7 ms·

There's a couple of lens advancements I've seen recently that I found particularly interesting: Canon putting Fresnel elements in their lenses to reduce size/w

There's a couple of lens advancements I've seen recently that I found particularly interesting: Canon putting Fresnel elements in their lenses to reduce size/weight: https://kenrockwell.com/canon/lenses/400mm-f4-do-is-ii.htm https://kenrockwell.com/canon/lenses/400mm-f4-do-is-ii.htm Canon making an f/11 800mm super telephoto lens that can still autofocus thanks to the new mirrorless camera bodies: https://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/eos-r/lenses/800mm.htm https://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/eos-r/lenses/800mm.htm I think we'll see a big pivot in the market (we're already seeing it, really) with the switch to mirrorless. What I'm hoping we'll see is a total rethink of what's possible in a lens; adapting this new technology to make new designs that exceed what was possible before, rather than just matching it. If they can bring costs down by making use of this new tech then I think it will re-open the market for "I want something that does more than a phone camera". At the moment lens prices are pretty bonkers but I think that Canon f/11 lens is a great indicator; it's basically less than 1/10th of the cost of a traditional 800mm lens and does more than enough for most people.

formerly_proven 6y ago
> At the moment lens prices are pretty bonkers but I think that Canon f/11 lens is a great indicator; it's basically less than 1/10th of the cost of a traditional 800mm lens and does more than enough for most people. But that tradeoff seems hardly new to me. Consumer 70-300 for ~300 $ vs. Pro 70-200 for 2000+ $. The "only" difference is build quality and the pro lens being 2-3 stops brighter. Price difference: ~10x.
- xyzzy_plugh 6y ago
  I think you're in agreement with me, but the difference for the pro versions are usually substantial, such as weather proofing and more rugged materials (metal vs plastic) and usually more glass (less distortion at extremes, etc.). The market kinda makes sense: if you care about a few extra stops, and distortion at the extremes, then you are probably an enthusiast or professional who is willing to shell out. Otherwise, you'll have a great deal of fun with the cheap lenses.
- Kye 6y ago
  You can get the consumer 70-300 for even less refurbished assuming you mean the DX VR Nikon lens. I've had mine almost a year and it works perfectly.
- monkeynotes 6y ago
  2-3 stops is enormous. Speed of the lens is partially where the additional cost comes from, and professionals are willing to pay for that extra performance - especially sports photographers. It's been a long time since I paid any attention to pro photographic equipment so I don't know if fast lenses are important with modern sensors performing so well in low light. But back in the analog/early digital days 2-3 stops was a huge advantage. Also something to consider, the pro lenses also focus faster and more accurately. I was never sure if this was down to the software in the lens, which is proprietary and why 3rd party lenses are never as good as manufacturer. I could easily see Canon or Nikon tweaking the firmware on prosumer lenses to focus a fraction slower.
  - CydeWeys 6y ago
    The focus motors are just flat out better in expensive lenses. By contrast, I have a $200 Panasonic pancake lens with a terrible focus motor in it. It's slow, noisy, and hunty.
    - da02 6y ago
      Which Panasonic pancake lens do you have that is slow & noisy? How's the image quality despite the low-end motor?
      - trm42 6y ago
        Sounds like the m43 20mm f1.7, which is known for its good IQ, pancake design but annoyingly slow AF :)
        rodgerd 6y ago
        I was very disappointed when they bumped it to a version 2 and don't appear to have touched the motors or electronics. I'm very fond of the FOV from this focal length, but I have a hard time springing for a lens that will make... me... wait... so... long... for... focus... lock... Especially when it doesn't have a nice manual focus ring à la the Olympus m43 lenses.
- foo_barrio 6y ago
  As far as optical quality goes, focusing only on f-stops is like focusing on horsepower for cars. Even in f-stops, not all f-stops are equal since some lens transmit more light than others at the same f-stop. This is called t-stops and is used a lot of in pro video lenses. Another example is if I focus on something and then zoom in and out some lenses have to refocus and others maintain focus. This is an important feature for video and any kind of fast shooting. Many lenses have much more "focus breathing" than others. That is, the change of the effective focal lens as the lens focuses closer and closer. I had a lens that was 200mm but it was really only at infinity. At close focus is was closer to 135mm since the focus breathing was so pronounced. Bokeh, chromatic/comatic abberations, geometric distortion are other things I can go on and on about.
- michaelt 6y ago
  > the pro lens being 2-3 stops brighter Is it brighter for the same camera body, aperture and depth of field? If so, what would one look for in a lens's specifications to describe this difference?
  - Green_man 6y ago
    In the above example (consumer 70-300 [often f4.0-5.6], vs pro 70-200 [usually f2.8]), when these lenses are placed on the same cameras, the pro 70-200 will give 4x the light compared to f5.6, or 2x the light compared with f4.0 (consumer zooms are often variable aperture, while pro lenses are more frequently constant aperture). If you were to compare the pro lens on some camera, and the consumer lens on some different sized sensor, the math can get more complicated. Below is an explanation of what f-stops mean, if you're interested. the maximum f-stop of the lens describes the ratio of sensor length (1D, diagonally is best comparison probably), to the diameter of lens aperture. because the opening and sensor are two dimensional, every sqrt(2) increase in f-stop describes halving the light. for example, a f 1.4 lens can allow ~twice as much light as an f 2.0 lens. Every doubling of light is considered a "stop", like {1.4, 2.0, 2.8, 4.0, 5.6, 8.0}. An important consideration is that this number describes a ratio, not the absolute opening in the lens without respect to sensor size. One possible conversion method is to consider the sensor size of the system against some popular standard. For example, "aps-c" sized sensors are about 1 stop "slower" than full frame sensors, due to being 1/(2.25) the size of full frame sensors in area, or 1/(1.5) linearly. This means that many lenses can be converted not only on focal length, but also for f-stop, to estimate the total light gathering power of the system, and the output "look" of the image. Full frame sensors (~36mm x 24mm) are most frequently used in the photography world as a standard comparison point. For example, a 50mm 1.4 lens gives 50mm 1.4 on full frame, but that same lens on an aps-c sensor (like a fuji X, sony 6xxx, canon 7d, etc.) would not only give a cropped 75mm [full frame] focal length equivalence, it would also give the depth of field of a 75mm _2.0_ lens [on full frame], not 75mm 1.4. At the same time, the exposure would still benefit from the light gathered at f1.4. This is why many say that smaller sensors give a larger depth of field (more in focus, less out of focus background). In reality, this is due to the lens aperture being measured only as a ratio to the sensor size. Finally, the smaller aps-c sensor will give a larger depth of field at the same f stop, but may also give higher noise at the same ISO (to a similarly advanced full frame sensor). This means that an aps-c camera takes the exact same image when it has ~1 more f stop, ~33% less focal length, ~1 stop lower ISO to the full frame system. A big confusion around any of this "equivalence" discussion is that sometimes people mean equivalence for lens "look", and other times, they mean equivalence for exposure, while others may be talking about absolute image quality and noise. They're actually all related, though much of this discussion isn't important to real world photography.
- tomc1985 6y ago
  I recently switched from the mid-range Nikon 24-120 f/4 to the high-end 24-70 f/2.8. Yes the high-end lens is also a stop brighter, but you're missing the point that almost everything about the optics is dramatically improved. The 24-70 is noticeably sharper, even in the corners, has superior bokeh, has much better and more-easily correctable color fringing, super accurate AF (due to the wider aperture), nearly no vignetting, much better blowout characteristics, and much better distortion at wide angles. More importantly, those things combine to make a certain je nais sai quoi that makes photos taken with it seem to have much higher quality. I took a quick test shot of my dog when I got it and my sister remarked that she could practically feel the dog with her eyes, just looking at the photo. Nobody has ever said that about pictures of the dog that I took with the old lens, even if I spent considerable time trying to get lighting right and the dog to hold still. My old lens ruined a bunch of shots I took in a forest that required running at the extreme edge of its settings. This new lens doesn't look like it will do that.
- ska 6y ago
  build quality and f-stops isn't close to all that is different. Actual light transfer (e.g. t-stops in cine, but less quantitatively in SLRs, say - some lenses are brighter than others), sharpness, chromatic aberration, spatial aberration, focal speed and accuracy (assuming autofocus), consistency across the telephoto range (not for primes, obviously) - some lenses will have not just differet f-stops at different lengths, but really different characteristics. This doesn't even get into the subjective aspects (e.g. "bokeh") that some people care a lot about.
xyzzy_plugh 6y ago
Wow that lens is bonkers. What a reasonable price. I love it. Aside, I enjoy that Ken also loves this lens, despite it being mostly plastic, which he usually shits all over. It actually seems like a feature here, for weight purposes.
- Wistar 6y ago
  I have a 70-300mm DO and it is not a lens I like much. The 400 DO is probably light-years better. It is definitely light-years more expensive.
  - tomatocracy 6y ago
    I have the 400 DO. It's not really "light" but it's much much less of a beast than the 400/2.8. I really like it - it feels like it hits a sweet spot for me in the weight/light gathering ability/quality trade off and the quality is indeed excellent. But there's an argument that a 70-200/2.8 plus a 2x TC is very close in quality these days, gets you more flexibility and is a bit less unwieldy for a loss of only half a stop in light gathering ability at 400mm.
    - Wistar 6y ago
      Ooh. I'd love to try that lens. I have both the 70-200 2.8L II and the 100-400 II and I love them both. That 70-200 is one of my all time zoom faves but the 100-400 is not too far behind it.
      - tomatocracy 6y ago
        Yes. I have the 70-200/2.8 as well and had the 100-400 mk 1 years ago. The 100-400 mk I isn't a patch on either quality-wise but I gather the mk 2 is significantly better so not sure how it compares. Where the 400DO perhaps really shines is paired with a 1.4x TC - it's much more handleable than a 600/4 and paired with a decent body gets results as good as bodies 10 years ago would have got with the 600/4.
ghaff 6y ago
Although a friend of mine tried it out as a rental along with an R5. He was really wowed at first but after using it for a bit he wasn't as impressed with the results. Still, for a birder, at $1K coupled with the R5's eye autofocus it doesn't have any real competitors. Not everyone needs or can pay for the higher end and very heavy lenses. (And, with modern full frame digital cameras, the smaller fixed aperature doesn't matter nearly as much.)
geerlingguy 6y ago
Nikon has been making PF, or Phased Fresnel, lenses for a number of years too. The 300mm f4 is a head-turner due to its tiny size and diminutive weight, while still being as good as the old 300mm in almost every way. They also have a 500mm 5.6 that's similarly tiny (compared to a non-PF version) and hard to get.
- petepete 6y ago
  I've had the 300PF for several years and it's my most-used lens. I photograph birds and wildlife and being able to fit an extremely-good setup (a D500 with 300PF) into my smallest camera bag (Lowepro hatchback 16l) encourages me to take it on almost every outing.
  - geerlingguy 6y ago
    That's one reason I do tend to grab my Sony E mount fairly often these days... I just wish there were a lens close to the quality and weight of the PF 300 for the Sony system.
m463 6y ago
I don't know, the nikon p1000 is ~ 3000 mm equivalent by designing the sensor+lens together. On the other hand, it doesn't behave like a good canon ultrasonic lens with immediate focus. not at all.
- y04nn 6y ago
  The Nikon P1000 has a 539mm zoom lens with extremely small sensor: 1/2.3". And it's probably a contrast based focus system. I would not expect good results from such camera. Sensor size comparison: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sensor_sizes_overlaid.svg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sensor_sizes_overlai...
cactus2093 6y ago
I think you’re about 2 or 3 years too late with this comment. The switch to mirrorless is already here, Nikon and Canon have the majority of their core lens lineups out already for these platforms so it’s unlikely they’d replace them again for the next decade or longer. And yes, they are mostly better than previous generations across the board. Which is pretty cool, that something based on such a simple idea that’s been around hundreds of years still has room for major improvements.
- andi999 6y ago
  What is the deal with mirrorless? (no mirror, but why does this improve optics?)
  - jmarcher 6y ago
    Most mirrorless mounts are significantly wider (diameter wise) and closer to the sensors so they are able to develop new lenses that can take advantage of that.
  - DeathRay2K 6y ago
    Every element the light interacts before hitting the sensor degrades the quality in some small way. But losing the mirror doesn't really improve optics significantly. It's more about reducing cost and complexity in manufacturing, moving things like autofocus into software. The benefits to the consumer are quieter shooting and a lighter body.
    - Arelius 6y ago
      Yes, losing the mirror doesn’t really improve optics, however removing the mirror and related mechanism does allow one to bring the lens closer to the focal plane, which in turn affects the size of the rest of the lens elements. And makes everything smaller and lighter as you allude to.
      - ip26 6y ago
        which in turn affects the size of the rest of the lens elements. Sort of. The diameter of the front element is predetermined, a function of the sensor size, focal length, and aperture. Mirrorless cannot escape this. But, the shorter distance from sensor to lens does simplify the design of a good wide angle. Sadly, wide angles were never the big heavy lenses in the first place. The whole smaller & lighter thing is not a lie but pretty oversold. Some of the RF glass is actually bigger and heavier than the equivalent EF glass.
ashtonkem 6y ago
I wonder how many photographers were put off by the cost & weight of a 800mm lens, and how many just didn't actually need a 800mm lens? The only time I can remember wanting > 200mm was back when I did sports photography.
- trm42 6y ago
  For landscapes 400-600 mm are in some cases really nice.
- ivanhoe 6y ago
  Wildlife & nature, architecture, astronomy, any scene that you want to "flatten"...
  - robotmay 6y ago
    Yeah wildlife photography, particularly bird photography, can never have enough focal length. I practice stalking techniques to get closer (which has a much better cost/reward ratio to buying bigger lenses) but if you can fill the frame with a bird you can get awesome shots that just aren't possible otherwise. Currently I'm shooting at 600mm, and I definitely want a teleconverter to get up to ~800mm. After that the prices get truly insane so I think I'll just have to find some bigger birds at that point.
- matwood 6y ago
  I bought a 70-300 Nikon ED VR specifically to take pictures of the moon, and it does a pretty good job. Turns out it's useful for a lot of situations (birds and other wildlife). My vacation setup is normally iPhone + D7100 with the 70-300 attached. That can easily cover most situations w/o changing lenses around too often. I'm planning on picking up one of the Nikon mirrorless FFs soon.
skylanh 6y ago
For what it's worth, I like Bryan Carnathan's reviews a little more for Canon specific stuff: https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-RF-800mm-F11-IS-STM-Lens.aspx https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-RF-800mm-F...

formerly_proven 6y ago

> At the moment lens prices are pretty bonkers but I think that Canon f/11 lens is a great indicator; it's basically less than 1/10th of the cost of a traditional 800mm lens and does more than enough for most people. But that tradeoff seems hardly new to me. Consumer 70-300 for ~300 $ vs. Pro 70-200 for 2000+ $. The "only" difference is build quality and the pro lens being 2-3 stops brighter. Price difference: ~10x.

xyzzy_plugh 6y ago
I think you're in agreement with me, but the difference for the pro versions are usually substantial, such as weather proofing and more rugged materials (metal vs plastic) and usually more glass (less distortion at extremes, etc.). The market kinda makes sense: if you care about a few extra stops, and distortion at the extremes, then you are probably an enthusiast or professional who is willing to shell out. Otherwise, you'll have a great deal of fun with the cheap lenses.
Kye 6y ago
You can get the consumer 70-300 for even less refurbished assuming you mean the DX VR Nikon lens. I've had mine almost a year and it works perfectly.
monkeynotes 6y ago
2-3 stops is enormous. Speed of the lens is partially where the additional cost comes from, and professionals are willing to pay for that extra performance - especially sports photographers. It's been a long time since I paid any attention to pro photographic equipment so I don't know if fast lenses are important with modern sensors performing so well in low light. But back in the analog/early digital days 2-3 stops was a huge advantage. Also something to consider, the pro lenses also focus faster and more accurately. I was never sure if this was down to the software in the lens, which is proprietary and why 3rd party lenses are never as good as manufacturer. I could easily see Canon or Nikon tweaking the firmware on prosumer lenses to focus a fraction slower.
- CydeWeys 6y ago
  The focus motors are just flat out better in expensive lenses. By contrast, I have a $200 Panasonic pancake lens with a terrible focus motor in it. It's slow, noisy, and hunty.
  - da02 6y ago
    Which Panasonic pancake lens do you have that is slow & noisy? How's the image quality despite the low-end motor?
    - trm42 6y ago
      Sounds like the m43 20mm f1.7, which is known for its good IQ, pancake design but annoyingly slow AF :)
      - rodgerd 6y ago
        I was very disappointed when they bumped it to a version 2 and don't appear to have touched the motors or electronics. I'm very fond of the FOV from this focal length, but I have a hard time springing for a lens that will make... me... wait... so... long... for... focus... lock... Especially when it doesn't have a nice manual focus ring à la the Olympus m43 lenses.
foo_barrio 6y ago
As far as optical quality goes, focusing only on f-stops is like focusing on horsepower for cars. Even in f-stops, not all f-stops are equal since some lens transmit more light than others at the same f-stop. This is called t-stops and is used a lot of in pro video lenses. Another example is if I focus on something and then zoom in and out some lenses have to refocus and others maintain focus. This is an important feature for video and any kind of fast shooting. Many lenses have much more "focus breathing" than others. That is, the change of the effective focal lens as the lens focuses closer and closer. I had a lens that was 200mm but it was really only at infinity. At close focus is was closer to 135mm since the focus breathing was so pronounced. Bokeh, chromatic/comatic abberations, geometric distortion are other things I can go on and on about.
michaelt 6y ago
> the pro lens being 2-3 stops brighter Is it brighter for the same camera body, aperture and depth of field? If so, what would one look for in a lens's specifications to describe this difference?
- Green_man 6y ago
  In the above example (consumer 70-300 [often f4.0-5.6], vs pro 70-200 [usually f2.8]), when these lenses are placed on the same cameras, the pro 70-200 will give 4x the light compared to f5.6, or 2x the light compared with f4.0 (consumer zooms are often variable aperture, while pro lenses are more frequently constant aperture). If you were to compare the pro lens on some camera, and the consumer lens on some different sized sensor, the math can get more complicated. Below is an explanation of what f-stops mean, if you're interested. the maximum f-stop of the lens describes the ratio of sensor length (1D, diagonally is best comparison probably), to the diameter of lens aperture. because the opening and sensor are two dimensional, every sqrt(2) increase in f-stop describes halving the light. for example, a f 1.4 lens can allow ~twice as much light as an f 2.0 lens. Every doubling of light is considered a "stop", like {1.4, 2.0, 2.8, 4.0, 5.6, 8.0}. An important consideration is that this number describes a ratio, not the absolute opening in the lens without respect to sensor size. One possible conversion method is to consider the sensor size of the system against some popular standard. For example, "aps-c" sized sensors are about 1 stop "slower" than full frame sensors, due to being 1/(2.25) the size of full frame sensors in area, or 1/(1.5) linearly. This means that many lenses can be converted not only on focal length, but also for f-stop, to estimate the total light gathering power of the system, and the output "look" of the image. Full frame sensors (~36mm x 24mm) are most frequently used in the photography world as a standard comparison point. For example, a 50mm 1.4 lens gives 50mm 1.4 on full frame, but that same lens on an aps-c sensor (like a fuji X, sony 6xxx, canon 7d, etc.) would not only give a cropped 75mm [full frame] focal length equivalence, it would also give the depth of field of a 75mm _2.0_ lens [on full frame], not 75mm 1.4. At the same time, the exposure would still benefit from the light gathered at f1.4. This is why many say that smaller sensors give a larger depth of field (more in focus, less out of focus background). In reality, this is due to the lens aperture being measured only as a ratio to the sensor size. Finally, the smaller aps-c sensor will give a larger depth of field at the same f stop, but may also give higher noise at the same ISO (to a similarly advanced full frame sensor). This means that an aps-c camera takes the exact same image when it has ~1 more f stop, ~33% less focal length, ~1 stop lower ISO to the full frame system. A big confusion around any of this "equivalence" discussion is that sometimes people mean equivalence for lens "look", and other times, they mean equivalence for exposure, while others may be talking about absolute image quality and noise. They're actually all related, though much of this discussion isn't important to real world photography.
tomc1985 6y ago
I recently switched from the mid-range Nikon 24-120 f/4 to the high-end 24-70 f/2.8. Yes the high-end lens is also a stop brighter, but you're missing the point that almost everything about the optics is dramatically improved. The 24-70 is noticeably sharper, even in the corners, has superior bokeh, has much better and more-easily correctable color fringing, super accurate AF (due to the wider aperture), nearly no vignetting, much better blowout characteristics, and much better distortion at wide angles. More importantly, those things combine to make a certain je nais sai quoi that makes photos taken with it seem to have much higher quality. I took a quick test shot of my dog when I got it and my sister remarked that she could practically feel the dog with her eyes, just looking at the photo. Nobody has ever said that about pictures of the dog that I took with the old lens, even if I spent considerable time trying to get lighting right and the dog to hold still. My old lens ruined a bunch of shots I took in a forest that required running at the extreme edge of its settings. This new lens doesn't look like it will do that.
ska 6y ago
build quality and f-stops isn't close to all that is different. Actual light transfer (e.g. t-stops in cine, but less quantitatively in SLRs, say - some lenses are brighter than others), sharpness, chromatic aberration, spatial aberration, focal speed and accuracy (assuming autofocus), consistency across the telephoto range (not for primes, obviously) - some lenses will have not just differet f-stops at different lengths, but really different characteristics. This doesn't even get into the subjective aspects (e.g. "bokeh") that some people care a lot about.

xyzzy_plugh 6y ago

Wow that lens is bonkers. What a reasonable price. I love it. Aside, I enjoy that Ken also loves this lens, despite it being mostly plastic, which he usually shits all over. It actually seems like a feature here, for weight purposes.

Wistar 6y ago
I have a 70-300mm DO and it is not a lens I like much. The 400 DO is probably light-years better. It is definitely light-years more expensive.
- tomatocracy 6y ago
  I have the 400 DO. It's not really "light" but it's much much less of a beast than the 400/2.8. I really like it - it feels like it hits a sweet spot for me in the weight/light gathering ability/quality trade off and the quality is indeed excellent. But there's an argument that a 70-200/2.8 plus a 2x TC is very close in quality these days, gets you more flexibility and is a bit less unwieldy for a loss of only half a stop in light gathering ability at 400mm.
  - Wistar 6y ago
    Ooh. I'd love to try that lens. I have both the 70-200 2.8L II and the 100-400 II and I love them both. That 70-200 is one of my all time zoom faves but the 100-400 is not too far behind it.
    - tomatocracy 6y ago
      Yes. I have the 70-200/2.8 as well and had the 100-400 mk 1 years ago. The 100-400 mk I isn't a patch on either quality-wise but I gather the mk 2 is significantly better so not sure how it compares. Where the 400DO perhaps really shines is paired with a 1.4x TC - it's much more handleable than a 600/4 and paired with a decent body gets results as good as bodies 10 years ago would have got with the 600/4.

ghaff 6y ago

Although a friend of mine tried it out as a rental along with an R5. He was really wowed at first but after using it for a bit he wasn't as impressed with the results. Still, for a birder, at $1K coupled with the R5's eye autofocus it doesn't have any real competitors. Not everyone needs or can pay for the higher end and very heavy lenses. (And, with modern full frame digital cameras, the smaller fixed aperature doesn't matter nearly as much.)

geerlingguy 6y ago

Nikon has been making PF, or Phased Fresnel, lenses for a number of years too. The 300mm f4 is a head-turner due to its tiny size and diminutive weight, while still being as good as the old 300mm in almost every way. They also have a 500mm 5.6 that's similarly tiny (compared to a non-PF version) and hard to get.

petepete 6y ago
I've had the 300PF for several years and it's my most-used lens. I photograph birds and wildlife and being able to fit an extremely-good setup (a D500 with 300PF) into my smallest camera bag (Lowepro hatchback 16l) encourages me to take it on almost every outing.
- geerlingguy 6y ago
  That's one reason I do tend to grab my Sony E mount fairly often these days... I just wish there were a lens close to the quality and weight of the PF 300 for the Sony system.

m463 6y ago

I don't know, the nikon p1000 is ~ 3000 mm equivalent by designing the sensor+lens together. On the other hand, it doesn't behave like a good canon ultrasonic lens with immediate focus. not at all.

y04nn 6y ago
The Nikon P1000 has a 539mm zoom lens with extremely small sensor: 1/2.3". And it's probably a contrast based focus system. I would not expect good results from such camera. Sensor size comparison: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sensor_sizes_overlaid.svg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sensor_sizes_overlai...

cactus2093 6y ago

I think you’re about 2 or 3 years too late with this comment. The switch to mirrorless is already here, Nikon and Canon have the majority of their core lens lineups out already for these platforms so it’s unlikely they’d replace them again for the next decade or longer. And yes, they are mostly better than previous generations across the board. Which is pretty cool, that something based on such a simple idea that’s been around hundreds of years still has room for major improvements.

andi999 6y ago
What is the deal with mirrorless? (no mirror, but why does this improve optics?)
- jmarcher 6y ago
  Most mirrorless mounts are significantly wider (diameter wise) and closer to the sensors so they are able to develop new lenses that can take advantage of that.
- DeathRay2K 6y ago
  Every element the light interacts before hitting the sensor degrades the quality in some small way. But losing the mirror doesn't really improve optics significantly. It's more about reducing cost and complexity in manufacturing, moving things like autofocus into software. The benefits to the consumer are quieter shooting and a lighter body.
  - Arelius 6y ago
    Yes, losing the mirror doesn’t really improve optics, however removing the mirror and related mechanism does allow one to bring the lens closer to the focal plane, which in turn affects the size of the rest of the lens elements. And makes everything smaller and lighter as you allude to.
    - ip26 6y ago
      which in turn affects the size of the rest of the lens elements. Sort of. The diameter of the front element is predetermined, a function of the sensor size, focal length, and aperture. Mirrorless cannot escape this. But, the shorter distance from sensor to lens does simplify the design of a good wide angle. Sadly, wide angles were never the big heavy lenses in the first place. The whole smaller & lighter thing is not a lie but pretty oversold. Some of the RF glass is actually bigger and heavier than the equivalent EF glass.

ashtonkem 6y ago

I wonder how many photographers were put off by the cost & weight of a 800mm lens, and how many just didn't actually need a 800mm lens? The only time I can remember wanting > 200mm was back when I did sports photography.

trm42 6y ago
For landscapes 400-600 mm are in some cases really nice.
ivanhoe 6y ago
Wildlife & nature, architecture, astronomy, any scene that you want to "flatten"...
- robotmay 6y ago
  Yeah wildlife photography, particularly bird photography, can never have enough focal length. I practice stalking techniques to get closer (which has a much better cost/reward ratio to buying bigger lenses) but if you can fill the frame with a bird you can get awesome shots that just aren't possible otherwise. Currently I'm shooting at 600mm, and I definitely want a teleconverter to get up to ~800mm. After that the prices get truly insane so I think I'll just have to find some bigger birds at that point.
matwood 6y ago
I bought a 70-300 Nikon ED VR specifically to take pictures of the moon, and it does a pretty good job. Turns out it's useful for a lot of situations (birds and other wildlife). My vacation setup is normally iPhone + D7100 with the 70-300 attached. That can easily cover most situations w/o changing lenses around too often. I'm planning on picking up one of the Nikon mirrorless FFs soon.

skylanh 6y ago

For what it's worth, I like Bryan Carnathan's reviews a little more for Canon specific stuff: https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-RF-800mm-F11-IS-STM-Lens.aspx https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-RF-800mm-F...