Here is the official Canon EOS R system white paper
- Thread starter Canon Rumors
- Start date
excellent white paper, especially as far as lens data goes. Have not seen Canon themselves so openly compare new lenses vs. previous ones - clearly spelling out strength and weaknesses.
Also interesting is the part on new "Thin-type" nano USM on RF 24-105.
Also interesting is the part on new "Thin-type" nano USM on RF 24-105.
Upvote
0
Briefly what negatives come with this - I assume some positives??
Found this to be a very educational paper for an amateur.
Jack
Upvote
0
Negatives are lack of tactile feedback, no hard stop at infinity or the MFD (for macro and astro, its common to just set to one end of the focal range), and that the lens needs to be mounted to a powered-on body to change the focus. The last one really only matters with lenses where the front element extends with focusing (like the 85L), where you have to remember to retract the front element before unmounting the lens. I don’t know of the RF 50/1.2L has an extending front element, but the focusing group comprises the front 2/3 of the elements (the front 11 of 15 elements).
Positives are that you can change the direction of focus (presumably via a camera setting), not sure why you’d want to.
Mixed is the focus throw can be variable (it is on STM lenses, I presume it will be/can be for RF lenses). I’ll just copy this bit from my review of the M18-150: With a fast manual rotation speed, the focus ring must be rotated 150° to rack the lens through the full focusing range, while a slow rotation speed requires a rotation of 240° to cover the same range. The idea behind this is to allow faster manual focusing with a shorter focus throw when moving between close and distant subjects, while also allowing precise fine-tuning of manual focus with a longer focus throw. I call it mixed because while it sounds nice in theory, in practice some find it annoying and difficult to get used to.
Upvote
0
If you depend on the lens physical stop to set infinity focus, you usually miss sharp focus slightly.
Upvote
0
Mark D5 TEAM II
Proud N0ink 0wnz0r / crApple iFruitcake H4t3r
Just read through the 43 pages, and, based on the MTF, the 28-70/2 at f/2 is sharper than both 24-70/2.8 & 24-70/4 at both ends of the zoom, the RF 50/1.2 is waaayyy sharper than the EF 50/1.2 and 50/1.8, the RF 24-105/4 is slightly worse in some parts of the frame than the EF 24-105/4 Mk.II, and roughly equal to the 24-105/3.5-5.6 in others. The RF 35/1.8 IS Macro is slightly worse than the EF 35/1.4L but better than EF 35/2 IS USM overall.
Upvote
0
Neuro, is this confirmed? Jordan Drake from DPR said the same at the event last night but I could only confirm it (of the three USM lesnses coming) in this document for the RF 24-105.
- A
Upvote
0
w.r.t. to MTF charts, sure. But I'll still kill that RF 35mm with a hammer because it's STM.
35 f/2 IS = Ring USM + mechanical focusing override ftw.
- A
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
I haven’t confirmed it for the other RF lenses, but the new EF 400/2.8 III and 600/4 III are both FBW. I use MF on my 600 II frequently, and not that I planned on getting the MkIII, but FBW pretty much nails that coffin shut.
Upvote
0
A very useful explanation of their new tech, as well as MTF details for the lenses. Even though the 24-105 is shown in some areas to be a bit worse than the EF model, when I can afford it I may well get the kit. It will be a while though! £3k plus, and then probably a post-Brexit premium
The focus-by-wire? I guess we will have to see how well it works in practice.
The focus-by-wire? I guess we will have to see how well it works in practice.
Upvote
0
According to DPR, all the lenses are internally focusing except the 24-105 which is 'rear' (not sure what that means - it extends into the body maybe?), I wonder if this is why?
Upvote
0
Similar threads
