RF lenses

[SpringfieldPhoto]

I have just read yet another comparison review of an RF lens against the best from the opposition. Yet again the RF lens was soundly beaten by the comparable Nikon lens and what makes it even worse is that, as usual these days, the Nikon lens is cheaper. As moving to mirrorless will eventually mean replacing my lenses, I am now seriously considering buying a Nikon in order to gain access to superior glass at cheaper prices.

[Trev B]

I know someone who has done just that, however I will be remaining faithful.

[SpringfieldPhoto]

As I am far from convinced that the R system is the best out there for stills photography and I never take video I am going to wait for at least a year before making any more purchases. Changing to mirrorless is as complex as changing manufacturers and therefore it is time to take stock. The R system is the most expensive and at present I cannot see that it offers any advantages over the opposition as a system for still photography. The R 6 that I already have is a good camera but no better than many cameras from the opposition. The RF lenses are a disappointment as they are not the best in class on many occasions and are far too expensive. Having used a Nikon Z6 II belonging to a friend I feel it offers all that a stills photographer could wish for and has better sensor than the R6 the same is true for the Sony Alpha 7 IV.
As, in the fullness of time, I shall have to replace all my EF fit lenses the choice of camera body is wide open. Sony is a real contender as in addition to their own lenses, there are some excellent alternatives from Sigma and Tamron.
Over the next year I shall try out all the options from the opposition and then decide my way forward. I can afford to wait as i have my tried and trusted 5D MKiVs that do a superb job.

[@imagesBV]

I have tried several different systems - Olympus and Fuji and have come back to Canon.
I doth think they produced colours as faithfully as Canon....and images were more difficult to post process.
The Canon Menu is also the most straightforward.
Nikon maybe technically better but if the differences/improvements are beyond need or even perception is there any real advantage?
I use R6 and non L lenses...the results are fantastic...I also have a Leica M and Summicron lens - it produces great characterful images but thats its USP - character, not accuracy or detail.
Just my thoughts.
I've met people who have made the jump to Nikon and have been very happy..
....as a Pro(I am not) - cost is also a business decision of course for you...so we all have our criteria and that might be reason enough.
Happy decision making.
Comparison is the thief of joy!

[El Sid]

With these comparisons I wonder if we are talking top end lenses or just the more mid- or lower-range kit?

As someone with a foot in both camps (SLR wise at least) my experience suggests that at the lower end of the price scale Nikon can sometimes have the advantage; for example my Nikkor 18-70mm zoom is optically better than the Canon 17-85 mm USM particularly at wider apertures. It's not that the 17-85 is a bad lens - it does a perfectly decent job for the photography I do - but when push comes to shove the Nikon is just that bit better. I also have a couple on Canon L lenses and I suspect I would struggle to separate their performance from their Nikkor equivalents.

I'm also suspicious of many comparative tests - often the reviewers seem to have an agenda and the alleged difference seem to be more instrumental than practical...

[John Liddle]

I suupose the only real test is "Would the viewer know which lens I used?"

If there is no discernable difference without pixel-peeping, does it matter?

It's the photographer who makes the picture, not the equipment.

[dolina]

I have just read yet another comparison review of an RF lens against the best from the opposition. Yet again the RF lens was soundly beaten by the comparable Nikon lens and what makes it even worse is that, as usual these days, the Nikon lens is cheaper. As moving to mirrorless will eventually mean replacing my lenses, I am now seriously considering buying a Nikon in order to gain access to superior glass at cheaper prices.

With the digital still camera as a whole is shrinking, companies losing market share, companies being bought out by the competition and other trends makes me thinking that maybe we should look at the system outside of optical performance and affordability.

I'd not want to invest in any system that gets orphaned within a decade of my buying into them.

[bobowen]

I suupose the only real test is "Would the viewer know which lens I used?"

If there is no discernable difference without pixel-peeping, does it matter?

It's the photographer who makes the picture, not the equipment.

Couldn't agree more John.
Nobody asked Picasso, Turner or Monet what brand of brushes they used.

[SpringfieldPhoto]

I have made the jump. Sold all my Canon gear and associated third party lenses and have gone to Sony.

[Trev B]

Hope you're happy with the new kit Alan. Must admit Sony seem to have a good write up.
I will stick with Canon who I’ve been with since 1956, my first camera back then being a ‘Canon Flex’
I’ve always been happy with the results I get from my Canon gear, might not be up to the standard of some on the Forum, but OK for me - and without sounding boastful had many hundreds published.
I always think camera manufacturers are like supermarkets - is there any marked difference between Tesco, Sainsbury’s and Asda!

[@imagesBV]

I think you have to pixel peep to see a difference in quality. Though there are differences in character and usability…all cameras with micro four thirds and larger sensors exceed nearly all needs.
You choose and enjoy….no write or wrong answer…it remains that comparison is the thief of joy.

[SpringfieldPhoto]

I think you have to pixel peep to see a difference in quality. Though there are differences in character and usability…all cameras with micro four thirds and larger sensors exceed nearly all needs.
You choose and enjoy….no write or wrong answer…it remains that comparison is the thief of joy.

So true. My main reasons for changing are that I just don't like the R system and I wanted to have a complete mirroless system with no adapters so I can get the full benfits of the system and the R system doesn't allow me to do that at present. I have arthritis in my hands so I desperately wanted lighter cameras so the choice was really made for me. Sony had what I was looking for Canon didn't. I was sad to admit that as I have used Canon for 44 years but it just wasn't a choice I could go with due to the lack of some of the lenses and the cameras that I was looking for.

[@imagesBV]

Wishing you all the best with Sony…and hope the arthritis doesn’t worsen or hamper you too much. My wife has RA it’s crippling ….cannot hold anything bigger than a phone for her photography so I can emphasise with you.
All the best…