Carlo_M
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 p.4 #9 · Why so little interest in RF 35mm F1.4 VC | |
artsupreme wrote:
I would like to see some side by side comparisons of the EF 35II and the RF 35VCM to see what all the fuss is about. Had I not dumped my 35II I could have done the comparison myself but I don't have it anymore. I prefer the size/weight of the VCM and not once have I ever questioned the IQ of the VCM lenses as they all produce amazing results. One thing to note is that I also often prefer the images uncorrected, so I guess that's another positive that's not mentioned much, is that you have a "wider" uncorrected option as well, which theoretically could be a gain for those splitting hairs here. If people are that worried about a very small percentage of crop/correction, then they might like the small percentage gain on the wide end occasionally. I believe these lenses are a made at a little wider FL and then the correction gets them to the advertised FL.
Regardless of what's going with the correction or how much percentage these things are cropped, I believe the issues people have are conflicts within themselves, in that they think they are being robbed somehow. For what I shoot, I have never cared about edges or corners so none of this matters, but I would like to see examples of where the 35 VCM is short changing someone compared to the EF 35II in real world examples. ...Show more →
In addition to your point about maybe occasionally preferring the uncorrected image, there's also the possibility of a middle ground - that being a "corrected to taste" image. A photographer can decide how much distortion and vignette to correct. Personally I don't do it (I am one of those who are okay with the default lens profile correction) but it's an option for those who might want to tinker.
I do agree that for some folks, some of this feels like "we're being robbed". Just like they can't force me to feel robbed, I can't force others into not feeling robbed. I can only present what I view as the pros which, for the VCM lenses, outweigh the cons for my use cases. Others will feel differently and that's okay. No manufacturer can please everyone, and ultimately the market will have its say as to whether the VCMs are a hit or a miss.
Also, here you go. The RF35 VCM vs. the EF 35 1.4 II (and the RF 35 1.8 thrown in for good measure)
---------------------------------------------
JohnDizzo15 wrote:
To clarify, I fully understand where happy users are coming from. It serves the need and does it effortlessly while meeting the threshold of IQ that you deem good for you. I know, because I bought the lens myself as I was hoping to really love it. The lens was plenty sharp, focused amazingly well, and generally got the job done. But I wasn't in love with the images. Again, I recognize that this is entirely subjective.
I only raise the issue on the sensor cropping required because I think it is a bad business practice on Canon's part to not give full disclosure. If you are content with the lens, I am content for you. But that doesn't negate the logic of the business practice employed here. What other part of the marketplace for any other product we might need or want would we be okay with a company deciding for us that we didn't need to fully utilize something while not fully disclosing that to the consumer? To add some salt, the company selling said item then takes additional steps to hide that information from the consumer after the fact.
Again, if Canon believed this was good business practice, why obscure the actual data electronically so that we are none the wiser?...Show more →
I guess my question is: what do you define as full disclosure, and what company does it? In my view, most advanced photographers who care know that lens profiles exist, and what they do. And in the 3 years since I've re-entered the hobby, the prevalence of gear preview/initial review on the web (review sites, youtubers, etc.) is off the charts. I knew the VCMs were being corrected well in advance of their release dates. As I mentioned before, lens profiles and correction are not new, and haven't been broadly advertised before by any manufacturer.
Heck, Leica for their Q3 line doesn't even let you see what the uncorrected result looks like. When I load my Q3 monochrome pics into Lr/PS it warns me that the result already includes manufacturer in camera corrections but unlike Canon, doesn't allow me to toggle them on/off. But every person I've shown them to has loved the results.
With regards to you "not being moved as much" I will say this: when I get my 50 VCM, I am prepared to "not be moved as much" in comparison to some of the shots I took on my now-sold 50 1.2L. But I'm betting that's going to be due to the small amount of bokeh quality loss going from f/1.2 to f/1.4. But I know based on a bunch of reviews I've seen, that the VCM is going to be as sharp, if not sharper, across the frame, and needing only a smidge more correction...but I'll also know that it will focus 3-4X faster (the f/1.2 had to move a lot of glass and it let you know visibly and audibly that it was quite a task to do so) and that it will have almost no focus breathing and be a stellar performer on video AF and tracking so that I'm prepared to not be as blown away by the bokeh rendering in exchange for all those other features. And keep in mind the MSRP is $1K less for the VCM. If one were only a portrait photographer with zero video needs, and didn't mind the slower, noisier AF, and just needed that last extra oomph from the better bokeh, then by all means go with the 50 1.2. But for anyone who doesn't fit that category, the 50 1.4 VCM is in my view the better lens and it's less expensive and lighter/easier to carry around.
|
Images load without correction, if they load at all. That's how I got the 24-105 sample above in this thread. 
