|
|
Post by nickr on Mar 27, 2023 11:49:33 GMT
Before I bought my first white lens, I thought I might be self-conscious about it. I've several now, and never actually have been.
Mind you, with RF mount cameras, I've absolutely no fear of buying slow lenses either - I've got both f11 superteles (600mm and 800mm), and the RF100-400 f not very fast (5.6-8), which works absolutely fine and is so much lighter to carry around than my EF 100-400 L II.
|
|
|
|
Post by pixelpuffin on Apr 7, 2023 10:15:45 GMT
Before I bought my first white lens, I thought I might be self-conscious about it. I've several now, and never actually have been. Mind you, with RF mount cameras, I've absolutely no fear of buying slow lenses either - I've got both f11 superteles (600mm and 800mm), and the RF100-400 f not very fast (5.6-8), which works absolutely fine and is so much lighter to carry around than my EF 100-400 L II. I couldn’t bring myself to accept f11 as my widest aperture. Regardless how good they are. It just seems lazy on canons part. Whilst I really enjoy the RP (and M6ii) I’ve gone back to my 6d. The Tamron 45mm is fabulous as is the 6d sensor. I love that camera so much, everytime I view the images I ask myself why I bought into mirrorless. The Tamron has impressed me so much I just pulled the trigger on the G2 70-200/2.8. Got it for a bargain price. From what I read it’s supposedly superb and best of all it’s BLACK. yay!! |
|
|
|
Post by zou on Apr 7, 2023 10:19:45 GMT
All lenses should be f0.95, anything slower is lazy.  |
|
|
|
Post by nickr on Apr 7, 2023 10:37:23 GMT
Before I bought my first white lens, I thought I might be self-conscious about it. I've several now, and never actually have been. Mind you, with RF mount cameras, I've absolutely no fear of buying slow lenses either - I've got both f11 superteles (600mm and 800mm), and the RF100-400 f not very fast (5.6-8), which works absolutely fine and is so much lighter to carry around than my EF 100-400 L II. I couldn’t bring myself to accept f11 as my widest aperture. That's entirely a "you" problem.  I would counter that it's actually extreme laziness on your part to make any attempt to understand these lenses. Where and how else are you going to get an autofocus supertele at about £1 per mm? Not only that, but one that delivers decent IQ? These lenses leverage mirrorless technology in a way nothing else does, allied to diffractive optics, decent image stabilisers and a collapsible design - they're about as far from a definition of "lazy" as it's possible to be. If you decide they're not for you, fine, but rejecting them out of hand because you've not made any attempt to understand them? Well then you're not best placed to throw out accusations of laziness. I can't remember the last time I used my 6D. great camera, but the others are just so much better. Can't bring myself to part with it, but I'm unlikely to ever use it again in anger - it's no longer my backup body in my paid shooting kit. |
|
|
|
Post by pixelpuffin on Apr 7, 2023 11:02:22 GMT
Before I bought my first white lens, I thought I might be self-conscious about it. I've several now, and never actually have been. Mind you, with RF mount cameras, I've absolutely no fear of buying slow lenses either - I've got both f11 superteles (600mm and 800mm), and the RF100-400 f not very fast (5.6-8), which works absolutely fine and is so much lighter to carry around than my EF 100-400 L II. Those F11 and the F8 (100-400) are seriously making me wonder whether to abandon canon before I invest any more in the R system. The stupidly slow 24-50 6.3, or 24-105 7.1 !! What!!!! It’s like we are going backwards. We have amazing EVF’s, unbelievable high ISO ability, auto focus that’s verging on telekinetic!! Amazing, superb, brilliant…. And then we are offered stupidly slow but very expensive consumer lenses….What!!! As much as I like my M6ii and RP I seem to be picking up the 6d more and more these days. I recently bought a used Tamron 45mm… WOW it’s impressed me so much that I’ve gone and bought it’s bigger brother the G2 70-200/2.8….and it’s Black. yay!! Edit - sorry I thought my first reply had failed - hence typed it out again - Doh |
|
|
|
Post by zou on Apr 7, 2023 11:07:33 GMT
I sold my 8x10 gear because the AF zooms were too heavy.
|
|
|
|
Post by pixelpuffin on Apr 7, 2023 11:15:53 GMT
If I may, I take exception with the “ they are better” comment
I 100% agree they are easier, with more bells and whistles. Yes I too love the EVF and Eye Focus
BUT, there’s no denying the sensors of old give better files. The colours from the 5dc, 40d, 6d etc etc are just stunningly beautiful whereas the last generation of DSLR’s and now mirrorless has lost that subtleness. Instead we have very high contrast super sharp files which is great as that’s exactly what our phones deliver. But sensors of old, like the 6d captured the nuances of colour fidelity that seems to have sadly disappeared in the rush to grab the market share.
As I say I think my M6/RP are amazing until I stumble upon a file from my 6d.
|
|
|
|
Post by peterob on Apr 7, 2023 11:23:24 GMT
I couldn’t bring myself to accept f11 as my widest aperture. Regardless how good they are. It just seems lazy on canons part. It is a commercial decision based on weight not laziness and makes the lens available at low cost. With no optical viewfinder and the capability to focus in low light the only "need" for a fast aperture is depth of field control and for wild-life photography purposes F11 (as max aperture) is perfectly adequate on a long ( > 500 mm) telephoto. If I had an R body then I'd buy the primes. |
|
|
|
Post by peterob on Apr 7, 2023 11:33:43 GMT
Mind you, with RF mount cameras, I've absolutely no fear of buying slow lenses either - I've got both f11 superteles (600mm and 800mm), and the RF100-400 f not very fast (5.6-8), which works absolutely fine and is so much lighter to carry around than my EF 100-400 L II. Just saw this. That is exactly what I'd expect. I just bought the Fuji 150-600 which is F8 @ 600 and (although I haven't put it on the scales) I'd say it is lighter (it is certainly more comfortable to carry) than the 100-400 (F5.6 @ 400) which feels the same weight as the EF Canon 100-400 L II. The trade-off of max aperture for weight is well worth it now that it is not necessary to "see" through the viewfinder. PS - as a bonus the Fuji 150-600 is a white lens. |
|
|
|
Post by geoffr on Apr 9, 2023 18:35:11 GMT
Interesting that some are seeing slower lenses as a problem, current generation sensors and processing systems allow the use of ISO settings that simply weren't practical 10 years ago. Image stabilisation reduces the need for fast lenses to eliminate camera shake but subject movement still needs appropriate shutter speeds. The existence of these long lenses is more likely to attract me to Canon than put me off.
I recently wanted a longer lens, my options were the Nikon 200-400 f/4 VRII or the 200-500f/5.6 VR. One look at the 200-400 convinced me that the 200-500 was the way to go. The shorter, faster, lens was enormous and totally impractical for what I wanted. Shooting birds requires freedom of movement and that just wasn't going to be possible with the 200-400. The idea of a hand-holdable 600 is very attractive. I will admit that using ISO 1600 in good light to get suitable shutter speeds isn't my ideal but in practice the D5 does well at that setting so a generation or two newer sensor shouldn't have a problem.
No, it isn't laziness, it is a sensible approach to using technology to benefit the user. Smaller lens means smaller elements and lower weight, thus faster AF through reduced inertia and faster IS for the same reason (assuming in lens IS). If the sensor and processing noise is up to it a slower lens shouldn't be an issue. With an SLR the small aperture would mean a darker viewfinder but with mirrorless that isn't the case.
Fast lenses are really a carry over from film days when slow film was equated with fine grain and fast lenses were required to compensate. Digital doesn't work that way.
|
|
|
|
Post by nimbus on Apr 9, 2023 22:11:59 GMT
No, it isn't laziness, it is a sensible approach to using technology to benefit the user. Smaller lens means smaller elements and lower weight, thus faster AF through reduced inertia and faster IS for the same reason (assuming in lens IS). If the sensor and processing noise is up to it a slower lens shouldn't be an issue. With an SLR the small aperture would mean a darker viewfinder but with mirrorless that isn't the case. Fast lenses are really a carry over from film days when slow film was equated with fine grain and fast lenses were required to compensate. Digital doesn't work that way. Manufacturers will never manage to please everybody, that's a certainty. The advent of mirrorless cameras and sensors where the use of high ISOs is practical is something of a revolution for users of long telephoto lenses which can as a result be made slower, keeping weight and cost down. Fast lenses still have their place for many low light situations or where smaller depth of field is required. I don't really see why a slow aperture is a major problem with a long lens for a CSC, after all the DOF at closer quarters is till wafer thin. |
|
|
|
Post by nickr on Apr 10, 2023 11:10:30 GMT
Interesting that some are seeing slower lenses as a problem, current generation sensors and processing systems allow the use of ISO settings that simply weren't practical 10 years ago. Image stabilisation reduces the need for fast lenses to eliminate camera shake but subject movement still needs appropriate shutter speeds. The existence of these long lenses is more likely to attract me to Canon than put me off. I recently wanted a longer lens, my options were the Nikon 200-400 f/4 VRII or the 200-500f/5.6 VR. One look at the 200-400 convinced me that the 200-500 was the way to go. The shorter, faster, lens was enormous and totally impractical for what I wanted. Shooting birds requires freedom of movement and that just wasn't going to be possible with the 200-400. The idea of a hand-holdable 600 is very attractive. I will admit that using ISO 1600 in good light to get suitable shutter speeds isn't my ideal but in practice the D5 does well at that setting so a generation or two newer sensor shouldn't have a problem. No, it isn't laziness, it is a sensible approach to using technology to benefit the user. Smaller lens means smaller elements and lower weight, thus faster AF through reduced inertia and faster IS for the same reason (assuming in lens IS). If the sensor and processing noise is up to it a slower lens shouldn't be an issue. With an SLR the small aperture would mean a darker viewfinder but with mirrorless that isn't the case. Fast lenses are really a carry over from film days when slow film was equated with fine grain and fast lenses were required to compensate. Digital doesn't work that way. Exactly. I was in Cornwall last week, and after my last post, I wandered to the beach with my 800mm f11 mounted on the camera, and my small messenger bag with various other RF lenses in. On the way, I bumped into someone with a Sony, who said "nice lens, is it a 600?" He turned green with envy when I said it was an 800. "Wish I could get something like that, a Sony 600 weighs several kilos and costs a bomb, never mind an 800". I can - at a pinch - use the camera one-handed with the 800 on. Impossible - for me, at least - with any other 800. I can carry it all day without worry. The 600 often goes in my landscape backpack just in case - I don't mind carrying it around all day without using it, because it's so relatively light. I wouldn't - couldn't - own an 800mm AF lens any other way, and it's opened up many shots impractical otherwise. Sure, it you're a serious birder, you might want a faster lens - the other RF 800mm is a whole 2 stops faster, and costs £19 grand, about 19x what this one costs. But this is such a wonderful extra choice that is only possible because of mirrorless cameras and modern sensors, and actually gives people a chance of owning an AF 800mm. 2 stops higher ISO for an £18k saving? Yes please. |
|
|
|
Post by MJB on Apr 10, 2023 11:36:05 GMT
And it's black.  |
|
|
|
Post by nickr on Apr 10, 2023 20:57:54 GMT
And it's black. Well, except the silver control ring, anyway. |
|
neilt3
Full Member
https://www.flickr.com/photos/neilt3/
Posts: 134
|
Post by neilt3 on Apr 11, 2023 9:22:24 GMT
I couldn’t bring myself to accept f11 as my widest aperture. That's entirely a "you" problem. I would counter that it's actually extreme laziness on your part to make any attempt to understand these lenses. Where and how else are you going to get an autofocus supertele at about £1 per mm? Not only that, but one that delivers decent IQ? These lenses leverage mirrorless technology in a way nothing else does, allied to diffractive optics, decent image stabilisers and a collapsible design - they're about as far from a definition of "lazy" as it's possible to be. If you decide they're not for you, fine, but rejecting them out of hand because you've not made any attempt to understand them? Well then you're not best placed to throw out accusations of laziness. I can't remember the last time I used my 6D. great camera, but the others are just so much better. Can't bring myself to part with it, but I'm unlikely to ever use it again in anger - it's no longer my backup body in my paid shooting kit. +1 I fully agree . Canon can make long fast primes . Great . A long fast primes is big , heavy and expensive. Certainly not for most people . Giving you the option of buying these long but slower and much cheaper lenses make them within many people's reach . It's a shame Sony don't make these too . I'm using Canon EF gear mainly on film SLRs, though I do have a couples of DSLRs ( a 5d and 60d ) and the "L" lenses I have adapt great on my Sony a7Riv . I'm mainly a Sony/Minolta shooter A and E mount . My Minolta 300mm f/2.8 and 400mm f/4.5 , along with matching teleconverter are great lenses , but big and heavy . Unless I'm specifically planning on using them , I'll not have them with me. I'm more likely to have my 70-400mm with me or my Minolta Vectis 400mm f/8 Reflex or Minolta A mount 500mm f/8 Reflex . Small and light , much more likely to be carried "just in case" . These Canon offerings are the same. Almost worth buying a used RP or something for alone . At these focal lengths and narrow DOF anyway , is f/11 such a big deal ? |
|
