Possible New Lens (Page 4): Cover your focal lengths with zooms and add primes when you need the shallow DOF. If you shoot portraiture, the 85 mm on the RP is perfect. It really...

Haydon

Cover your focal lengths with zooms and add primes when you need the shallow DOF. If you shoot portraiture, the 85 mm on the RP is perfect. It really depends on your budget.

I would not consider buying the majority of RF glass despite it's overall acclaimed sharpness and unique features comparitavity to EF glass. I realize the RF 85 1.2 is in a class of its own but when you can buy the EF 85L 1.4 IS for half the price and mount it on a DSLR body as well, it gives ponder to real benefit. Sharpness is overrated with portrait work.

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

LFingar wrote:

Hadn't seen those two acronyms before. As with other mirrorless the R and RP focus on the sensor. Whether or not PDAF is involved I don't know. My R's auto-focus is both extremely fast and accurate. I never made an actual comparison but I noticed no difference between my R and my 5DIV regarding speed.

i have’t seen a comparison like that posted before, but that is the kind of news that would make the R-family make sense. Thank you for posting your experience .... we need more of that kind of thing.

LFingar Loc: Claverack, NY

rehess wrote:

i have’t seen a comparison like that posted before, but that is the kind of news that would make the R-family make sense. Thank you for posting your experience .... we need more of that kind of thing.

For some reason Canon has not made much of an advertising fuss over the R's auto-focus even though it is clearly superior to its DSLRs. Its improved accuracy and ability to focus at f/11 are a big deal to me and, apparently, to many others. I even bought an EF 2xIII extender to use with my 100-400 L II because I now have full auto-focus capability, unlike the 5DIV which lost all auto-focus with the 2x. Not only that, but the IQ with the 2x on the R is at least equal to, if not better, then the IQ of my 5DIV with my EF 1.4xIII extender. Needless to say, the auto-focus with either extender is slower, as you would expect.
Here is little informal, unscientific demo of one aspect that I posted a while back:
https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-605393-1.html

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

I think Tony Northrup does some AF reviews of the Canon mirror less on youtube - I would check it out if anyone has serious AF concerns. Ken Rockwell probably also has something to say about it...
.

bleirer

LFingar wrote:

Hadn't seen those two acronyms before. As with other mirrorless the R and RP focus on the sensor. Whether or not PDAF is involved I don't know. My R's auto-focus is both extremely fast and accurate. I never made an actual comparison but I noticed no difference between my R and my 5DIV regarding speed.

Here is an older applet that illustrates the cdaf and pdaf, to be viewed on a pc (at least my tablet won't load it). The first is pdaf but if you scroll way down you'll find a link to the next one, which is cdaf. My understand is the canon RP does both contrast detection and phase detection.

https://graphics.stanford.edu/courses/cs178/applets/autofocusPD.html

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

For those that haven’t seen the acronyms before, it’s phase detection auto focus and contrast detection auto focus...

User ID

rehess wrote:

This should be an easy question to answer. The OP
can purchase an adapter and see if EF-mount lenses
perform as well on the EOS-R body as they perform
on the EOS body. 😁

So true. But in this environment, mayhaps
that's rather TOO easy ?

LFingar Loc: Claverack, NY

bleirer wrote:

Here is an older applet that illustrates the cdaf and pdaf, to be viewed on a pc (at least my tablet won't load it). The first is pdaf but if you scroll way down you'll find a link to the next one, which is cdaf. My understand is the canon RP does both contrast detection and phase detection.

https://graphics.stanford.edu/courses/cs178/applets/autofocusPD.html

Thanks for the link!

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

User ID wrote:

So true. But in this environment, mayhaps
that's rather TOO easy ?

I’m not quite sure what you mean. If I were still a Canon user, being able to still use all my old lenses would be a real benefit.

stan0301 Loc: Colorado

The idea that prime lenses are better is a bit dated—I often use a 16-300, or a 8-16–, enlarge to 20-30 often with no problem at all—looking at your lens choices I do think something wider would help your image capture far more than adding some primes—(I own about a hundred lenses, and those are the ones I reach for)
Stan

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

stan0301 wrote:

The idea that prime lenses are better is a bit dated—I often use a 16-300, or a 8-16–, enlarge to 20-30 often with no problem at all—looking at your lens choices I do think something wider would help your image capture far more than adding some primes—(I own about a hundred lenses, and those are the ones I reach for)
Stan

I dunno - modern zooms are much improved, but wide range zooms typically still come off 2nd in terms of sharpness and speed to an equal quality prime (not to mention size and weight). I don’t have a hundred lenses, but my Canon EF 135 f2L is visually sharper, even with a 1.4x matched Canon extender, than my 70-200 f2.8L IS (which is no slouch either), and I’m betting either is sharper than a wide range zoom such as a 16-300. Maybe you can’t see the difference, but I can (and have the focus target images that show it). Wide range zooms (like 18:1) are fine for versatility, but no match for a high quality prime in terms of sharpness or speed, and I’m pretty sure I can post the lens tests to demonstrate that. Now a high quality fast limited range zoom, such as the 8-16 that you mention may be pretty close.

Haydon

TriX wrote:

I dunno - modern zooms are much improved, but wide... (show quote)

The 135F2 L is a 20 year old design but to the credit of Canon is still amazing in the MTF charts after all this time of being around.

I don't believe primes are dated when making portraiture outdoors when subject isolation is crucial. Those who think a 2.8 lens isolates enough haven't seen the benefits of 1-2 stops better using a prime.

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

Haydon wrote:

The 135F2 L is a 20 year old design but to the credit of Canon is still amazing in the MTF charts after all this time of being around.

I don't believe primes are dated when making portraiture outdoors when subject isolation is crucial. Those who think a 2.8 lens isolates enough haven't seen the benefits of 1-2 stops better using a prime.

Depends on what lengths are needed and how important 'isolation' is to the photographer. I use lots of different focal lengths in the range 18-135 - and I would rather show context - so one 18-135mm lens is much lighter / smaller than the comparable collection of primes.

Haydon

rehess wrote:

Depends on what lengths are needed and how important 'isolation' is to the photographer. I use lots of different focal lengths in the range 18-135 - and I would rather show context - so one 18-135mm lens is much lighter / smaller than the comparable collection of primes.

Everyone sees context differently. Shooting wide open in outdoor portraiture work is extremely common when the focus is meant to be drawn to the subject matter. You're shots are more environmental and that's perfectly fine but we all see differently. I started with 24-70 & 70-200 2.8 for event work and there isn't denying the usefulness. But primes inherently are simpler in design and carry far less weight with the added advantage of light gathering.

Shoot a 135F2 and see for yourself it's benefits. As Trix indicated, that lens takes a 1.4X and it's sharper than the 70-200 2.8L. I can verify that observation as I own both of them. I bought my zooms first and primes followed for more specialized work. I also believe primes forces you to frame better. You don't have the luxury of zooming and standing in one place. It forces you to work the scene and that's a benefit.

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

Haydon wrote:

Shoot a 135F2 and see for yourself it's benefits. As Trix indicated, that lens takes a 1.4X and it's sharper than the 70-200 2.8L. I can verify that observation as I own both of them. I bought my zooms first and primes followed for more specialized work. I also believe primes forces you to frame better. You don't have the luxury of zooming and standing in one place. It forces you to work the scene and that's a benefit.

There seem to be two views of framing; I most definitely do not stand in the same place for more than shot unless I want two shots with the same perspective. When a 50mm lens was my 'walking-around' lens, I was continually solving a problem - how to get both the perspective I want and the framing I want .... and frankly I typically did either one or the other {or both} poorly. With zoom lenses, I pick the perspective I want, then zoom to the framing I want, and often get both better than I ever got before. Zoom frees me to work the scene better.

The "Pro" who photographed our daughter's wedding did it all with an 85mm prime lens. For group photos after the ceremony, she took the bridal couple photos from the first row, then was forced a couple of steps back every time more people were added to the group. For the full-group photo, we had to remove some of the chairs because they were in her way - she was in the back of the room.