There are 4 wide-angle L prime lenses coming in the next 12 months [CR2]
- Thread starter Canon Rumors Guy
- Start date
Not that I know of—they did a /2.8 and a /1.8......Did canon made 28mm autofocus L lens before?
Upvote
0
Aussie shooter
https://brettguyphotography.picfair.com/
Nice shots. They certainly work a treat. But in most cases you wouldn't need a 1.8 for those. Although you did specifically mention blowing out a background.
Upvote
0
Aussie shooter
https://brettguyphotography.picfair.com/
Interesting. I shoot auroras as well and I generally found 16mm to be perfect. Every now and again there is a cracker that requires stitching but that is rare for me. Having said that, I am shooting the southern light in Australia and we do not get to shoot up for our auroras. We shoot towards the horizon. I am guessing that when you are closer to the action then the wider angle lens would be a big help. For me though a 12 would just be too wide most of the time
Upvote
0
Most likely a near-fisheye lens with something like 40% rectilinear distortion, that's missing a heap of corrective lens elements to save money, and corrected in software, sharp in the centre with smeared corners and edges, featuring extending focus elements and STM motors! More of the same...
Upvote
0
Entoman was relaying what he read in reviews, which is consistent with the majority of reviews I've read, he stated that, and he's allowed to do that. Copy variation between lenses results in a bell graph normal distribution of performance.
You can't add detail in post that a lens isn't able to resolve and capture in the first place. I wish you could!
If you look at AlanF's tests, the sharpness most people are concerned about is what level of details a lens will resolve with a particular sensor. Depending on the intended use of a lens, it may or may not be sharp enough. In absolute terms, test results such as Imatest which measures actual image resolution as LW/PH will provide values that describe a lens' detail resolving capacity which can broadly be classified as excellent, good, average or poor. Most of the tests I've seen for the RF 100-400mm describe the sharpness as 'good'. The sample images show that the lens doesn't retain fine details such as feather detail in birds at 100% compared to the EF 100-400 II, which is an apples to oranges comparison as that's a different class of lens.
Looking at the TDP comparison test, the RF 100-400mm at its longest focal length and wide open which is arguably its sharpest aperture (400mm f/8) is not as sharp as my RF 24-105mm f/4 L at its longest focal length and wide open (105mm f/4), which is not its sharpest aperture. The 24-105L is a reasonably sharp lens, but by no means one of the sharper L lenses, and for me, that's the minimum level of sharpness I prefer to work with. YMMV.
Canon RF 100-400mm F5.6-8 IS USM Lens Image Quality
View the image quality delivered by the Canon RF 100-400mm F5.6-8 IS USM Lens using ISO 12233 Resolution Chart lab test results. Compare the image quality of this lens with other lenses.
www.the-digital-picture.com
Last edited:
Upvote
0
I have a hard time believing this lineup. They didn't bother with a 28/1.4 even when SLR sales were ILC what they are today, so now they're suddenly going to make one? In fact it took them like 9 years to make the EF 35/1.4 MkI and and 12 or something for the EF 24/1.4 from memory, so it's surprising that they'd suddenly so many fast wide lenses all at once.
That said I'd wholly applaud: I got the Sigma 28/1.4 at the Adorama clearance sale price and love it. I'd pay double for a Canon though, in part because I'm convinced mirrorless design allows better wide-angle lens designs and the Sigma while very very good is still an SLR-style design.
That said I'd wholly applaud: I got the Sigma 28/1.4 at the Adorama clearance sale price and love it. I'd pay double for a Canon though, in part because I'm convinced mirrorless design allows better wide-angle lens designs and the Sigma while very very good is still an SLR-style design.
Upvote
0
I tend to agree. I wonder if some ‘source’ is basing this on a lens patent. For example, there was a patent with four f/2.8 primes (10, 14, 16, and 20mm) that published in June. CRguy erroneously called them APS-C lenses, but the 16/2.8 in that patent was the one that was already a product by then. Similarly, a few weeks ago a patent published on three wide f/1.8 primes (21, 24 and 28mm), CRguy again mistakenly called them APS-C lenses but one of them was the RF 24mm f/1.8 Macro that was announced the month before.
Upvote
0
At which focus distance were those measured? @AlanF tends use it near MFD, not near infinity. My EF100L macro lens was very sharp for close focus, but merely 'OK' when you went beyond a few meters.Entoman was relaying what he read in reviews, which is consistent with the majority of reviews I've read, he stated that, and he's allowed to do that. Copy variation between lenses results in a bell graph normal distribution of performance.
You can't add in post detail that a lens isn't able to resolve and capture in the first place. I wish you could!
If you look at AlanF's tests, the sharpness most people are concerned about is what level of details a lens will resolve with a particular sensor. Depending on the intended use of a lens, it may or may not be sharp enough. In absolute terms, test results such as Imatest which measures actual image resolution as LW/PH will provide values that describe a lens' detail resolving capacity which can broadly be classified as excellent, good, average or poor. Most of the tests I've seen for the RF 100-400mm describe the sharpness as 'good'. The sample images show that the lens doesn't retain fine details such as feather detail in birds at 100% compared to the EF 100-400 II, which is an apples to oranges comparison as that's a different class of lens.
Looking at the TDP comparison test, the RF 100-400mm at its longest focal length and wide open which is arguably its sharpest aperture (400mm f/8) is not as sharp as my RF 24-105mm f/4 L at its longest focal length and wide open (105mm f/4), which is not its sharpest aperture. The 24-105L is a reasonably sharp lens, but by no means one of the sharper L lenses, and for me, that's the minimum level of sharpness I prefer to work with. YMMV.
Canon RF 100-400mm F5.6-8 IS USM Lens Image Quality
View the image quality delivered by the Canon RF 100-400mm F5.6-8 IS USM Lens using ISO 12233 Resolution Chart lab test results. Compare the image quality of this lens with other lenses.
Upvote
0
I once owned the EF 17-40mm F4L but the corner sharpness was disappointing, so I sold it and got the EF 16-35mm F4L instead, which was a superb lens. Unfortunately an asshole broke into my car and stole it. Currently my wide-angle needs are covered by the RF 24-105mm F4L and my adapted T/S-E 24mm.The EF17-40/4L wasn't a great lens though and I wonder whether it met our expectations of what a L series lens would be.
Still available now @USD800 if @entoman wants to adapt it
I'm not intending to add any more Canon lenses (currently also have RF 100mm macro, RF 100-500mm, RF 800mm F11) until middle of 2023, when I may add the RF 14-35mm F4L, although if a RF 180mm macro L or RF 70-300mm F4L were to appear, they'd have priority over the wide zoom.
Upvote
0
While other lenses I've seen tests for are the exact opposite of the EF 100L macro, sharp at longer distances but degrade in image quality at close distances when wide open, and only achieve acceptable sharpness when stopped down.
I'm guessing that's because the lens formula for macro lenses is optimised for close-up performance, while other lenses are optimised to deliver their best performance further from the subject at distances where they are more commonly used. I'm not the person to ask, as I don't do lens tests, perhaps it's best to play to a lens's strengths when testing to determine the maximum performance it's capable of, and under what circumstances (focal length, distance, aperture). Many of the more detailed reviews will explore that, by testing zooms across their range, and all lenses through various apertures, and some will do close-ups and regular distances too.
Upvote
0
Fine, you already know everything negative about a lens which has just been announced....Most likely a near-fisheye lens with something like 40% rectilinear distortion, that's missing a heap of corrective lens elements to save money, and corrected in software, sharp in the centre with smeared corners and edges, featuring extending focus elements and STM motors! More of the same...
You must be an optical genius!
Upvote
0
Been hoping for this announcement for awhile. Now I will see what amounts of the 12 mm f1.8 lens specifically. I adapt the Sigma 14 mm f 1.8 for Milky Way and Aurora with great results. I also have a 24mm f 1.4 Sigma that I use for tighter Milky Way shots and it works quite nice stopped down a bit. The corners in the 24 mm aren’t that great.
I will be an early buyer of the 12 mm if is performs well in the corners. Don’t care about weight and assume cost will be stupid. I like how my EF 16-35 vIII performs in the corners even at f2.8 and am hoping for similar performance or better from a prime. We shall see!
Bob
I will be an early buyer of the 12 mm if is performs well in the corners. Don’t care about weight and assume cost will be stupid. I like how my EF 16-35 vIII performs in the corners even at f2.8 and am hoping for similar performance or better from a prime. We shall see!
Bob
Upvote
0
You didn't like my prospective lens review?
What do you mean by negative? Who mentioned anything about negatives? Certainly not me about the wonderful 12mm f/1.8 lens!
Those are not negatives, they actually all 'features' that this modern lens is designed to have. It's 'designed to use software lens correction', which makes it smaller, lighter, and that's a sign technological progress! Why would you think otherwise? What do you have against extending lens elements on focus, and STM motors? Are you a Canon hater?
Nobody needs edge or corner sharpness except people who can afford very expensive L series lenses. Every new photographer and person on a budget should only do hiking and travel photography, and possibly only vlogging video, and therefore only need these convenient light and compact lenses. It doesn't matter that these lenses use less lens elements and cheaper plastic aspherical lens elements (but cost more than a properly optically corrected lens), because that's a superior design, being part of Canon's new strategy for lens offerings on the RF platform, and we should be eternally grateful for that.
How can I be so sure? Easy! I read all the pro-Canon posts defending the RF 16mm f/2.8 lens, and I memorised the reasons why it was good and had no limitations or shortcomings, so I know I'm right!
Negatives, no way! To think anything else is sheer blasphemy, and should be actively discouraged, because saying negative things about a camera or lens (no matter how factual) makes people who bought these lenses feel bad. Only an internet troll or Sony fanboy would do such a heinous thing to a loyal Canon buyer. We need to reward brand loyalty by affirming and validating people's buying choices at every opportunity. When they buy something new, because they believed Canon's marketing hype, and experienced buyer's remorse afterwards when the product failed to live up to real-world expectations, we need to lift their spirits and assure them that they have the best gear, so they stay loyal to the brand. We need to maintain faith in all the company's actions, no matter how confusing or questionable they may seem. In fact, it's best not to ask question, just trust, and Canon will deliver. It's not willful ignorance as some people claim, things just work better that way.
The lens is almost perfect. The only disappointment is that the aperture is too bright/wide, shame it isn't f/6.3 or darker like some of the other consumer RF lenses we've grown to love.
Who needs fast apertures anyway? Canon says we don't! It just makes the lens unnecessarily heavy. The high ISO performance of modern sensors means that we can use this lens at f/22 and ISO 102,400 and the images would still look awesome, and the fact that we've only got 2.47EV of dynamic range doesn't matter because of the superior image quality coming from the advanced sensors in the new RF camera bodies. Besides, we have plenty of choices anyway. For anyone who doesn't like the US $900 12mm f/1,8 STM, which will sell for £1,100 in UK and $2,000 in Australia they can wait 6 years when Canon will release the L-series version for US $2,600. Any decent client should be happy to wait at least half a decade until a photographer can get the right lenses, otherwise they're being unreasonable. People can also buy the EF 11-24mm f/4L for US $2,999 and use that with an adapter, then just crop to 12mm, and blur the background a bit more in Photoshop. I can't believe why people complain so much!
<end sarcasm>
Last edited:
Upvote
0
At least one of the reviews I looked at had a full set of images from the RF100-400mm, taken at several different apertures, and at several different distances.
The text of the reviews stated that the lens needed to be stopped down a full stop in order to get decent sharpness, and also stated that diffraction caused softness at F11 or smaller apertures, and these statements were backed up by the published images. Diffraction softness at F11 was quite pronounced - enough to make the images unusable for me.
There are probably sharper copies out there, but unfortunately most of us don't have the opportunity or time, to test and return multiple copies, in order to find a good copy.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
