm/6" to infinity. I'm sure there's some rare ultra-wide-angle subjects at the very edge of a frame in compositions where you're wide-open and they're near enough the camera's not catching them with a hyperfocal solution, but I think those shots wouldn't be that common.
BTW one AF mode I've always wanted is simply to be able to ask for hyperfocal and have the camera just do whatever focus distance gives me that, maybe opting for numerically higher f-stop when possible.
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
You aren't wrong at all about f/11 on this lens. However, at least for me, I can't use f/11 all the time and as we mentioned before using wide and ultra wides for macro or at least as close as we can get can be more interesting than the usual 100mm or 180mm macros. If I remember the rf 16 2.8 stm is capable of something around 25% magnification.
I'm not suggesting everyone will want to use this lens like that or that anyone should either. It is simply a situation where optical correction yeilds better results which is what you've occasionally been curious about. It's the only lens I've used which uses significant digital distortion correction.
If anyone is willing to test whether or not other lenses suffer from accuracy in a similar way, it could be the answer for some people to this debate about digital vs optical correction. I say "some people" because a person who always uses f/11 further away or the person who always focuses in the center probably can't notice anything different, as well as if some newer lenses might have improved the autofocus to compensate.
I suspect an AF mode like you mentioned would be helpful, but maybe an app / software that can connect to cameras would be more likely?
I have also experamented with some web-based calculators for determining depth of field. Some were better than others for me, so get over to your favorite search engine and try a few out when you get a chance if you haven't already.
Upvote
0
If I remember correctly, the old Eos10 film camera, had this ability. You had to focus on (i) the nearest point you wanted in focus, then (ii) the furthest point you wanted in focus then it would calculate the f-stop and focus point for you.
I miss the DOF/f-stop markings on lenses that have all but disappeared from modern lenses - didn't use them often, but when you need them, you need them...
Edited to add : A little bit of googling throws up that it was called "Depth of field AE" and was also available on the 1D, so perhaps it's been on several Canon cameras over the years?
Last edited:
Upvote
0
The EOS 3 had that feature as well: https://support.usa.canon.com/kb/index?page=content&id=ART117935
Something similar would be good for focus stacking: set the nearest point, set the furthest point and let the camera determine the number of exposures. IMO this would be better than having to set the number of exposures and ending up with a large number of exposures that you do not need, or worse, find out at home that you miss a few shots at the end and your focus stack is incomplete.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Canon releases a new video about the new lens design
youtu.be
Canonâs Hidden Lens Design Ideas and Innovations (Canon Official)
This video introduces the design story of the RF100-300mm F2.8 L IS USM.0:00 Opening0:24 About lens design2:00 The white lens and red ring5:35 RF100-300mm F2...
youtu.be
Upvote
0
Yes, this might have been on my EOS-3, 1V, 1DsMkI II III, but wasn't on the 1N.
Still that was a bit different than what I'm talking about. I'm saying instead, a simple mathematical calculation, whereby, say:
You have a 35mm lens.
You're at f/11.
Therefore the lens focuses at 3.8m, even if you have the lens cap on, which will make everything from 1.9m to infinity in perfect focus.
Upvote
0
OpticalLimits has pushed its review of the RF 35 mm f1.4 L VCM, from the summary: “The performance of the Canon RF 35mm f/1.4 L VCM is a bit difficult to summarize into a single figure. If image sharpness is what you value the most, this is certainly a lens for you. It's sharp at f/1.4 already and downright superb from f/2 to f/8. It's also resistant to flare, and auto-correction does a good job of correcting vignetting and distortion. The lens does, however, rely heavily on a correction profile to achieve this, which is a bit disappointing for a $1500 USD lens. The correction profile doesn't help with the high axial CAs, and the focus shift is a bit of a concern in manual focus mode, at least. The quality of bokeh is good for such a lens.”
See: https://opticallimits.com/canon/canon-rf/canon-rf-35mm-f-1-4-l-vcm-review/
See: https://opticallimits.com/canon/canon-rf/canon-rf-35mm-f-1-4-l-vcm-review/
Upvote
0
