Patent Application: The Zoom You’ve Dreamt About: 70-150mm F2.0

GMCPhotographics said:

The RF 15-35mm f2.8 is a curious lens. Comparing the RF 14-35/f4, RF 15-35/2.8 and the EF 16-35/2.8III, it can be hypothesised that the RF15-35/2.8 may well have been an unreleased EF design that was retrofitted to the RF mount. The block chart certainly looks like there’s a big gap between the rear element and the sensor, akin to an EF lens.
The MFT charts also support this theory, optically it’s not much better that the ef lens. Optically, it’s well eclipsed by the RF 14-35mm f4. Which has a rear element butted right up to the sensor and far better MFT charts.

Click to expand...

Your hypothesis is incorrect. If you have the lens, look into the mount when zooming. Or look at the patent for the RF 15-35/2.8. The block diagram published by Canon shows the lens groups in their position with the lens at 35mm. When zoomed out to 15mm, the rear element is only 14mm from the sensor (when zooming from 35mm to 15mm, the front groups move forward and the rear groups move back).

The RF 14-35/4 is a different design in that the position of the rear element is fixed. It’s 15mm from the sensor, so it’s actually slightly further away from the sensor than the 15-35/2.8 at the wide end, also invalidating your hypothesis about the distance from the rear element to the sensor driving the better IQ of the 14-35/4.

neuroanatomist said:

Anecdotal examples notwithstanding, hopefully no one out there is seriously ‘investing’ in photo gear in the sense of expecting to profit from it. It’s true what they say about fools and their money.

Click to expand...

There is an element of truth in that "the way to make money from photography is to sell all your gear".
Not a sound business principle though.

neuroanatomist said:

Anecdotal examples notwithstanding, hopefully no one out there is seriously ‘investing’ in photo gear in the sense of expecting to profit from it. It’s true what they say about fools and their money.

Click to expand...

How many times do you see people say "Investing in glass"? And how many times (in the past) have people justified buying expensive EF lenses because the resale value was good?

David_B said:

How many times do you see people say "Investing in glass"? And how many times (in the past) have people justified buying expensive EF lenses because the resale value was good?

Click to expand...

How many times do you see people say “Canon is doomed”? People say lots of stuff.

Do you honestly think people who talk of investing in glass mean in the sense of investing in gold or investing in the stock market? I highly doubt it. Not saying there aren’t stupid people out there, though, plenty of examples of that.

When people say the resale value is good, do they ever say that the resale value is higher than the retail price they’ll pay? Again, I doubt it. Especially in the context of people buying a lens to take pictures with it, because of course, using it will decrease its value. If it was an investment, it would sit on a shelf in the unopened box like a collector’s Barbie dolls.

In the current day of short supply and long waitlist, there are people who “invest in glass“ as you can tell by looking on Amazon, where a lens not available from retailers can be bought through third parties selling them at higher than MSRP prices. I suppose that constitutes investing in glass, although those aren’t photographers.

neuroanatomist said:

Do you honestly think people who talk of investing in glass mean in the sense of investing in gold or investing in the stock market? I highly doubt it. Not saying there aren’t stupid people out there, though, plenty of examples of that.

Click to expand...

Hard to know.

But an example found by google ("If you are just starting out in photography/video, I would get the 60D or T3i and invest in some lenses."):

I could go on.

David_B said:

I could go on.

Click to expand...

I’m sure you could, but since your 14-year-old example supports my point and not yours, doing so would likely only serve to further demonstrate your obtuseness.

neuroanatomist said:

I’m sure you could, but since your 14-year-old example supports my point and not yours, doing so would likely only serve to further demonstrate your obtuseness.

Click to expand...

I didn't make any claim that it represented anything, but you can interpret the result however you wish, one data point is not the grounds for a theory unless you'd like to argue otherwise? I'm being lazy, that's all, and I was searching for nothing more than an anecdote.