NEW Canon Hybrid Primes - DON'T Believe the HYPE!

Рет қаралды 1,708

Күн бұрын

Пікірлер: 36

@oldguy1030 Ай бұрын

Regarding small and light? It is a simple fact that potential resolution increases with the size of the objective. So small means that even with a well-designed and corrected lens you will never have the same resolution/sharpness as you could achieve with a larger lens. If you think about the most expensive cameras known to man? Those are professional astronomical telescopes - and the best go to enormous size for light-gathering and resolution. For terrestrial photography it is also true that the larger objective lens will get you more signal for lower SNR and will also get you more resolution. The little lenses can be amazing, but there is no substitute for bigger. You can argue for better designs and better glass but in optics, size really does matter.

@loudandclearmedia Ай бұрын

I agree, to a point. OTOH, I have a tiny 43mm f2 apochromatic Leica lens that you'd probably be pretty impressed by. It's no doubt still leveraging software-based corrections, but still, its BRUTALLY sharp.

@oldguy1030 Ай бұрын

@@loudandclearmedia Oh, I can be pretty happy with smaller optics but it is a matter of Physics that, given the same quality of design and build, - the bigger objective will gather more light for better SNR - and will have better resolution. Any disagreement is wrong. But if the quality of design and build are not equal? The smaller optic may prevail if it was made in a superior manner. Leica is well known for superior optics! Sort of parenthetically? Back early on in telescope building they would describe their optics in terms of their LENGTH, not the diameter of their objective lens or mirror. Their optical designs were not as sophisticated or complex. So you could have a scope measured in METERS because the high focal ratio (the ratio of the focal length to the diameter of the objective) they would have less aberration - for refractors that aberration most obviously being chromatic. Now we refer to our telescopes by the diameter of the objective because (in simplistic terms) that is the limiting factor in terms of SNR and resolution. I have a 101mm refractor at F5.4 which has nearly perfect optics (nothing is quite perfect) but it still cannot resolve things which are nicely resolved with the less-sophisticated optics of my 12" reflector. But for a variety of reasons I'd generally prefer the smaller refractor on most deep sky images. If I were doing planetary imaging I'd be wanting to fire up the 10" or 11" Schmidt-Cassegrain because of their long focal lengths. Those are now "ifs" since I found I really didn't like astrophotography enough to "waste" my time on it. All that said? Don't get me wrong. I don't disparage smaller optics. My main terrestrial camera pleases me greatly with much smaller optics. I'm actually considering even smaller optics as I covet the Sony RX100 VII but am holding off in part because I suspect I might be happier with a Ricoh GR4 (apparently due in the first quarter of 2025). Yup, I can respect a small lens quite a lot and plan to further invest in small optics in the foreseeable future. And it doesn't surprise me at all that the Leica is amazing!

@loudandclearmedia Ай бұрын

@@oldguy1030 Well put. I too like small optics. Well, let me explain that. Larger lenses are what I use to get paid. Big, fast full frame zooms. They are a tool. However, when I'm not working and would rather just enjoy photography (difficult to do when you make a living as a photographer), I tend to favor tiny setups. The kind of thing that attract no attention and if you brought it on a paid gig, there's a near certainty you'd get the "please tell me you're not using that" look from your client. It's with these compact setups I can stop being a photographer and instead just have fun being creative. In fact, I'm working on a video of that newly acquired Leica system that I mentioned. The Q3 43. Its pretty bonkers in all the right ways, and one of the most fun things about it is no one but a legit camera nerd would guess just by looking that it has even a fraction of the quality and capability it does.

@mikehessphotography Ай бұрын

This is a great take. I shoot both film and digital and share lenses between my EOS-1 and EOS R. I've noticed that the EF lenses designed after digital became the norm are incredible on a film body. I picked up the 50 1.2 and 14-35 4 this year. I had a friend that hated the 50 on her 5D mk IV. She said it wasn't very sharp and got rid of it. On the film body it is sharper than the film can resolve. On the EOS R, the AF makes it easy to shoot wide open. The 14-35 replaced my 17-40. On the digital body, it is pretty mid. On the film body, it is wonderfully sharp. On the Hasselblad point, I wonder how much that camera and lens system has to do with historic Hassleblad designs. Hasselblad is owned by DJI now. The drone I use says it has a Hasselblad lens. I really doubt Hasselblad had much to do with the design. I feel like DJI just bought the company for the name.

@loudandclearmedia Ай бұрын

Hasselblad is a difficult nut to crack these days. It's a lot like the Nikon/RED thing where it's difficult to discern if DJI ownership means Hasselblad will largely remain the same with the same people onboard but now have more R&D resources available (the best-case scenario), or if the larger company will cheapen quality while simultaneously relying on the Hasselblad name to increase margins.

@kingkrukgaming Ай бұрын

Good topic. Seems like DSLR era lenses are the better choice.

@loudandclearmedia Ай бұрын

@@kingkrukgaming for some things, strangely, yeah.

@sidvicious3129 Ай бұрын

This is brilliant and much needed information. I'm moving into cinema glass with the Dzofilm catta 35-80 and the 70-135mm. I already own the 70-135mm and will be ordering the 35-80mm this morning followed by the 18-35mm in a month. I will later move into their vespid series primesbnext year. My photo lenses will be run, and gun videography or photography only.

@loudandclearmedia Ай бұрын

The RF zooms are really good (for your run and gun scenarios). I perhaps should have touched on this more in the video to give it a bit of balance, but IMO the RF zooms are SO good, that's a big contributing factor for canon taking so long on the prime development.

@sidvicious3129 Ай бұрын

@@loudandclearmedia oh, I more than believe you, but we are primarily Sony shooters. We made that switch over 4 years ago. We are ordering Fx6s next year. I have shot the R3 with RF glass and loved it as well as shooting Nikon’s latest Z9 with Z glass and loved that as well. For our business at this time going forward it’s strictly Sony, that’s why renting items when you have time can be so much fun and it gives you so much more knowledge as to what is going on.

@chesterjohnson4504 Ай бұрын

Good video. I bought the 35mm f/1.4 for my Canon R5. With the R5 and the LR corrections I have no issues. However, I was a Nikon shooter for decades. I believe for my type of shooting my older DSLR's and the F mount lenses would be just as good. Again for my type of shooting. I am retired now, I do not shoot pro work or need the fastest, sharpest lens. Yes, lighter and smaller is nice. I have found, IMHO that the newer bodies and lenses do not increase my keeper amount and they just do not feel the same. Less character, or something is just missing in my final results. I do not need eye detection, fast frame rate or billions of MP's. My older D700, D4s, D810 and the wonderful lenses were fine. When using the R5 in a fast way the computer seems to lock up and in the worst time. With my D4s plus the 24-70mm f/2.8 I could shoot, recompose and shoot again with no issues and normally with the big headlights on the D4s 9 out of 10 times I had images good enough for my and the work I produce such as calendars and books. If I had to do it over again I would have kept my equipment and just upgraded to a D850 and called it a day. Hell, I still may but I know I would take a beating but I may feel better when using my camera gear. Oh, your beard is cool even in Gods light!

@loudandclearmedia Ай бұрын

Hey thanks! I agree, which is why although I did give a couple examples of this (Canon and Hasselblad) I was also careful to say that: 1. This is an industry-wide thing and 2. There are only a few examples of specific shooters this is really going to matter for Having said that, this design language of leveraging software corrections HAS become the norm, and I still think there's value to that conversation.

@yellowwducky Ай бұрын

I hate to say, I have a 24Lii and its coma is terrible even stopped down to f2.0. Very depressing hearing this is the trend though with new modern gear.

@loudandclearmedia Ай бұрын

I'm assuming you're shooting stars, because the only times I hear anyone even mention coma they're shooting astro. I've never gotten onto astro so I wouldn't know. I do have the EF 24mm L ii though, and I think it's quite nice for my needs.

@yellowwducky Ай бұрын

@@loudandclearmedia Yup, stars are a brutal test case and that is where it really shows up in a big way. My Fuji x100v stopped to f2.5 from 2 is waaaay better than my 5dmk2 with 24Lii stopped from f1.4 to 2.0.

@nagual2335 Ай бұрын

Since I pre-ordered the rf24 1.4 I just have a strong gut feeling that that lens is not gonna be exceptional (I own the rf 50 1.2 and in my book it's exceptional). I want to get the best auto-focus 24mm 1.4 lens available. Do you perhaps have a recommendation? (There's the EF mark 2 or Sigma)

@loudandclearmedia Ай бұрын

I don't think anyone can say at the moment how good or not the new RF one will be. Both the EF mkii and the Sigma are pretty solid though.

@Beaver-be8vk Ай бұрын

I actually just picked up the EF 35mm mark 1 because of too much correction. I know I’ll get crap for this but these new lenses have no 3D pop. And I’m still trying to figure out why everyone wants corner sharpness when 99% of the time the corners are blown out bokeh.

@martinekwall4671 Ай бұрын

Thanks for the video and the general view on the subject! That's interesting what Arri said about the size! Any idea of which Canon EF/FD lenses are better than the RF? My experience is mostly of wide-angle to smaller tele, older EF they are pretty crappy of edge sharpness, and chromatic aberration, and can't resolve small details that well. RF is per my experience better in many ways except size and maybe the "look". I have more EF than RF lenses anyhow, they are good enough for most client work.

@loudandclearmedia Ай бұрын

In general, I think the Sigma EF Art lenses are really nice. On the Canon side, the EF L 24 mkii and 35 mkii are lovely. I also like the EF 50mm 1.2L more than the RF variant (the EF isn't as sharp, but is smaller, quieter, and less hunty) and have heard great things about the EF L 85mm 1.4 (not the 1.2). The RF zooms, I LOVE. I have the 15-35 2.8, 24-105 f4, 28-70 f2, 70-200 f4, and 100-500 f whatever to f whatever else. All of them are brilliant.

@martinekwall4671 Ай бұрын

@Thank you for the good tips!

@reelsteelproductions2020 Ай бұрын

I've got the EF 24 1.4 and 85 1.2 (both Mk II). They're both chocker-block full of CA wide open, and not overly sharp (but sharp enough). I wish the AF on the 24 was faster, so it was better for sports (shooting trail running at 1.4 with it offers a unique look), and that the 85 was just a bit... better haha It's a beauty of a lens, but really only fast in terms of aperture. I wish it was more in line with the 85 1.4

@loudandclearmedia Ай бұрын

@@reelsteelproductions2020 I also have the EF 24 1.4 mkii, but honestly haven't used it a whole lot. The little I have though, I liked it...a lot actually.

@n5sdm Ай бұрын

I see tou talking but all I hear is "whhhhaaaaaaaaa"

@occipitalexposure5059 Ай бұрын

I shot Canon professionally for the last 18yrs. I upgraded from the R5 to the R5II and then finally switched to Sony last month after many years of consideration. Even if you dismiss Canon's inferior AF and sensor technology, Canon is taking a highly questionable path into the future with their lens lineup. Besides following the trend of heavy reliance on in-camera correction (which I can live with), Canon in particular has failed to capitalize on the potential size reduction associated with mirrorless cameras. Their L lenses are massive, and their smaller options are true budget lenses that aren't very good. I won't go into deep details, but it seems to me they have a lens roadmap to absolutely milk the consumers for every dollar they can by strategically releasing different variations of lenses and forcing Canon users to buy certain lenses because no other Canon option exists, and of course, because no other non-Canon option exists (due to their licensing restrictions). A great example of this is actually the RF 35L. They waited 6yrs to release a 35L on the RF mount!?!? That's a staple lens, but they really wanted people to buy some variation of their 24-70 zoom, a 28-70 f/2, and/or the budget 35 f/2 or 35 1.8 STM before they finally gave us the 35L prime. To top it off, the 35L is not innovative, not an optical stand-out, and it's more video-centric. Lot's of other reasons I'm not happy with Canon, but these are the reasons most relevant to your video.

@georgelpons Ай бұрын

Its a bit harsh, when Sony does the lense correction thing for longer than canon. You could say, they run after Sony, in that regard too.

@occipitalexposure5059 Ай бұрын

@@georgelpons They both do it, but really it isn't a huge deal unless you are printing at or near max resolutions. With that said, the Canon RF 35L distortion is absolutely the worst I've ever seen in a 35mm, let alone a top tier 35mm like an L, GM, or Z, lens. And to make it worse, the lens is still not remotely compact, so why the distortion? My guess is they cut corners for larger profits. Both companies make great gear, but Canon has rubbed me the wrong way for several years now.

@loudandclearmedia Ай бұрын

I had the opposite path in that I shot Sony for years but have now moved over to Canon. What changed?...the RF zooms. I fell in love with the RF zooms while building a collection of them while shooting on OG Komodo and later KX. So when, about 2 years ago now, I decided to go all in with Canon it was primarily a logistical decision as I would only need one set of lenses for both my stills and video systems. Add to that, I believe the RF zooms are better than the GM zooms. You can find examples of each that may challenge that assertion, but broadly speaking I find the RF zooms to be sharper, punchier and more contrasty, with an added bonus that so many more of them are optically stabilized. They say to "marry the lenses." That's what I have done.

@nordic5490 Ай бұрын

I own a R5ii. The new software corrected Canon lenses work perfectly with the R5ii. It is hard to understand what you were doing wrong. Maybe you needed some training, or simply follow Canons advice.? To gest the best out of Canon gear, you should use Canon gear as per the manufacturer intended, ie, use the system in the way Canon's engineers intended. Many of us are following Canon's advice and are achieving excellent results with the Canon system. Did you use Canon's DPP RAW converter tool ? I doubt it. DPP does the very best Canon lens correction and was designed by Canon engineers to work with Canon lenses. Those in the know use DPP & I have been using if for RAW conversion for 8yrs now. As for AF... hahahaha... you are having a laugh. I shoot birds in flight, small fast moving birds, often in low light, and let me assure you. The Canon R5mkii is leading the pack with superior AF for these very difficult subjects. Sony is behind atm. Sure, Sony will catch up, and possibly leap frog with a new model, but that hasn't happened yet. It strikes me that is you were indeed using Canon gear, you probably were not using it correctly.

@zegzbrutal Ай бұрын

Saying you have used R5ii but diss Canon on AF can disregard the rest of your opinion. Sony has nothing other than a9iii to have equivalent AF performance.