Z7-Z6 Lenses

1232425262729»

Comments

  • mhedgesmhedges Posts: 2,293Member
    I think minimum focus distance has always been measured that way for any type of lens. Otherwise it gets pretty tricky especially with lenses that extend when zooming and/or focusing.
  • mhedgesmhedges Posts: 2,293Member
    Not gonna lie I'm a bit jealous of this upcoming RF 100-400. Sure it's slow (5.6-8) and won't be as good as the Nikon one but at $650 it's a pretty attractive option for a tele zoom.
  • photobunnyphotobunny Posts: 442Member
    mhedges said:

    Not gonna lie I'm a bit jealous of this upcoming RF 100-400. Sure it's slow (5.6-8) and won't be as good as the Nikon one but at $650 it's a pretty attractive option for a tele zoom.

    I think it is attractive for Canon's strategy of ditching crop and going all in on full frame. The RF 100-400 basically replaces the EFS 50-250/70-300 type lenses. So you can get a RP(or its replacement) with a 24-105 f/7.1 and RF 100-400 f/8.0 for less than the cost of a Z6 II. Pretty compelling. But Canon don't have any middle ground between a naff £200 50mm f/1.8 and the fantastic 50mm f/1.2.... this continues across the lens lineup with nothing like the Z f/1.8 S line.
  • mhedgesmhedges Posts: 2,293Member

    mhedges said:

    Not gonna lie I'm a bit jealous of this upcoming RF 100-400. Sure it's slow (5.6-8) and won't be as good as the Nikon one but at $650 it's a pretty attractive option for a tele zoom.

    I think it is attractive for Canon's strategy of ditching crop and going all in on full frame. The RF 100-400 basically replaces the EFS 50-250/70-300 type lenses. So you can get a RP(or its replacement) with a 24-105 f/7.1 and RF 100-400 f/8.0 for less than the cost of a Z6 II. Pretty compelling. But Canon don't have any middle ground between a naff £200 50mm f/1.8 and the fantastic 50mm f/1.2.... this continues across the lens lineup with nothing like the Z f/1.8 S line.
    That's true - it's a very bifurcated line. Everything is low or high end with very little in between.

    I'm still thinking they will do a crop sensor RF camera. They are also coming out with a cheap 16mm prime which is kind of an unusual focal length - makes me think it's intended to be used on crop and ff sensors.
  • photobunnyphotobunny Posts: 442Member
    mhedges said:


    I'm still thinking they will do a crop sensor RF camera. They are also coming out with a cheap 16mm prime which is kind of an unusual focal length - makes me think it's intended to be used on crop and ff sensors.

    I really don't think we'll see another Canon crop sensor camera. Not when they can make sub $1000 full frame cameras and not with the whole camera industry going up market. Canon also have the M line, which still does well, but the bulk buyers of crop sensor cameras have all but decided that their phones are good enough.

    Here the local catalogs and PC world type stores have the Canon RP front and centre, and it is competing on price with the Z50 more than the Z5. If they packaged it up to look retro, it would be a rather unstoppable little 1 FPS camera.
  • PB_PMPB_PM Posts: 4,434Member
    Nice to see that little 40mm F2, the second true budget lens for the Z-mount (28SE was first). Interesting focal length choice, never felt a strong need for it, but given the compact size it is somewhat appealing.
    If I take a good photo it's not my camera's fault.
  • mhedgesmhedges Posts: 2,293Member
    I wonder if the focal length choice was to "split the difference" to make it more appealing for FF and crop sensor cameras.

    Or maybe they just wanted to give us a little more variety considering we already have three Z mount 50mm prime lenses.
  • PB_PMPB_PM Posts: 4,434Member
    Offering something different could be a reason for sure. DX appeal, not sure it’s a bit of an odd focal length for that.
    If I take a good photo it's not my camera's fault.
  • WestEndFotoWestEndFoto Posts: 3,601Member
    I think that half the reason for the existence of these lens is their appropriateness for DX. I have ordered, an am still waiting for, the Z fc 28mm kit plus a mic. I have added the 40 2.0 to this kit. I expect to use it for family video quite a bit.
  • WestEndFotoWestEndFoto Posts: 3,601Member
    I think that I have shot my 50mm 1.8S, 50mm 1.2S and 58mm 0.95S Noct Enough to draw some preliminary conclusions about their relative IQ.

    The Noct is essentially perfect optically. However, the autofocus is crap. I have not been able to figure out how to make it work. Oh well.

    The 50 1.2S is nearly perfect optically.

    The 50 1.8S is exceptional optically.

    On a more serious note, my style of shooting deserves some comment. I have heard many argue that a fast lens is only required if you shoot wide open. That is certainly something a fast lens can do that a slower lens cannot. I have then heard that once you stop a lens down, they are all the same. With some quibbles, I would tend to agree with that if you are stopping down good lenses to 5.6 or 8.0 - but the lenses need to be in the same quality category in my opinion. However, there is a serious oversight if you stop there that may (or may not depending on the lenses that you are comparing) overlook an important difference.

    Why?

    First, I have heard many also say that a while central sharpness is important, mid-frame or edge sharpness does not really matter as those areas will be out of focus. I think that people that say this need to open their minds to more creative photography as they seem to think that subjects should be in the centre of the frame and not the edge.

    But many of my shots are like this:

    Having a Drink

    Not in the centre of the frame. Mid frame sharpness is therefore important to me.

    All three of these lenses are quite sharp wide open in the centre. Wide open is certainly not their sharpest aperture, but they are all quite sharp. But things get more interesting as you stop down. What tends to happen is that the centre becomes sharper but the mid frame lags. I see this most on the 50 1.8S and least on the Noct.

    So let's start with the 50 1.8S. At 1.8 it is sharp in the centre and decently sharp in the mid frame. However, if you stop down to 2.8 it is wicked sharp in the centre and only "sharp" in the mid-frame.

    Next is the 50 1.2S. At 1.2 it is sharp in the centre and decently sharp in the mid frame - maybe a little better. But stop it down to 2.0 and it is a little sharper than the 50mm 1.8S in the centre but quite a lot sharper than the 1.8S in the mid-frame or edges. Therefore, unless you only compose your subjects in the centre of the frame, the 50mm 1.2S is significantly superior to the 50mm 1.8S at f/2.0.

    And the Noct takes it to another level. Across the frame, it is beating the 50mm 1.2S at f/1.6-f/1.8.

    So from an IQ perspective, the Noct is better than the 50mm 1.2S which in turn is better than the 50mm 1.8S for the following reasons:

    1.
    Wider aperture with more subject isolation. Note that the Noct is a little longer, so you get a little more subject isolation there as well.

    2.
    Sharp across the frame at a wider aperture. 1.6-1.8 for the Noct. 2.0 for the 50mm 1.2S. 2.8 for the 50mm 1.8S.

    I would also point out that the Noct is crisp in a way that is better than the 50mm 1.2S and the 50mm 1.2S is crisp in a way that is better than the 50mm 1.8S. I would also note that the difference in this quality is more noticable between the Noct and 50mm 1.2S than it is between the 50mm 1.2S and 50mm 1.8S.
  • Capt_SpauldingCapt_Spaulding Posts: 618Member

    I think that I have shot my 50mm 1.8S, 50mm 1.2S and 58mm 0.95S Noct Enough to draw some preliminary conclusions about their relative IQ.

    The Noct is essentially perfect optically. However, the autofocus is crap. I have not been able to figure out how to make it work. Oh well.

    Hang in there. You'll get it sorted. B)
Sign In or Register to comment.