Rather surprised that there are not already 3 pages of comments on this new lens, after all it is a breakthrough (first Canon RF lens with built-in zoom motor). Not saying that this particular model is something I am rushing out to buy as I don't do much video and the zoom range is more for vloggers than photographers or traditional video folks. But it does open the door to future motorized zoom lens designs, especially coupled with the new Tripod Grip HG-200TBR and its redesigned Bluetooth remote, and may get people like me more into doing video now that my R6 Mk2 or R8 become decent video cameras just by adding the lens and grip.
The R6 V is 2499 USD. If a titling EVF is available I'd buy one with the new 20-50L kit lens. Using the flip screen only won't work for me. It's too darn sunny here on Oahu to shoot without an EVF.
Sony had 20-70/4 over 3 years ago and is about the same price. Canon being at 20-50/4 seems like a step backwards. I guess the videos are only closely subjects?
Correct me if I'm wrong but the Sony 20-70 does not have a motorized zoom, and it extends when zooming instead of internal zoom, so somewhat different.
Rivermist wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong but the Sony 20-70 does not have a motorized zoom, and it extends when zooming instead of internal zoom, so somewhat different.
Good point. I have nothing bad to say about the Sony lens, but that the RF 20-50 has internal zooming was an unexpected positive surprise. I guess this makes sense for a hybrid lens though.
Will be curious to see how the power zoom works with the lever on the R6V. Will it have fine gradations of zoom, meaning a slight turn of the lever = slow zoom, and then ramps up to a fast zoom with a further turn? I think that was one of the criticisms of the external zoom module meant to attach to the 24-105 and 70-200 Zs. that it was "all or nothing" when you pressed the zoom in/out button. Yes you could control the speed of that zooming separately from a different dial, but once it was set, the actual zoom in/out button was pretty much a Yes/No proposition. I guess if you were nifty with two hands and had the camera super stable you could try to do a combo of the dial turn plus the button press, but that would be tricky to pull off.
EDIT just watched a video on the rocker switch and apparently it does have a level of gradient when controlling zooming. Very cool.
Rivermist wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong but the Sony 20-70 does not have a motorized zoom, and it extends when zooming instead of internal zoom, so somewhat different.
Hopefully the optical quality of the 20-50mm f4L is better than the Sony FE 20-70mm f4. I had one of those for a while, and really didn't care for the performance.
Rivermist wrote:
Camera $2,499, lens $1,399, bundled $3,699 (on Canon website) tripod w/ remote $159.99 - shipping June 24th
Crazy money.
But I have to say the aps-c version I bought…..namely the 14-30PZ (AKA 22-48) is permanently attached to my R100. I need nothing more for walkabout and travel.
My guess is the new 20-50 will be superb. But the R6v personally does nothing for me…like its smaller R50v sibling didn’t either.
About time--long overdue. Sony has had a 18-105mm f4 PZ since 2013, with integral zoom motor (and a W/T rocker) and other powered zoom options (18-110mm, 28-135mm) for video.
As a C100/Steadicam user, my options were 18-80mm T4.4 (a Cine lens that's $4500 USD), an EFs18-135mm with an optional weird zoom drive underneath it that extended (not great for Steadicam) or attaching a wireless follow focus drive to the zoom ring of an existing lens.
And of course, it's on RF, not EF.
This is ideal for somebody shooting short video clips on the aforementioned R6V or R50V handheld. I wish there was hand grip with zoom demand rocker, but I suppose that's what the 24-105mm f2.8L Z is for. Those folks using an DSLR-like video body aren't going to be mounting it with rails and a shoulder pad for ENG style shooting.
Bah, I can't afford it anyways. For the price, I can buy an entire used Sony FS5 Mk II with a E mount 18-105mm PZ.
tsangc wrote:
About time--long overdue. Sony has had a 18-105mm f4 PZ since 2013, with integral zoom motor (and a W/T rocker) and other powered zoom options (18-110mm, 28-135mm) for video.
None of these are as wide as the 20-50/4L though; that's a big part of the appeal here. The 20-50/4L is also absurdly compact and relatively lightweight for being an internal zoom.
As much as Sony has other PZ lenses, they don't really have an alternative for the 20-50/4L.
gkinard1952 wrote:
Looks like Sony killed the day for Canon. Lack of enthusiasm for the Canon combo is pretty telling.
Assume you are referring to the A7R VI? An impressive machine for sure, but that camera is for a completely different demographic than the R6 V. Of course it will garner more interest from stills photographers.
garyvot wrote:
Assume you are referring to the A7R VI? An impressive machine for sure, but that camera is for a completely different demographic than the R6 V. Of course it will garner more interest from stills photographers.
Totally. And I see a lot more interest for the Canon setup than the new Sony camera, except possibly on FM where stills rule.
And at US$5500, the Sony camera (priced the same as their incredible A1 II and higher than the global-shutter A9 III) isn't going to be on many shopping lists. You could get an R5 II or Z8 for that price and a professional lens to go with it!
gkinard1952 wrote:
Looks like Sony killed the day for Canon. Lack of enthusiasm for the Canon combo is pretty telling.
Thanks for keeping to form with the usual 'glass half empty' comment.
As others have mentioned, totally different target markets and FM is strongly skewed towards stills over video.
As for this lens: as a primarily stills photographer, I would have liked 70mm at the long end. But I imagine the shorter range helped keep the size more reasonable - same filter size as the f/1.4 VCM primes, 16-28 and 28-70/2.8 and hopefully high image quality. It's very similar in size to the VCM primes, though around 100g lighter.
I have not used the Sony 20-70 but along the line of Cliff's comment, I also wasn't super-impressed with its sharpness at 20mm based on initial sample images by DPR, etc. It really appeared that the image periphery lacked sharpness compared to the image center, probably because its high distortion at the wide end requires software correction. I'm sure the Canon 20-50 also relies on such strong software correction, so it will be interesting to see how they compare.
