Canon Officially Announces 4 new RF Lenses

#61
Maximilian said:
If I was in for the 70-200 I wouldn't know which colour to choose.
I suppose I would stick with the Canon white ;)
Click to expand...
As someone who started on this focal range with the "Magic Drainpipe" 80-200mm, I've been wishing they offered a black option for years. While I've come to love my 70-200mm in all its ivory glory, I think when I do eventually get this one, I'll opt for black. It's long overdue.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users
Upvote 0
#62
Canon Rumors Guy said:
Is this good? As you can see it's not as good in the center and just falls apart on the peripheral across the board.

View attachment 220689
Click to expand...
This is correct. But unfortunately, MTFs wide open reflect only one aspect of a lens. An aspect which usually doesn't matter for landscapers or macro shooters.
I bought my f/1,8 knowingly, needing a lightweight 50mm for landscape photography.
Yet, since the f/1,4 isn't too heavy, guess what'll come next...;)
Right before the RF 28mm f/1,4 L !
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
#63
john1970 said:
I am NOT providing medical advice either.

On the USA Canon website the statement reads: "This product emits low level magnetic flux. If you use an implantable cardiac pacemaker or other medical device and feel abnormalities, please keep away from this product and consult your doctor."

On the 35 mm f1.4 VCM lens I actually purchased a Gauss meter to measure the magnetic flux around the lens. At a distance of two inches away or more away from the lens the magnetic field strength was <= 1 Gauss.
Click to expand...
Canon's new killer lenses!
I wonder how many pages of warnings the Californian manuals will come with...:p
 
Upvote 0
#64
Del Paso said:
This is correct. But unfortunately, MTFs wide open reflect only one aspect of a lens. An aspect which usually doesn't matter for landscapers or macro shooters.
I bought my f/1,8 knowingly, needing a lightweight 50mm for landscape photography.
Yet, since the f/1,4 isn't too heavy, guess what'll come next...;)
Right before the RF 28mm f/1,4 L !
Click to expand...

Yes, but that's really all that matters with a fast lens. Every lens is good at f/8. Canon doesn't even do f/8 MTFs anymore. Though image rendering can still differ greatly. For me if someone wants a cheap landscape prime from Canon.. the 35 1.8 is the one.
 
Upvote 0
#65
Canon Rumors Guy said:
Yes, but that's really all that matters with a fast lens. Every lens is good at f/8. Canon doesn't even do f/8 MTFs anymore. Though image rendering can still differ greatly. For me if someone wants a cheap landscape prime from Canon.. the 35 1.8 is the one.
Click to expand...
If only I didn't have a foible for mechanically well made lenses, I'd save a lot of money.
13 L lenses & the 1,8/50 STM. And soon 14 L lenses, and no 1,8 left.
Even though I enjoyed its results fro f/4 to f/8.
Spoiled by Leica M & R lenses...
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0
#66
I'm looking forward to seeing some astro results with the 24mm. I'm sure it will be better than my 1.8, though so far I've been pretty happy with star shapes on that. Not sure I'll ever upgrade, but a year or two from now when the early adopter price is down, and a refurb sale happens...never say never.

Still going to rock my 50mm Sigma Art 1.4. I love it and it was very well priced on the used market.

A 2.8 70-200 has always intrigued me. I feel like I'm not a serious photographer since I don't have one. But I have a 70-200 f/4 that I never use. Not sure I'd use a 2.8 more just because its faster. If I do take the plunge, and don't opt for a low cost EF vII or vIII, I'd get the compact RF model. I finally saw one in person and its so small when collapsed. Just incredible.

Brian
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
#67
Richard CR said:
I reread canon's information on the 2018 MTF changes and saw nothing about what you are mentioning. Can you point me in the right direction to this information?
Click to expand...
Sorry for my slow responce....my work day has gone compeltely side ways and I seem to be fire fighting issues all over the place today.

It many have been some mis-information / assumption that I picked up as fact from this thread here:
https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/t...the-canon-rf-10-20mm-f-4l-is-stm.42873/page-4
I may well be in error with my statement above. Apologies if this is the case.
I'm sorry if you have gone deep dive lookng for this. However, if it is the case that lens optimization mathematics isn't reflected in the MFT charts the it makes their value even stronger.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Upvote 0
#69
I hoped for a compact 50/1.4, something like the EF version. I totally get why this is bigger and I’m happy for all the film makers etc. But it probably means that there won’t be a compact 50/1.4 any time soon. Yes the 50 1.8 is fine but the IQ is not as good and the autofocus feels too amateur and jerky
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0
#70
GMCPhotographics said:
Sorry for my slow responce....my work day has gone compeltely side ways and I seem to be fire fighting issues all over the place today.

It many have been some mis-information / assumption that I picked up as fact from this thread here:
https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/t...the-canon-rf-10-20mm-f-4l-is-stm.42873/page-4
I may well be in error with my statement above. Apologies if this is the case.
I'm sorry if you have gone deep dive lookng for this. However, if it is the case that lens optimization mathematics isn't reflected in the MFT charts the it makes their value even stronger.
Click to expand...
Canon computes the MTF values of its lenses rather than measures them directly. As @neuroanatomist has pointed out, the (uwa) lenses that have correction for distortion digitally via software must have computed MTFs for the extreme edges and corners based on their correction software. Sites, like optical limits, that measure MTF values for these lenses do so from the jpegs derived from the software corrected RAWs. These software corrections should be minimal in the more central portions of the images. There is an apparent large decrease in MTFs for EF lenses computed after 2018 because they now take into account diffraction.

@Richard CR is correct in that MTF values for the lens and camera depend on the combination of the MTFs for both lens and sensor. Canon is adding a correction factor for distortion into its lens MTF function, which is the same for all FF sensors, but is not including the specific factors for each sensor, which include pixel density, microlenses, AA-filters etc.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users
Upvote 0
#74
After review of optical limits with the RF 16mm without a doubt the calculated MTF is with distortion corrected. That does not mean that Canon is dishonest with the exception that this is hidden from user review. But with the 16mm it's self evident.

I would argue that it's the default operation of such a lens to run with at the minimum distortion correction turned on.

I think the only time we would toss out MTFs as a measurement basis would be if Canon decided that DLO should be the default.

Distortion correction isn't usually a big problem for these sorts of lenses as usually with L unless it's an extreme edge case they all have 21.64mm image circles.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0
#75
Good for Canon. This should make those wanting to use a TC (70-200) happy. I still like the compactness of the external zoom. I see they have the same collar / removeable foot design as the other Z lens. The color options are a nice touch also. We already know the lens will perform well. The FL and design has been one of Canon's best (internal or external).

These days everything costs more, so I am not surprised by the pricing. Canon, like everyone else is going to charge what it knows it can. I'm not in the market for any of this stuff, I have what I need. For now anyway. but I do have a 200-800 on order. So a nice holidays / Christmas bump for everyone.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0
#76
Richard CR said:
After review of optical limits with the RF 16mm without a doubt the calculated MTF is with distortion corrected. That does not mean that Canon is dishonest with the exception that this is hidden from user review. But with the 16mm it's self evident.

I would argue that it's the default operation of such a lens to run with at the minimum distortion correction turned on.

I think the only time we would toss out MTFs as a measurement basis would be if Canon decided that DLO should be the default.

Distortion correction isn't usually a big problem for these sorts of lenses as usually with L unless it's an extreme edge case they all have 21.64mm image circles.
Click to expand...

Also to add to this. I found the patent application for the Canon RF 70-200mm F2.8L IS USM Z.

I'll be adding in the particulars. There is no image stretching that would result and computational loss of resolution, and it's thus pretty much a level playing field between it and it's EF and other RF brethrens.

Appreciate how deep that damned rabbit hole was to find that patent application again.

While it would make sense for Canon to include in the calculated distortion correction for lenses such as the RF 16mm where it is on by default and for most users, you can't turn it off, it wouldn't make sense on a big 70-200mm f/2.8L.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users
Upvote 0
#77
john1970 said:
I am NOT providing medical advice either.

On the USA Canon website the statement reads: "This product emits low level magnetic flux. If you use an implantable cardiac pacemaker or other medical device and feel abnormalities, please keep away from this product and consult your doctor."

On the 35 mm f1.4 VCM lens I actually purchased a Gauss meter to measure the magnetic flux around the lens. At a distance of two inches away or more away from the lens the magnetic field strength was <= 1 Gauss.
Click to expand...
Take care not to measure the magnetic flux of your heart.
 
Upvote 0
#78
Well, hard choices. I've a sneaking suspicion the f/1.2 lenses will become collector's items. No evidence. Just a hunch.

Honestly, I'm not concerned with corners for my main focus, portraits. In fact, no matter the subject, corners don't matter to me. In my opinion, if some gearhead is inspecting my corners, then I've either failed or that person has bad OCD. Not faulting the inspector. Not at all. Can't help himself.
 
Upvote 0
#79
Del Paso said:
This is correct. But unfortunately, MTFs wide open reflect only one aspect of a lens. An aspect which usually doesn't matter for landscapers or macro shooters.
I bought my f/1,8 knowingly, needing a lightweight 50mm for landscape photography.
Yet, since the f/1,4 isn't too heavy, guess what'll come next...;)
Right before the RF 28mm f/1,4 L !
Click to expand...

well there has to be some reason for reviewers.
 
Upvote 0
#80
Richard CR said:
Distortion correction isn't usually a big problem for these sorts of lenses as usually with L unless it's an extreme edge case they all have 21.64mm image circles.
Click to expand...
Would you consider the RF 24-105/2.8L Z to be an extreme edge case? It's a standard zoom costing $3000...and doesn't fill the FF corners at 24mm (though it does by 28mm).

Screenshot 2024-10-30 at 11.23.55 AM.png

Like it or hate it, 'forced' distortion correction is the new normal. It doesn't bother me, and I'm very glad this lens is a 24-105/2.8 that needs the corners stretched at 24mm instead of being a 28-105/2.8 lens that fills the corners at the wide end. YMMV.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Canon Rumors
Canon officially launches the RF 28-70mm f/2.8 IS STM
Replies
394
Views
34K
Halfmoon
Halfmoon
Canon Rumors
Canon Announces First Lens in Series of Fixed Focal Length RF Hybrid Lenses – RF35mm F1.4L VCM
Replies
245
Views
14K
EOS 4 Life
E
Canon Rumors
Samyang officially launches the AF 12mm f/2 RF-S
Replies
3
Views
822
David - Sydney
D
Canon Rumors
The Canon RF 200-800mm F6.3-9 IS USM may not ship in quantity until August, 2024
Replies
6
Views
1K
YuengLinger
YuengLinger
Canon Rumors
Latest Adobe Camera Raw updates adds Sigma RF 30mm f/1.4 & RF 56mm f/1.4, shipping soon?
Replies
10
Views
2K
koenkooi
koenkooi
Top Bottom
Back
Home
Forums
Media
Menu