Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Canon EF and RF Lenses – All Autofocus Motors

exclusivearchitecture.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 147 posts

Re: Canon EF and RF Lenses – All Autofocus Motors

#131

Post by faefox »

post_break wrote: post #105

Canon is dead to me after they forced 3rd parties to stop all RF lenses. I bought the last AF lens by Viltrox and it's fantastic. I regret getting an RF body after they threatened them, and now only allow 3rd parties on their crop sensor bodies. Fuji, Sony, Leica, Nikon, all allow 3rd party lenses. I switched to Fuji and won't go back.

Wait, did they reverse their stance on this again? I thought they had finally started to open the mount up to 3rd parties. Really disappointing to hear that this is not actually the case.

Re: Canon EF and RF Lenses – All Autofocus Motors

#132

Post by surement »

m3kw9 wrote: post #126
post_break wrote: post #105

Canon is dead to me after they forced 3rd parties to stop all RF lenses. I bought the last AF lens by Viltrox and it's fantastic. I regret getting an RF body after they threatened them, and now only allow 3rd parties on their crop sensor bodies. Fuji, Sony, Leica, Nikon, all allow 3rd party lenses. I switched to Fuji and won't go back.

[flagged]

you don't need to bring up trump in a camera thread

Re: Canon EF and RF Lenses – All Autofocus Motors

#133

Post by formerphotoj »

SAI_Peregrinus wrote: post #109
roblh wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The left eye/right eye option has been around even on lower end cameras for the better part of a decade, which is kinda wild. My fuji from 2017 has that, and Fuji are specifically known for having worse autofocus performance than Canon or Sony or Nikon. Nikon and Sony specifically seem to be top of the pile right now. The Z8 has a whole separate processor dedicated to autofocus and the viewfinder which, in practice,…

The a9 iii shoots 120FPS 24.6MP raw files with continuous autofocus and without blacking the viewfinder. Top-end cameras are insane .

I sort of miss my Canon EOS 1 at 10 fps (film) when shooting sports. "If you saw it, you missed it."

Re: Canon EF and RF Lenses – All Autofocus Motors

#135

Post by Forgeties79 »

chaosprint wrote: post #25
Forgeties79 wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Considering my 70-200 can still hang after 10 years and will last another 20 easily with some TLC I was fine with my $1500 purchase - which I made as an indie filmmaker! Jokes aside Sony glass really isn’t all that much cheaper.

Agreed. EF's short flange focal distance can also be easily connected to Sony to utilize dual ISO. Indie uses manual focus anyway.

Yeah I have a lot of beef with Canon but there's no denying they make universal donor lenses

Re: Canon EF and RF Lenses – All Autofocus Motors

#136

Post by Lammy »

lambdasquirrel wrote: post #102
PaulHoule wrote: post #17

I was a big fan of USM lenses when I had a Canon, but I had one go bad with fungus or something and for a while had only a 35mm prime which I even used to take pictures of birds. Then I lost my Canon and decided to get a Sony circa 2019 or so because all the reviews I saw for Nikon and Canon said the autofocus sucked on entry-level full frame cameras.

You should be able to get fungus CLA’ed. Leica shooters using true vintage lenses sometimes need to do this when picking up a find from a flea market.

To save anyone else looking it up, CLA == Clean, Lubricate, Adjust

https://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/15613/what-is-cla-...

https://markorussa.wordpress.com/2015/08/31/general-instruct...

Re: Canon EF and RF Lenses – All Autofocus Motors

#137

Post by ExAr »

myself248 wrote: post #5

Oh neat! I have a Newscale micro motor demo kit from years ago, and I wondered if they were ever successful in the market. But that hip-gyrating Micro USM action sure looks familiar.

This sounds like a fun gadget. Just out of curiosity, do you still have that demo kit, and would you consider selling it? :-)

Re: Canon EF and RF Lenses – All Autofocus Motors

#138

Post by ExAr »

blackeyeblitzar wrote: post #87
amelius wrote: post #45

These piezoelectric drivers are very cool. Here's a video showing the mechanism: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7iHL4ZCkCKc And here's a video showing such a motor at full speed: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JtttNnmCVmU

Do companies like Canon manufacture these motors or actuators themselves? Or is there some other company that specializes in this sort of thing?

As far as I know, Canon controls a large part of the supply chain and has numerous factories to manufacture quality-critical parts (especially their lenses, zoom mechanisms, and barrels) themselves. But there are numerous components that are more efficient to obtain from third parties, such as microchips. I am not sure about the motors and actuators, though.

Re: Canon EF and RF Lenses – All Autofocus Motors

#139

Post by post_break »

faefox wrote: post #131
post_break wrote: post #105

Canon is dead to me after they forced 3rd parties to stop all RF lenses. I bought the last AF lens by Viltrox and it's fantastic. I regret getting an RF body after they threatened them, and now only allow 3rd parties on their crop sensor bodies. Fuji, Sony, Leica, Nikon, all allow 3rd party lenses. I switched to Fuji and won't go back.

Wait, did they reverse their stance on this again? I thought they had finally started to open the mount up to 3rd parties. Really disappointing to hear that this is not actually the case.

Only for their crop bodies, not full frame. Which basically means it's still locked.

Re: Canon EF and RF Lenses – All Autofocus Motors

#140

Post by nayuki »

ExAr wrote: post #98
nayuki wrote: post #72

Amazing website. If I didn't know better, I thought this content came from Canon itself. A couple of comments from me: > The following comparison chart shows all of the autofocus drive types that have ever been used in Canon's EF, EF-S, RF, and RF-S lenses. They missed mentioning EF-M, Canon's foray into mirrorless interchangeable-lens cameras. > Although the ultrasonic noise cannot be perceived by the human ear, it…

Thanks nayuki for the detailed comment and positive feedback. Thanks for pointing out the missing EF-M, I am going to add that during the next polishing round. With regards to USM noise, the ultrasonic whine can be picked up by very good ears. I think the Nano USM is excited in the range of 60+ kHz, so at least that type of USM motor is absolutely inaudible. Syntax-wise with F2.8, you got me. I know it's not 100% cor…

> With regards to USM noise

Here is a video showing the "whooshing" noise of Ring USM, and it is clearly in the audible range (not ultrasonic): https://imgur.com/a/canon-ring-usm-autofocus-sound-YCrV1CR

> the relation between the focal length and the f-number is known by every photographer

I'm going to disagree with this. I think very few photographers understand what an absolute aperture size is. Here's a good test: If you take a "constant (relative) aperture" zoom lens like a 24-70mm f/2.8, what happens if you keep the aperture "constant" at f/2.8 and zoom the lens in and out? I think the answer will surprise many people.

I think most people don't even know that the f (or incorrectly "F") refers to the focal length; I think the vast majority of photography education just treats "F" or "f/" as some piece of fixed notation or incantation without explaining what it means. (Kind of like if I asked you, what does the "degree" in "degree Celsius" mean?)

> Canon has also made the transition to the syntax "F2.8" in all their RF and RF-S-lenses - at least their product names and labels printed on the lens barrels

Oh wow, I didn't notice this one. Your observation is correct; Canon did change their official naming of RF lenses to use the "F2.8" syntax instead of the previous "f/2.8". Oh well, I still disagree with it because it is bad mathematical syntax and spits in the face of tradition.

> The same is true with the focal length where Canon doesn't print "mm" on the barrel - to achieve a cleaner less mathematical look

True, and I have subconsciously noticed this.

> So I believe what I did here was just go with the trend :-)

Please don't change the naming of old lenses. Also, I would prefer new lenses to be hammered back into the old naming scheme, but that's more open to debate. Curiously, the camera shop Vistek sometimes uses old naming for RF lenses: https://www.vistek.ca/store/434924/canon-rf-1535mm-f28l-usm-... "Canon RF 15-35mm f/2.8L IS USM Lens"

Post reply on HN