Yes, for some years Canon IS lenses had a ‘park’ feature. I think all the RF ones don’t have that.
Upvote
0
Canon plans to develop more lenses that no one has done before
- Thread starter Canon Rumors
- Start date
the most wanted lens for me, because it is one of my workhorses, is the 70-300, perhaps 4.0- 5.6 or wider. Combined with a 24-70 it is´s ideal for travel.
Upvote
0
Why is distortion a negative? I've been asking people on this forum for years to show an example photo where digital correction gave a poor result and I still haven't seen any. I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just asking for someone to show me. It's stated like a matter of fact but I have no idea why it would be so.
Upvote
0
What would you say to a zoomable extension tube? That'd let you actually focus a 35/1.4 or what have you, which otherwise might only have a few cm between min and max focus distance on a 12mm or 25mm tube
Upvote
0
MUCH of the stuff we at NCA (North Canadian Aerospace) have developed YOU are currently using in YOUR cameras! In fact, some of that SOBEL/CANNY edge detection code using in subject tracking and autofocus systems AND a lot of that 32-bit/64-bit Alpha Channel feathered-edges compositing code and Z-axis LIDAR/SONAR/RF/MM-wave depth sampling code written BY ME PERSONALLY is in a heck of a lot of graphics software, cameras, smartphones, AR/VR systems and aerospace systems and avionics these days!
AND .... a lot of the stuff we are introducing in the next few weeks is a VERY VERY VERY BIG DEAL on a world-wide technology basis and will ALSO be used in YOUR smartphones, laptops, tablets, desktops, cameras, cars/trucks, boats/ships, planes, spacecraft, etc.
Sooooooo, that ultra-lightweight Sapphire-coated optical-grade Acrylic lens system that I helped code the ray-tracing QA and manufacturing system/control software for AND that fancy 500,000 vector objects database autonomous vision-recognition system that I also coded is now being used in tree-top flying terrain-following software and self-driving cars AND IN MANY OF YOUR electronics products YOU just bought within the last few years!
Meh!
V
Upvote
0
I have one for canon ef (with af), but it goes from 45mm to 56mm if I recall. So, assuming the mechanical elements can fit, it would be possible. However, I think modification of the lens's mount might be more possible although much more expensive.
Until then, you could use a Helicoid adapter but image quality isn't great with ef 35mm f/1.4 L ii when used as a macro and there is no electrical connection for aperture control. You can remedy that by using the lens with a standard adapter pressing the aperture button on the camera and remove the lens, change to the helicoid adapter, but that's a pain in the ass everytime you want to change apertures.
All in all, you might have better images and less annoyance if choose a dedicated macro lens for 35mm although as far as I know, only the rf 1.8 would have autofocus and thats only half macro.
But again, I don't say it's not possible.
Upvote
0
With extension tubes on wide-angles there's so little difference between minimum and maximum focus distance that AF doesn't even matter. Also for a lot of subjects I already know I want max magnification so I have closest possible focus. More generally, if shooting in the field, I'd pre-set focus then move the camera back and forth as needed.
Also the look of a wide-angle on extension tubes gives a totally different photo than you can get with the typical 100mm macro. I had the 100/2.8 (pre-USM!) then the 180/3.5 and used them a fair amount, but a 35mm or wider lens on extension tubes gives an utterly different look. You can have your bee on your flower but then also have the sky, the alpine meadow, the mountains in the background, all quite recognizable as DOF also increases substantially. I mean, the background is way out of focus, but still totally recognizable. In contrast, 180mm macro shots could all be in your back yard or even in your studio for all anyone can tell. It's as important a distinction as there is between shooting a portrait with 180mm vs. 35mm.
Upvote
0
I definitely agree. I wrote about AF for the ones who've been complaining about no Sigma or Tamron on RF.
For third party macros, I have only tried the Venus 15mm f/4. There is more distortion and focus breathing than I'd like which gave me trouble with focus stacking. In that sense the ef 14mm f/2.8 Lii is a better choice for me at 14, but it can't quite get as close although at 14mm, you practically touch your subject and lighting becomes a problem.
I know you have an RF 16mm and I gave close up lenses a try. It's cheaper than buying an ef 14mm + helicoid adapter, but image quality, distortion and focus breathing will make it a poor solution.
Does anyone want to create a topics around wide/ultrawide angle macros?
I am interested in comments about the best solutions others have found at various focal lengths.
Upvote
0
Not a problem, but instead the chance to use the slot-in filter adapter,
thus greatly enhancing your creative reach with a very small footprint
in both investment and bulk of packing size.
Upvote
0
You certainly have a point here.
Otherwise ... you obviously never owned a rattling lens with a linear motor
I did and I can tell you that can be really annoying when you are hiking. That noise is definitely more pronounced than the rattling of an IS unit. And when I noticed, the RF 35/1.4 had no parking position for its VCM, it immediately vanished from my preorder list. I will try it out some day, but if it rattles the same as the Fujifilm XF 90mm 1:2 R LM WR or the Sigma 56mm 1:1.4 DC DN I will not buy it. I owned both lenses and thought I could get used to this behaviour. I couldn't and sold them both.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
As for the lenses I would wish for:
24/1.4 usable for astrophotography
28/2.0 small and light
40/2.0 small and light
600/5.6 or 800/6.3 relatively light and small though the 200-800 might be good enough, I don't know yet
24/1.4 usable for astrophotography
28/2.0 small and light
40/2.0 small and light
600/5.6 or 800/6.3 relatively light and small
though the 200-800 might be good enough, I don't know yet
Upvote
0
You certainly have a point here.
Otherwise ... you obviously never owned a rattling lens with a linear motor
Poor assumption. if any rattles and annoys me, i fix the positioning or cushioning in my backpack.
Upvote
0
Then there are simply a few things that some people are bothered by, while others don't care. In the end we are all different
Upvote
0
Could it be your copy was worse in this respect than Richard's?Then there are simply a few things that some people are bothered by, while others don't care. In the end we are all different
I wonder if you could try sound absorption materials normally used in audio recording studios. They look like they would be really good for cushion if you dropped the bag. Could be too expensive though...
Upvote
0
Similar threads
