This lens was the trigger for Canon to think different. The result was the EF mount, a real jump into future. This made the lens operation fully digital accessible - widely interoperable up to our RF days.
I don't think so, Nikon F and Pentax K are very old mounts, they're from the same era or older than Canon FD, and they still managed to keep it during the shift to AF with clever ways. Canon just wanted a new way to sell more lenses to their fans.
@@ilyasovich The Nikon and Pentax SLR mounts are a hot mess of compatibility problems though. In contrast the only important distinction for compatibility in the Canon EOS SLR ecosystem is if the camera is EF-S compatible or not, and usually the people that have bought the expensive full-frame DSLRs are well aware of what lenses they need to also buy.
@@ilyasovich - I would like to agree with you, as I felt that Canon kinda betrayed me when they announced the end of the FD system. I had invested as an amateur in a F-1n, their pro camera through the 80’s, and lenses of course. But it’s obvious now that just ‘working around’ the constraints of a fully mechanical lens-camera interaction would remain somewhat clunky and not a good base for ongoing compatibility. Also, the professionals didn’t miss that point, and if Canon lost for some time some amateurs, they won over many of the pros.
Canon made only one FD mount AF SLR, the Canon T80. It added electronic contacts within the pre-existing FD mechanical linkages but it was only compatible with three built-in motor "AC" Canon lenses. Even though this was a TTL AF design, the camera only had limited appeal as it was a Program Mode only camera. The later released Canon T90 abandoned this AF system altogether but imagine if Canon did added and improved this AF with the T90. The EOS EF mount would never had existed and a hybrid FD mount would be like Nikon and Pentax's mechanical/electrical AF system. The future might of been different for the entire FD system.
What I find fascinating that all EF lenses and bodies are compatible from the first models up to the latest releases in any combination, even when adapting to RF bodies.
me too. this test was unfair/challenging and the lens ist 30 years old but still ok. so whats not good about that result? just compare it to the kit-lenses from early digital SLR age...they will lose.
Very interesting indeed. I feel like the DSLR body is in need of some new thinking in our current era. Would enjoy seeing more unique ideas that have been explored in past.
The actual filter ring diameter is 52mm. It's on the inner barrel where the red ring is. You have to put the lens to it's minimum focusing distance and set the focal length to 35mm to reach the filter threads inside. The AF is not "Through The Lens" so any stray and direct light into the front windows will confuse the system. If you also shoot at a reflection, mirror or angled object the AF will not respond well. It works best on high contrast objects/ scenes on a sunny day. That explains the target demographic for this product during the time, travel vacationers who want the luxury of autofocus. This lens has pretty good image quality for a 80's era zoom lens. Perhaps the sample you tested has internal haze due to the low contrast.
Another great find! I love these oldies and oddballs! About FD lenses on an EOS R mirrorless camera: I’ve used a few adapters like the one Christopher is using, on different mounts. The so-called ‘Lock’ position doesn’t hold reliably, as that ring can easily get brushed out of that position. I was thinking about getting the Novoflex adapter, mostly each time I realized the diaphragm wasn’t closing down again, but the price doesn’t lend itself to be discounted as insignificant. I became aware recently of the Simmod company’s take on that same type of adapter, at about half the price, ordered one (FD to RF) and was just completely satisfied with the nice click when the lens settled perfectly in place. The adapter looks and feels like an extension to the camera body. The fit is excellent, it blends in, you can forget it’s there. Highly recommended !
That takes me back to when I left school and found a job in London camera exchange. 3 years ago I left the UK and moved to Iceland and about 6 months ago I found one of these lenses for sale for the equivalent of £200 and couldn't help myself and bought it. I have absolutely no use for it but from a nostalgia point of view it was worth every penny
I have this lens in my collection. It's more of a novelty to have than actual practical use. Hope your doing well Chris haven't watched a video from you in a while
I want this lens since I saw Kai Wong using one. And I don't even care about the image quality, I just really like the retro futuristic look of the body.
I remember that ugly thing. I was pissed when Canon abandoned the FD mount, but I get it now. I owned two A1s at the time. Actually I still do, but neither works anymore.
I remember this lens. It is developed when optical AF first appeared in P&S. This is before the first phase detection AF slr appeared (which I think is a pentax).
Love the vintage lens reviews. Keep 'em coming. Maybe it'll get people to shut up about how sharp old lenses are*. :P *I'm not knocking old lenses - I love them and have many. But a lot of people seem to think their old Pentax/FD/etc lenses are somehow anywhere close on a technical level to what we have today.
I've only seen two older lenses that I'd never guess were as old as they are from the results they give: The Nikon 80-200 f/4 (when stopped down once) and the nFD 50mm f/1.4. But I also don't shoots with a 40-odd megapixel camera or point my camera directly at the sun.
@@PeterBrockie There is already quite a bit of comparison online, with the 28-85 being compared to the tamron 28-75 e mount and the 35-70 compared to the g master 24-70 for lanscape photogprahy stopped down and wide open.
Vintage lenses aren’t as sharp as modern lenses but they offer more for their price, if you compare an old lens (e.g FD 75-200mm) that an amateur buys for £40 to newer lenses like the EF 70-200mm which cost £2,000. On another note, there’s a big difference between old PRIME lenses and old ZOOM lenses. Prime lenses had a lot less technology behind them as they didn’t need so many glass elements, so they had been around for a lot longer and were a lot sharper than zoom lenses back in the day which were only being introduced to the market. This is still the case with modern zoom lenses but has much improved since 40 years ago, I own vintage primes and vintage zooms and the difference is very clear
Thanks for your review! It would be so amazing to see in your review more vintage lenses, like for example, old Zeiss Sonnars or Pancolars, or any japanese, like Minolta, Mamiya, Olympus etc.
Still better than the kit lens that came with my Sony a6000. What a shocker a guy with 45 MP thought it sucked. Looking at the sample images, it performed quite well. Nothing is wrong with those pics at all. Anyone worrying about darkening corners or softness at f4 don't (and cannot) get it. OMG it has chromatic aberration in certain settings! LOL There's a fundamental difference in how modern photographers regard "good" performance vs how old-school people do the same. We aren't pixel-peeping for hours on the same photo We don't photoshop the reality out of our images. Vignetting is a cool effect to us, not an imperfection. It's the reason modern cell phones can ADD vignetting (and other antiquish effects) to images. It looks cool. It is different which makes it better. We like character, warmth, and even an imperfection here and there. Photography is art, not merely photo-copying reality. The clinical perfection of a 13,000 camera and lens combo would bore me. And the "award winning" images of today are a result of hours of photoshop-tweaking and don't reflect reality at all in the end. Ever watch a photoshop tutorial and see the before and after shots? It isn't luck. It isn't Ansel Adams being in the right place. It's utterly artificial. It's a difference of where the art is created. You can tweak a photo in software or just get character for free at the time of shooting. Antique lenses are appealing to a different philosophy that this video completely ignores because this guy doesn't (and cannot) 'get it.'
"A certain photography youtuber got really excited about it" (the the whole quoite). I know which one. I saw the video. :P Whilst you're testing old lenses, you might as well get an old Takumar 55mm f1.8 lens! Dead cheap and pretty sharp. Best of all, it has a radioactive lens element. The radiation is fine... it's not great. But not terrible.
Hallo Christopher! I have a Fuji X-S10 camera and I have watched a lot of your reviews about zoom lenses and now I don’t know which one to buy in the range of + - 20 to 200 with decent optics and price range; can you advice, please? I have an Fringer adaptor too so other brands of lenses can be used… Best regards from Rotterdam! Tonio.
Hi. That would also depend on what you like to shoot most and your needs with regards to low light and bokeh. Assuming some of those parameters and presumably the adapter being EF to XF, I'd recommend a used version of 18-135/18-55 Canon glass. Alternatively, you could stretch a bit and even consider a used Sigma 17-50 EX DC 2.8.
My EF 1.4 USM also struggled on my 400D and 550D, then i used the 1.4 USM with a EOS RP and damn.... its AF capabilities got a lot better. But since my 1.4 USM broke during a cold day i got the RF 1.8 STM instead looking for another fair priced 2nd hand EF 1.4, and ITS A LOT BETTER than the old 1.4 USM, let alone the regular EF 1.8 STM version (the AF on the newer RF version is a lot faster than EF 1.8 STM and slightly faster than the EF 1.4 USM) Wondering why people aimed anyways for 1.8 50mm primes, the 1.8 pre-STM was probably the most unusable lens when it comes to AF, the STM/"USM" versions are at least partially useful. And 2nd hand 1.4s are sometimes cheaper than new 1.8s. I repaired my 1.4 USM and use it sometimes instead of the 50mm 1.8 RF, but more often than not - its easily too big/heavy compared to the native RF 50mm. But sometimes the old 1.4 fits better, the bokeh is A LOT BETTER (round lights!!!!!), the more "analog", softer look, only the CA can get problematic and annoying but the 1.4 EF looks so much more natural than the exactly same shot with a 1.8 RF which is much sharper and "perfect".
Some simple primes haven't seen as much improvement as complicated zooms and ultra wide angle primes in the same 40yr periods. Old primes lenses are more than fine in 50mm 85mm 135mm even 200mm.
Canon stayed with the idea that the motor to drive the lenses should be built into the lens. It provided each lens type with its own designated motor and gear system. Complicated but dedicated. Other brands brought the motor to the camera body and created a set of gears for each lens type to work with that same motor. Both systems had pros and cons.
i think at the start the in body motor was a much better choice but with the years the system lost it advantage. but it was clever to control the motor via the gear in the lenses. in the end the all electronic interface from canon was a major invention in photography.
I am surprised that you can focus properly with an Canon R5 . I have a bunch of adapters FD to ML bodies and all of them are too shallow ( in order to secure focusing on infinity). I understand that the focusing system is 100% in the lens, Unless you have a perfect adapter , it cannot work properly.
Maybe it's your camera that is thicker than usual. Just like you need add or remove spacers between the mount and the lens for videos cameras to achieve infinity focus. Quite a pain actually and consider how much they cost as well
This FD lens measures the distance with triangulation which is almost the same as phase detect. Basically it's the same AF as in a DSLR. It needs ambient light to work. On the other hand lidar shoots very short laser impulses in all directions and meaures the bounceback time. It works in pitch dark. Both approach has a common issue: the AF needs to be factory calibrated extremely accurately to work and calibration will drift out of spec over time
That's simply not how resolution works. System resolution is a product of lens resolution and sensor resolution - one multiplied by the other. So ANY lens will resolve more on the R5 than on the R6, it's a simple law of physics - granted one that seems to have passed far too many people by... Other optical issues like fringing can be more or less - for instance, if it's one pixel wide on the R5, it's still likely to be one pixel wide on the R6, so will appear better on the higher res sensor - but equally 1 pixel on the R6 could be 2 pixels on the R5, which might make it look worse. A higher resolution sensor isn't more demanding, but more rewarding - the gap between a good lens and a poorer lens will appear bigger on a high res sensor, even though both are delivering more than they would on a lower res one.
@@nickroberts6026 Check Lens Reviews via LensRentals, Christopher Frost, and especially OpticalLimits (former PhotoZone): A Lens, that performs well on 21/24 MP, is usually (way) worse onto a 36 MP or even 45 MP Sensor. For what it's worth, i am shooting since the mid 85's, and since 96 via compact camera digital, DSLR since 2003. (6 MP DX/APS-C, D100 / EOS 10D) Because a higher MP Count onto the same 36x24mm "FF" Sensor means a smaller pixelpitch, hence smaller photosites, and optical flaws from a average Lens are being shown, which would otherwise being good enough onto a less demanding Sensor. And especially onto the R5/R6, you know, they do have both the Dual Pixel AF, which means basically the Sensor MP Count is higher. There's a special Tool being avialable from the FastRawVIewer Creator, with which you could use that extra data, provided by these Dual Pixel AF Canon Sensors, FYI. It's named PixelShift2DNG, and the same guy created the famous RAWDigger Tool, with which it's help, the infamous Sony Delta 11+7bit compression was being found into analysis, long ago.
Why didn't you show how the lens focuses while filming? That it is not a sharp lens is no surprise and rather boring information but it would have been interesting how and how quickly the first Canon autofocus lens focused.
i think this tests is at least a little biased - i would call it unfair. it seems that chris don't want this lens to be any better than bad > maybe cause of the other youtube channel? ;) i think its pretty good for its age. i mean it was designed for FILM and nor for digital MP Monsters...so what's the point of this test? showing that lens design evolved? chris tested so many really bad lenses but in my opinion this one is not that bad. btw. i am no canon fanboy nor am i using canon.
This lens was the trigger for Canon to think different.
The result was the EF mount, a real jump into future.
This made the lens operation fully digital accessible - widely interoperable up to our RF days.
I don't think so, Nikon F and Pentax K are very old mounts, they're from the same era or older than Canon FD, and they still managed to keep it during the shift to AF with clever ways.
Canon just wanted a new way to sell more lenses to their fans.
@@ilyasovich The Nikon and Pentax SLR mounts are a hot mess of compatibility problems though. In contrast the only important distinction for compatibility in the Canon EOS SLR ecosystem is if the camera is EF-S compatible or not, and usually the people that have bought the expensive full-frame DSLRs are well aware of what lenses they need to also buy.
@@ilyasovich - I would like to agree with you, as I felt that Canon kinda betrayed me when they announced the end of the FD system. I had invested as an amateur in a F-1n, their pro camera through the 80’s, and lenses of course.
But it’s obvious now that just ‘working around’ the constraints of a fully mechanical lens-camera interaction would remain somewhat clunky and not a good base for ongoing compatibility.
Also, the professionals didn’t miss that point, and if Canon lost for some time some amateurs, they won over many of the pros.
Canon made only one FD mount AF SLR, the Canon T80. It added electronic contacts within the pre-existing FD mechanical linkages but it was only compatible with three built-in motor "AC" Canon lenses. Even though this was a TTL AF design, the camera only had limited appeal as it was a Program Mode only camera.
The later released Canon T90 abandoned this AF system altogether but imagine if Canon did added and improved this AF with the T90. The EOS EF mount would never had existed and a hybrid FD mount would be like Nikon and Pentax's mechanical/electrical AF system. The future might of been different for the entire FD system.
What I find fascinating that all EF lenses and bodies are compatible from the first models up to the latest releases in any combination, even when adapting to RF bodies.
That's brutal testing it with a 45 MP sensor!
Yes and that’s a good idea, not bad at all for everyday use
I'm actually quite impressed with the resolution from this lens on a 45mp body!
me too. this test was unfair/challenging and the lens ist 30 years old but still ok. so whats not good about that result? just compare it to the kit-lenses from early digital SLR age...they will lose.
Very interesting indeed. I feel like the DSLR body is in need of some new thinking in our current era. Would enjoy seeing more unique ideas that have been explored in past.
Indeed, we have good lenses, good sensors, good displays, but the bodies are still like an SLR or rangefinder.
The actual filter ring diameter is 52mm. It's on the inner barrel where the red ring is. You have to put the lens to it's minimum focusing distance and set the focal length to 35mm to reach the filter threads inside.
The AF is not "Through The Lens" so any stray and direct light into the front windows will confuse the system. If you also shoot at a reflection, mirror or angled object the AF will not respond well. It works best on high contrast objects/ scenes on a sunny day. That explains the target demographic for this product during the time, travel vacationers who want the luxury of autofocus.
This lens has pretty good image quality for a 80's era zoom lens. Perhaps the sample you tested has internal haze due to the low contrast.
I remember your comment on Kai Wong's video about this lens, glad you managed to get one!
Another great find! I love these oldies and oddballs!
About FD lenses on an EOS R mirrorless camera:
I’ve used a few adapters like the one Christopher is using, on different mounts. The so-called ‘Lock’ position doesn’t hold reliably, as that ring can easily get brushed out of that position.
I was thinking about getting the Novoflex adapter, mostly each time I realized the diaphragm wasn’t closing down again, but the price doesn’t lend itself to be discounted as insignificant.
I became aware recently of the Simmod company’s take on that same type of adapter, at about half the price, ordered one (FD to RF) and was just completely satisfied with the nice click when the lens settled perfectly in place. The adapter looks and feels like an extension to the camera body. The fit is excellent, it blends in, you can forget it’s there.
Highly recommended !
That takes me back to when I left school and found a job in London camera exchange. 3 years ago I left the UK and moved to Iceland and about 6 months ago I found one of these lenses for sale for the equivalent of £200 and couldn't help myself and bought it. I have absolutely no use for it but from a nostalgia point of view it was worth every penny
I have this lens in my collection. It's more of a novelty to have than actual practical use. Hope your doing well Chris haven't watched a video from you in a while
I want this lens since I saw Kai Wong using one. And I don't even care about the image quality, I just really like the retro futuristic look of the body.
I remember that ugly thing. I was pissed when Canon abandoned the FD mount, but I get it now. I owned two A1s at the time. Actually I still do, but neither works anymore.
I do own 2 F1s and some FD glass, not used for decades now.
@@peterebel7899 Those are beautiful to use cameras, I wish I had one but they're kinda rare here in Southwest Germany.
This is really not that bad. Impressive stuff specially considering age. And it still works. Imagine having this lens 40 years ago. :)
Would happily listen to you read my old college physics textbook, always a pleasure. Merry Christmas and happy holidays, dude!
I remember this lens. It is developed when optical AF first appeared in P&S. This is before the first phase detection AF slr appeared (which I think is a pentax).
This lens can play a cameo role in something like Wall-e. Design wise 😆
Love the vibe from the picture!
Love the vintage lens reviews. Keep 'em coming. Maybe it'll get people to shut up about how sharp old lenses are*. :P
*I'm not knocking old lenses - I love them and have many. But a lot of people seem to think their old Pentax/FD/etc lenses are somehow anywhere close on a technical level to what we have today.
I've only seen two older lenses that I'd never guess were as old as they are from the results they give: The Nikon 80-200 f/4 (when stopped down once) and the nFD 50mm f/1.4.
But I also don't shoots with a 40-odd megapixel camera or point my camera directly at the sun.
unless we are talking about contax 35-70 and 28-85, which is sharper then the sony g master zoom.
@@imabigsandwich1292 I guess we will just have to wait for his reviews to objectively prove that. :P
@@PeterBrockie There is already quite a bit of comparison online, with the 28-85 being compared to the tamron 28-75 e mount and the 35-70 compared to the g master 24-70 for lanscape photogprahy stopped down and wide open.
Vintage lenses aren’t as sharp as modern lenses but they offer more for their price, if you compare an old lens (e.g FD 75-200mm) that an amateur buys for £40 to newer lenses like the EF 70-200mm which cost £2,000.
On another note, there’s a big difference between old PRIME lenses and old ZOOM lenses. Prime lenses had a lot less technology behind them as they didn’t need so many glass elements, so they had been around for a lot longer and were a lot sharper than zoom lenses back in the day which were only being introduced to the market. This is still the case with modern zoom lenses but has much improved since 40 years ago, I own vintage primes and vintage zooms and the difference is very clear
Thanks for your review! It would be so amazing to see in your review more vintage lenses, like for example, old Zeiss Sonnars or Pancolars, or any japanese, like Minolta, Mamiya, Olympus etc.
Big yes for the Minolta!
He'll make the prices go up!
@@slr7075 Hahaha fair point!
i love the vintage lens reviews.
Still better than the kit lens that came with my Sony a6000.
What a shocker a guy with 45 MP thought it sucked.
Looking at the sample images, it performed quite well. Nothing is wrong with those pics at all. Anyone worrying about darkening corners or softness at f4 don't (and cannot) get it. OMG it has chromatic aberration in certain settings! LOL
There's a fundamental difference in how modern photographers regard "good" performance vs how old-school people do the same. We aren't pixel-peeping for hours on the same photo We don't photoshop the reality out of our images. Vignetting is a cool effect to us, not an imperfection. It's the reason modern cell phones can ADD vignetting (and other antiquish effects) to images. It looks cool. It is different which makes it better.
We like character, warmth, and even an imperfection here and there. Photography is art, not merely photo-copying reality.
The clinical perfection of a 13,000 camera and lens combo would bore me. And the "award winning" images of today are a result of hours of photoshop-tweaking and don't reflect reality at all in the end. Ever watch a photoshop tutorial and see the before and after shots? It isn't luck. It isn't Ansel Adams being in the right place. It's utterly artificial.
It's a difference of where the art is created. You can tweak a photo in software or just get character for free at the time of shooting. Antique lenses are appealing to a different philosophy that this video completely ignores because this guy doesn't (and cannot) 'get it.'
Very interesting lens!
Wonderful review!
Can you please review Canon 28-300mm L series? Thank you.
Fun!! Thanks, Chris
i love these obscure lens reviews
It remembers me of my Pentax ME-F , nostalgic.
"A certain photography youtuber got really excited about it" (the the whole quoite). I know which one. I saw the video. :P
Whilst you're testing old lenses, you might as well get an old Takumar 55mm f1.8 lens! Dead cheap and pretty sharp. Best of all, it has a radioactive lens element. The radiation is fine... it's not great. But not terrible.
I live near Llangrannog, lovely place for a lovely lens.
My favorite reviews are the weird lenses.
Actually for a 40yo lens on a 45mpx ff sensor the results are pretty great, the lens is amazingly sharp
Hallo Christopher!
I have a Fuji X-S10 camera and I have watched a lot of your reviews about zoom lenses and now I don’t know which one to buy in the range of + - 20 to 200 with decent optics and price range; can you advice, please? I have an Fringer adaptor too so other brands of lenses can be used…
Best regards from Rotterdam!
Tonio.
Hi. That would also depend on what you like to shoot most and your needs with regards to low light and bokeh. Assuming some of those parameters and presumably the adapter being EF to XF, I'd recommend a used version of 18-135/18-55 Canon glass. Alternatively, you could stretch a bit and even consider a used Sigma 17-50 EX DC 2.8.
@@JoaquimGonsalves Thank you very much for your advice!
@@toniofakkers6005 glad to be of help.:)
Please do a lensreviw on Sigmas 180mm macro f2.8.
I love this lens 🙂👌
Reminds me of the good old lens!
"A certain photography youtuber..." and then that iconic music kicks in. Yep, I know who that is :D
"The autofocus system does work, just barely". Ah, so not much different to my old Canon EF 50mm f/1.8. Focus motor is probably as quiet too.
Same here, it barely works for me too on the 60D
My EF 1.4 USM also struggled on my 400D and 550D, then i used the 1.4 USM with a EOS RP and damn.... its AF capabilities got a lot better.
But since my 1.4 USM broke during a cold day i got the RF 1.8 STM instead looking for another fair priced 2nd hand EF 1.4, and ITS A LOT BETTER than the old 1.4 USM, let alone the regular EF 1.8 STM version (the AF on the newer RF version is a lot faster than EF 1.8 STM and slightly faster than the EF 1.4 USM)
Wondering why people aimed anyways for 1.8 50mm primes, the 1.8 pre-STM was probably the most unusable lens when it comes to AF, the STM/"USM" versions are at least partially useful. And 2nd hand 1.4s are sometimes cheaper than new 1.8s. I repaired my 1.4 USM and use it sometimes instead of the 50mm 1.8 RF, but more often than not - its easily too big/heavy compared to the native RF 50mm. But sometimes the old 1.4 fits better, the bokeh is A LOT BETTER (round lights!!!!!), the more "analog", softer look, only the CA can get problematic and annoying but the 1.4 EF looks so much more natural than the exactly same shot with a 1.8 RF which is much sharper and "perfect".
wow does anyone think its possible to mod it to have continues af?
This interesting lens is not bad at all, at least better than I expected, considering how old it is.
Some simple primes haven't seen as much improvement as complicated zooms and ultra wide angle primes in the same 40yr periods. Old primes lenses are more than fine in 50mm 85mm 135mm even 200mm.
This review and that of Kai Wong will sky rocket the price of this lens in eBay
Canon stayed with the idea that the motor to drive the lenses should be built into the lens. It provided each lens type with its own designated motor and gear system. Complicated but dedicated. Other brands brought the motor to the camera body and created a set of gears for each lens type to work with that same motor. Both systems had pros and cons.
i think at the start the in body motor was a much better choice but with the years the system lost it advantage. but it was clever to control the motor via the gear in the lenses. in the end the all electronic interface from canon was a major invention in photography.
i like the photos.
Hard to believe the engineering and $$ that went into that product years ago; somebody was really proud of their invention..! 🤣
Damn it I was gonna pick one up and now you put up this review and the prices on eBay are gonna skyrocket...
I am surprised that you can focus properly with an Canon R5 . I have a bunch of adapters FD to ML bodies and all of them are too shallow ( in order to secure focusing on infinity). I understand that the focusing system is 100% in the lens, Unless you have a perfect adapter , it cannot work properly.
Maybe it's your camera that is thicker than usual.
Just like you need add or remove spacers between the mount and the lens for videos cameras to achieve infinity focus. Quite a pain actually and consider how much they cost as well
I had one of those when they first came out and even then it was next to useless.
Ha! Throwing shade at Kai? Woof.
That two sensor-design looks similar to DJI’s lidar autofocus system. I guess, Canon is 30 years ahead of its time.
40yr I know it isn't the point but can't help pointing it out
Except that they work using completely different principles
This FD lens measures the distance with triangulation which is almost the same as phase detect. Basically it's the same AF as in a DSLR. It needs ambient light to work. On the other hand lidar shoots very short laser impulses in all directions and meaures the bounceback time. It works in pitch dark. Both approach has a common issue: the AF needs to be factory calibrated extremely accurately to work and calibration will drift out of spec over time
Seems like I’ve seen this before, oh that’s right Kai made a video on this months ago.
Just for the fun part, i do think, with the 20 MP EOS R6, the IQ is better, than of course with the 45 MP heavy demanding EOS R5 Sensor.
That's simply not how resolution works. System resolution is a product of lens resolution and sensor resolution - one multiplied by the other. So ANY lens will resolve more on the R5 than on the R6, it's a simple law of physics - granted one that seems to have passed far too many people by...
Other optical issues like fringing can be more or less - for instance, if it's one pixel wide on the R5, it's still likely to be one pixel wide on the R6, so will appear better on the higher res sensor - but equally 1 pixel on the R6 could be 2 pixels on the R5, which might make it look worse.
A higher resolution sensor isn't more demanding, but more rewarding - the gap between a good lens and a poorer lens will appear bigger on a high res sensor, even though both are delivering more than they would on a lower res one.
@@nickroberts6026 Check Lens Reviews via LensRentals, Christopher Frost, and especially OpticalLimits (former PhotoZone): A Lens, that performs well on 21/24 MP, is usually (way) worse onto a 36 MP or even 45 MP Sensor. For what it's worth, i am shooting since the mid 85's, and since 96 via compact camera digital, DSLR since 2003. (6 MP DX/APS-C, D100 / EOS 10D)
Because a higher MP Count onto the same 36x24mm "FF" Sensor means a smaller pixelpitch, hence smaller photosites, and optical flaws from a average Lens are being shown, which would otherwise being good enough onto a less demanding Sensor.
And especially onto the R5/R6, you know, they do have both the Dual Pixel AF, which means basically the Sensor MP Count is higher. There's a special Tool being avialable from the FastRawVIewer Creator, with which you could use that extra data, provided by these Dual Pixel AF Canon Sensors, FYI. It's named PixelShift2DNG, and the same guy created the famous RAWDigger Tool, with which it's help, the infamous Sony Delta 11+7bit compression was being found into analysis, long ago.
Ricoh also made one like this.
Focuses about as fast as my Sony A7.
Price
Why didn't you show how the lens focuses while filming? That it is not a sharp lens is no surprise and rather boring information but it would have been interesting how and how quickly the first Canon autofocus lens focused.
You can see (and hear) exactly how quickly the lens focuses right here: 02:14
If you want another really entertaining lens to test, I'll send you my Bronica 45-90mm with TS RF adapter😁
That... Is a Gundam
Fun
i think this tests is at least a little biased - i would call it unfair. it seems that chris don't want this lens to be any better than bad > maybe cause of the other youtube channel? ;) i think its pretty good for its age. i mean it was designed for FILM and nor for digital MP Monsters...so what's the point of this test? showing that lens design evolved? chris tested so many really bad lenses but in my opinion this one is not that bad. btw. i am no canon fanboy nor am i using canon.
First! Easy peasy... Hahaha
How in the?!?!?!
@@CallMeRabbitzUSVI He's a Patreon supporter - they got to see the video early :)
Why don't you review camera?