I supect that the RF 200-800 will be a bit soft on the rumoured 39mp R7II. However, it'll be amazing on the current RF100-300L, RF 400/2.8 and RF 600/4.0 lenses.
I'm also anticipating the R7ii and the rumoured RF 300-600mm f5.6 will be an amazing combo. Effectively creating 500-1000mm lens if if was compared to a full frame equivelent. It might be the lens to get if you are into crop sensors and long reach. It would also make the RF 100-500L a stunning wide angle on full frame as a 2nd camera. OR a RF 100-300L as a wider option on the 1.6x crop / 2nd lens.

Dr_Flash said:

totally with you on that, hearing it even for 25 years .I would never switch overall. But, I'm not talking whole camera market, I just focus on wildlife photography as I focus on the super tele lenses. This niche market was dominated by Canon for a very very long time, similar to Sports using the same equipment. After Sony came in with great AF in their mirrorless (toy) cameras but not super great lenses - still a significant number switched. With the Z9 and the 400 2.8 with TC in 2021, Nikon had an OKisch AF and the best Lens on the market. More switched, even in not so easy times after COVID. Since then Nikon pushed a lot for high quality "mid" price range super tele (600mm 5.6, 800mm 6.3) and updated their camera software far more than Canon. So you see definitely more effort from them, as they know they have to win over customers.

As I said before, I'm not looking forward to have Canon and Nikon in my bag. I would love to see more effort from Canon to keep me as a local customer also for my wildlife photography. If Canon come to the conclusion, we don't need this niche anymore, we found e.g. video content creators as our new focus customer group - bad for me, but as you said, they probably continue to dominate for at least a couple more years the overall market - as once Kodak did

Click to expand...

Nikon does seem to understand better than Canon, or at the very least want more than Canon, the largest portion of the wildlife/birding market, which are not the handful of pros actually making a good living doing it to whom Canon closely listens, but rather are the hordes of amateurs who can afford to do it for fun and leisure if mid-range lenses, relatively speaking, are available.

Dr_Flash said:

Dr_Flash said:

Canon you are on the clock until early summer... A real RF 400mm 2.8 replacement with build in TC is long overdue and I'm really loosing hope. As soon as Nikon will release the Z9 II, even more wildlife photographers will leave Canon, including me...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Maybe if Canon had just remounted the original 1999 EF 400mm F/2.8 L IS into the RF 400mm f/2.8 L IS, or even the 2011 EF 400mm f/2.8 L IS II you'd have a real gripe about the RF 400mm f/2.8 L IS not being a "real" RF lens.

But the 2018 EF 400mm f/2.8 L IS III was designed at a time when the RF system was on the very near drawing board and was almost certainly designed for both systems from the get go. The EF III was 25% lighter than the EF II and only 1.9mm longer with hood. The RF 400mm f/4 L IS is only 40 grams (1.4 ounces) heavier and 18.2mm longer with hood, in spite of RF having a registration distance 24mm closer to the sensor than EF.

Wanting a built-in 1.4X is an entirely different discussion. In 2018 the only built-in extender was Canon's 2013 EF 200-400mm f/4 L IS 1.4X. No one else was doing that then.

justaCanonuser said:

The DO II version is much sharper and delivers more contrast than the original DO version (much easier to find on the used market), but optically it isn't up to the EF 300mm f/2.8 L IS II USM, what in particular can be noticed with extenders added, so that might have biased interested photographer's decison in favor of the 300mm lens.

Click to expand...

Back in the EF era I'm not sure any other EF lens was up to the EF 300mm f/2.8 L IS II! Optically it was the King of the Big White Super Telephotos for sure.

justaCanonuser said:

I know, that kept me with my old 4.5/500. Btw I once had the opportunity to test the 300-800 "Sigmonster" on an exhibition, and I wasn't impressed, it's sharpness @ 800mm was underwhelming. It was a good lens for film photography, I guess, since wildlife required faster, more grainy films anyway, but it wasn't up to the resolution of DSLRs even back then (about 15 years ago).

Click to expand...

My experience with pretty much all Sigma telephoto zoom lenses from before the introduction of the Global Vision Series (ART, SPORTS, Contemporary) has been that they get progressively blurrier at the longer focal lengths, and quite noticeably so.

riker said:

You are also implying that my opinion is based on test charts and the fact that test charts are not telling you the 100% truth about IQ somehow invalidates my whole statement. Both are BS.
The two lenses are so much worlds apart (not surprisingly as they have 20y! difference), you don't need test charts to know.
Sigma performing way better on a test chart is like 10% of the story.

Btw regarding test charts, you are all over the place.
First of all, test charts and bokeh? What? Of course they don't tell you anything about bokeh. Since when was the purpose of charts about bokeh? It's about sharpness, contrast, resolution, color rendering.

Click to expand...

riker said:

Sorry, I don't get it, what are you actually saying?
Are you trying to say, that my statement of the Sigma 135/1.8 being superior is false, and the Canon is rendering subjects sharper and has smoother foreground and background than the Sigma, despite such a destroying test result for example?

https://www.the-digital-picture.com...meraComp=979&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

Is that what you want to say?

Click to expand...

Well... I'm not the one posting links to B&W flat test charts in support of the statement, "...and has smoother foreground and background than the Sigma, despite such a destroying test result." and, "It's about sharpness, contrast, resolution, color rendering." Again, you can judge color rendering from a B&W test chart?

becceric said:

I enjoyed that 40mm lens. It made my Hexanon 52mm f/1.8 feel slightly claustrophobic.
While irrational, I'd like to see Canon make an RF f/1.8 40mm. I can't bring myself to get the 2.8.

Click to expand...

I'm still kicking myself for not picking up an EF 40mm f/2.8 STM pancake from the Canon USA refurb store before that lens was discontinued. It's one of those things I always meant to do but never quite got around to it. I do use the EF 35mm f/2 IS quite a bit, so I really have no need for the 40mm.

riker said:

I'm sorry I still do not get it.

Click to expand...

You are correct. You're the one who just doesn't get it.

Technical performance is not all there is when an artist chooses one lens over another. It's what the final results look like in relation to the vision the artist had when they created the photo which ultimately matters.

Now please, show me the numerical results of any empirical test which proves the Sigma 135/1.8 has "better" bokeh than the Canon EF 135mm f/2 L IS. I'll wait. That's like claiming there's an empirical test which can somehow "prove" Michelangelo's David is a better work of art than Da Vinci's Mona Lisa, or Beethoven's 9th Symphony.

You have no actual argument about which lens gives me the look I prefer. It's not up to you. So you keep putting words in my mouth that I have not said. I acknowledged long ago in this discussion that the Sigma is "sharper" at reproducing flat test charts from close distances. I also have already said I prefer the look I get using the EF 135mm f/2 L to the look that the Sigma lens gives.

Oh, and just for the record: I've never owned a 72mm filter of any kind. To the best of my knowledge I've never owned another lens with 72mm filter threads. Most of the few spin on filters I have are 77mm, which is the size of the threads on all 4 of my other L lenses. But other than circular polarizers the vast majority of the filters I own are square/rectangular.

If you think more clinical looks better, then have at it. On the other hand, if you have an obsessive need to prove to every other person in the world that the lens which you consider the "best" is superior in every single possible way to any other lens: Good luck with that. No such lens exists which is "best" at everything for everyone.

CharlesB said:

My offer was accepted, BTW. I think it was a really good deal, the lens (135mm F2 L) is supposed to be in great condition. I'll hopefully find out tomorrow because that's when it's supposed to arrive. I'm excited to give it a shot! I feel like I had or have a cheap Samyang 135mm full manual somewhere but I can't say I was fond of it or used it at all really.

I just think this Canon 135mm will be great for the style portraits I love taking....of my kitties mainly but probably people too. I did buy the new Canon RF 85mm VCM (I think it's the only RF mount lens I have) not long ago, which will be great too but I want a little more distance, especially with the kitties. I swear, when the camera gear comes out, they intentionally try (and often succeed) to sabotage my photos. Lol

Click to expand...

I hope the lens arrives in excellent condition and that you get many great photos with it! I sure enjoy mine.

justaCanonuser said:

Another good reason for using filters is if you want to sell your gear after a while. I just sold my old EF 300mm f/4.0 L IS USM recently for a good price, because its front lens, that was always protected by a filter, was pristine.

Click to expand...

I've owned my EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II since 2010 and used it to shoot countless fields sports under all kinds of conditions, parades in all kinds of weather, on dusty trails in the desert southwest of the United States. There are scratches and rub marks all over the outside of the hood. It has taken many hard knocks such as collisions on the sidelines to my clumsiness tripping on concrete and asphalt. A few of those knocks were so hard that it made a trip to CPS to be lined back up optically. It's never had a protective filter of any kind on it. What it HAS had every single time I've ever shot with it, is the lens hood properly mounted in place. It's also had a lens cap on it whenever it has been stored in a case or on a shelf. The lens cap goes on immediately before the hood comes off to be reversed.

It also has a pristine front element.

justaCanonuser said:

I read his blog, too, but just around this time some of our family members with one digit ages threw my camera with the EF 50mm 1.2 in front down from a shelve, and afterwards I was relieved to find that the shards in the floor were only from the filter I had on it - the front lens was (and is) intact and I could use it for that particular family weekend. Otherwise I really would have missed this fast lens.

Another good reason for using filters is if you want to sell your gear after a while. I just sold my old EF 300mm f/4.0 L IS USM recently for a good price, because its front lens, that was always protected by a filter, was pristine.

Click to expand...

Maybe the filter "saved" the front element, maybe not. Just because a thin, flat filter with open air behind it breaks does not mean a much thicker lens element made of much harder and denser glass and shaped differently would have broken. Sometimes you have to try really hard to scratch the front of a lens.



Of greater concern when a lens takes a dive is the alignment of the elements in the lens. Some lenses have a reputation for tolerating abuse fairly well, such as the Canon EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS. Others, like the Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L, have a reputation for getting out of alignment at the slightest bump. Often this is due to the way a lens is designed. In such a case the filter makes little difference. The ring will receive the lion's share of the force and transfer it to the front of the the lens housing that it is screwed onto.

I am currently using lens Sigma RF 17-40mm f/1.8 DC Art with the R10 and waiting for the R7M2. For info, photo from yesterday:


there are third-party lenses for APS-C!

The problem is with availability, I waited half a year for the lens...

I am currently using this lens with the R10 and waiting for the R7M2. For info, photos from yesterday:


https://adobe.ly/4lE8sDG

But I waited half a year for the lens.

Lovely soft light

The first one is what Alan says: "...quite amorous...". I assume in the second photo the front runner was the female (still amorous, may be more than on the first photo) and the male is behind (and he doesn't look amorous any more: he's looking kind of aggressive). Meanwhile the male probably did see what the female didn't and left the frame "oh, good luck you stupid..."
The third photo: female pushing the brakes in full - "OMG, I'm not sure ... WHAT???
That's my story and it's why I like all three !

Quick update – after comparing the stars in the initial test with shots posted by others, the astigmatism in my lens looked stronger than I think it should have. I compared the upper left corner (with Orion's Belt) to the upper right corner, and the astigmatism appeared worse in the upper left (that comparison also ruled out other possibilities, such as star trailing or bumping the tripod, since the 'stretching' of the stars was pointed toward the center of the image at both corners).



I was fortunate to find a second copy of the lens in stock at a small brick-and-mortar retailer with an online storefront (the same one at which I found an RF 10-20/4 when no one else had them in stock). I tested the two lenses head-to-head, and found the second lens performs slightly better. On ISO 12233-type charts, center performance was the same but the second copy (bottom) was slightly sharper in the mid-frame and the corners (these are 100% crops of the lower right corner, first copy on top); the second copy was a bit better in all four corners.



Last night I took a few star images, here are the extreme upper right corners (better corner of my first copy of the lens) of the uncorrected RAW images, this time the star in the corner is Alkaid (the star at the end of the handle of the Big Dipper). 100% (top) and 400% crops of the first (left) and second copies of the lens.



At the end of the day, in real-world use both copies of the lens are fine. But, since I have them both and I don't need two...the first copy will go back to B&H.

Nice shots, Noreaster.

PinholeR5 said:

There is Control Ring support on Sigma RF lenses.

Control ring support was a big item for me. I really like using the compact Sigma zooms and primes with the R50 which only has one ring and having the second ring on the lens was a huge consideration!

Most of the lenses don't have a deditacted control ring. You get Control Ring functionality by setting the focus ring to be a Control Ring. You can then customize the control ring as you normally would a dedicated physical ring. As @Exploreshootshare said, this functionality has to be setup through the menus, there is no dedicated button (just like with the Canon RF-S 18-45mm).

The newer Sigma RF-S lenses, like the 12mm & 15mm primes and the 17-40mm zoom have a dedicated Control Ring. The older lenses, like the 16, 23, 30, & 56mm primes and the 10-18mm, 18-50mm, 16-300mm zooms don't have a dedicated Control Ring.

For my use cases manual focus is not needed, so the R50 is configured for Control Ring and it solves the issue for me.

P.S. I also use the R7, but mostly with the 17-40mm or with the Sigma EF 50-100mm 1.8 adapted with the control ring adapter.

Click to expand...

Right, I just dived into the R7 menus to remind myself where those setting are. In the R7 it's AF 6: Focus/Control Ring where you have to choose between focus and control for those RF-S lenses with only one ring. If you choose Control Ring, you can use menu Custom 3: Customize dials to choose the ring function. I use the Fv mode when using the 10-18 and 18-50, so I don't need another dial and leave it on focus.

Click said:

JuanMa and Sporgon,

Very nice shots, guys.

Click to expand...

Many thanks Click !

PinholeR5 said:

There is Control Ring support on Sigma RF lenses.

Control ring support was a big item for me. I really like using the compact Sigma zooms and primes with the R50 which only has one ring and having the second ring on the lens was a huge consideration!

Most of the lenses don't have a deditacted control ring. You get Control Ring functionality by setting the focus ring to be a Control Ring. You can then customize the control ring as you normally would a dedicated physical ring. As @Exploreshootshare said, this functionality has to be setup through the menus, there is no dedicated button (just like with the Canon RF-S 18-45mm).

The newer Sigma RF-S lenses, like the 12mm & 15mm primes and the 17-40mm zoom have a dedicated Control Ring. The older lenses, like the 16, 23, 30, & 56mm primes and the 10-18mm, 18-50mm, 16-300mm zooms don't have a dedicated Control Ring.

For my use cases manual focus is not needed, so the R50 is configured for Control Ring and it solves the issue for me.

P.S. I also use the R7, but mostly with the 17-40mm or with the Sigma EF 50-100mm 1.8 adapted with the control ring adapter.

Click to expand...

I just checked my 16, 23 and 30mm lenses on my R7 and they behaved as you describe. Thank you. I use the "control ring" to change the area in the view finder used for focus. I never use manual focus since most of what I shoot is moving rapidly and/or unpredictably and I'm old and slow. I imagine that a dedicated control ring is more important to Fuji owners since there it serves as an aperture control ring.

Went to check on my owl boxes and this is all I saw

A very good sequence. I like the running on the water.

Exploreshootshare said:

I do like some of the Sigma lenses for RF-s, but of the main reasons I´d prefer Canon lenses and also why I opted for the R8 as a "light" travel/ hiking setup is that all the Sigma lenses don't have a control ring. I use the control on every outing and I am so used to it. Going APS-C without control ring was/ is a definite no-go for me. Therefore, I´d need some tempting RF-S native lens options, which I absolutely don't see atm. But thats absolutely fine since the R8 works wonderfully with the contemporary 16mm, 35mm and 85mm prime lenses. I just might add the 28-70mm F2.8 to the kit.

My wife and her family are actually considering buying my father-in-law either the 23mm or the 30mm Sigma RF-S prime as a birthday gift.

Click to expand...

Stig Nygaard said:

As far as I know, all(/most?) Sigma RF-S lenses does indeed have control ring!?!

Click to expand...

Bob Howland said:

Zooms, yes, most primes,no. That is why I think that Sigma will be overhauling their APS-C prime lens line over the next couple years.

Click to expand...

Stig Nygaard said:

Ah yes. My 12mm does have it. And I can see the new 15mm got it too. But it looks like the other primes (including my 56mm) are missing it.

Click to expand...

Exploreshootshare said:

Thx for the hint. I still not quite sure about all the lenses. Apparently, some lenses don´t have a dedicated control ring, but a "customizable" focus ring which can switched between focus (manually) and control ring feature. There is no physical button for switching, so one has to go through the menu to set it up or switch. Since I don´t own a R7 and sigma lens, I can´t test whether this correct or not. Other than that, is does sound like a hassle... I can live with a "control/ focus" switch just like the RF 16mm has it.

Click to expand...

There is Control Ring support on Sigma RF lenses.

Control ring support was a big item for me. I really like using the compact Sigma zooms and primes with the R50 which only has one ring and having the second ring on the lens was a huge consideration!

Most of the lenses don't have a deditacted control ring. You get Control Ring functionality by setting the focus ring to be a Control Ring. You can then customize the control ring as you normally would a dedicated physical ring. As @Exploreshootshare said, this functionality has to be setup through the menus, there is no dedicated button (just like with the Canon RF-S 18-45mm).

The newer Sigma RF-S lenses, like the 12mm & 15mm primes and the 17-40mm zoom have a dedicated Control Ring. The older lenses, like the 16, 23, 30, & 56mm primes and the 10-18mm, 18-50mm, 16-300mm zooms don't have a dedicated Control Ring.

For my use cases manual focus is not needed, so the R50 is configured for Control Ring and it solves the issue for me.

P.S. I also use the R7, but mostly with the 17-40mm or with the Sigma EF 50-100mm 1.8 adapted with the control ring adapter.

Chig said:

Personally I would have preferred a stacked sensor in the R6 iii as I find full frame works much better for my bird photography and would rather use longer focal length for magnification than using a cropped sensor. I have the 200-800 and it works great with 1.4x and even 2x extenders provided I'm not too far away. Distance ruins image quality more than any other factor I find and if I'm too far away no amount of magnification or MP helps over come the degradation of atmospheric effects.

Click to expand...

I use the same lenses on APS-C and FF. If I am cropping to below APS-C size, which happens for most of the time, it makes little difference to me whether I use FF or APS-C except that storage is better for APS-C and I can get better resolution. If I am doing BIF, then I greatly prefer FF as it is easier to find the bird and then keep it in frame. If I am using a prime lens, the wider field of view on FF is a big plus. You are a BIF nutter so there is a natural agreement between us!