A beautiful animal well captured. My favourite is the third.

R7 II CFB card slot, R8II R10II CFB/SD express please, no more UHS-II

I bought the EF 50 1.4 just before this lens was announced. Fits better in my bunch of EF lenses and can be used with a variable ND adapter.
R7 destroys that lens wide open - on FF with 24MPix it is very usable wide open. What I like is that the older EF version has low distortion and moderate CAs without any correction.
Now about the RF 1.2 45: It is close to these older designs in IQ, suffers from strong distortion and it has AF which is not the case for 3rd party lenses, a huge advantage!
Now my opinion about IQ wide open etc:
If you can use f/2.8 or f/4.0 and the lens is sharp, contrasty, gives good colors you can use it for landscape, lots of portrait situations, nature, architecture.
With f/1.2 or f/1.4 you have the option for low DOF or night shots which are not accessible with e.g. a f/4 or f/2.8 zoom. Some degradation in sheer sharpness is traded in to get the photo which is not possible with f/4 or f/2.8.

I would be satisfied with a well corrected (not relying on computational correction for good results) RF-S 15-60 4.0 IS USM with a good close focus range (1:3 reprod. ratio would be stunning).
But maybe three lenses?
→ f/2.8 High End Z type 15-60
→ f/4.0 High quality fixed aperture 15-60
→ f/2.8...5.6 good quality var aperture 15-85 like the older EF-S version
And the EF-S 15-85 is of really good quality, very low noise AF, IS and reasonably sharp at least for 4k video - the R7s 32 MPix sensor reveals the non-perfect sharpness but photography is more than just pixel peeping.

Click said:

I really like this shot. Well done, danfaz.

Click to expand...

Thank you, Click!

Hey everyone, here's a few selections from a sequence of shots I captured yesterday.

I really like this shot. Well done, danfaz.

Cute American Kestrel.

More flowers from today: I didn't see any bird deserving to be on photo.

7DmkI said:

Take off!

Click to expand...

....With the landing gear in transition. Nice shot!

Click said:

Cute little ball of feathers. Nicely done, Alan.

Click to expand...

The Goldcrest is Europe's smallest bird, weighing in at 5.5g/0.2oz. The Firecrest, which I saw yesterday, is very close in weight and size, but is much rarer.

American goldfinch and white breasted nuthatch

Snapster said:

I might also be inherently against "one lens solution" type of lenses. It's rarely if ever the best tool for the job.

Click to expand...

IMO, sometimes the ‘one lens solution’ is the best tool for the job. For me, when the ‘job’ is a family trip where I want good quality photos including memory shots, but don’t want to detract from time with the family by carrying a bag full of lenses and changing them out, the best tool is often the R8 and RF 24-240mm.

But yeah, if I’m being honest then I will add that I often also carry a fast, wide prime (24/1.4, 24/1.8 or 20/1.4) and the 10-20/4 since that kit fits in a bag small enough that it isn’t excluded from venues (museums, etc.) that don’t allow backpacks.

Cute little ball of feathers. Nicely done, Alan.

I went back to the same spot as I saw a Firecrest yesterday, this time armed with the RF 100-500mm as the conditions were so dire between showers. Got in just one shot as a bird briefly appeared for about 20 seconds. And, when I looked at the image - a Goldcrest. (1/200s at iso 40,000), I am tempted to buy a used 400mm f/4 DO ii for these conditions, but it would rarely be used and still cost about £3500).

Checking travel pics from last summer, I realized I shoot so much landscape at 200mm this won't make it. Also in cities and with people I often use apertures faster than 2.8.

I might also be inherently against "one lens solution" type of lenses. It's rarely if ever the best tool for the job.

ISv and Speedfinder,

Very nice shots, guys.

Would be much nicer to have something like 70-180 (closer to the 200mm and maybe less wide if it makes the lens easier to design). But I get that the diameter of the front element depends… you all know it.

And Canon probably needs to protect their 70-200 (both f/4 and f/2.8) so there must be some disadvantages to that STM lens.

Forgot to add, its a Corn Bunting central Spain

They might be LBJs but they can sing .

David_B said:

If someone used different lenses and could prove a difference, would it be accepted? Or would people argue that the results aren't meaningful because different lenses. Maybe it doesn't matter because people will just be argumentative.

Click to expand...

It would likely depend on the comparison. For example, I’m not sure that comparing the digitally corrected corners of the inexpensive RF 16/2.8 to the optically corrected RF 15-35/2.8 would be valid, because the base quality of the two lenses is very different. Having said that, it is interesting that the digitally corrected corners of the RF 16/2.8 deliver similar IQ to the optically corrected corners of the far more expensive (but also much older) EF 14/2.8L II.

David_B said:

Sorry, I can't help as I don't have the required equipment (a lens that doesn't fill the sensor.)

Click to expand...

I see. So you’re belief that optical correction is superior is akin to faith – belief without evidence.

David_B said:

IMHO, to do a proper test you'd need to shoot a test pattern chart, the kind that's used by digitalpicture, dpreview, with all the lines at angles to enable measuring lpmm, etc.

Click to expand...

As @AlanF mentioned, I have the same enhanced ISO 12233-type charts used by Bryan/TDP.

David_B said:

Thanks, I didn't know that.

Click to expand...

You’re welcome.

Exploreshootshare said:

For city trips, I take the R5 along with the 14-35mm F4 L and the 70-200mm F4, sometimes a fast prime. For hiking, it depends on the route. Either I take the exact same combo, or I switch the 14-35mm for the 35mm F1.8. The 16mm sometimes gets a place somewhere between my stuff

This year, I have to go lighter because we're now traveling with a kid So, I got the R8 (surprisingly capable camera!!) and I plan to pair it with the 28mm F2.8 for landscapes and such, 50mm (family pics and my kid) and a zoom. I don't which zoom I'll be carrying. I can always take my in-laws 100-400mm (which used to be mine) in exchange for my 100-500mm. I am currently looking to replace the 24-105mm F4 L (too heavy for the R8), but I don´t exactly know what I want. I'll wait and see what Canon does with the third F2.8 STM lens.

Click to expand...

I agree, i mostly just use the 14-35mm or 24-105 f4 for hiking with the 100-500 in the bag(its to heavy to have on your neck while hiking), but a 50-150 with the 14-35 would be more versatile, light and still long enough for the ocassionnal wildlife pic than both a 70-200 and the 100-500

neonlight said:

It's the "optimal conditions" that's the issue. Diffraction limiting will start early on an APSC with ~39Mpx. That's just under 3 micron pixels. Good for resolution, if the lens performs ...

Click to expand...

I wrote "optimal" to give the upper limit. Under suboptimal conditions, you still get varying degrees of extra resolution, from nearly none at the real extreme to nearly twice. The diffraction limited aperture for a 39 Mp sensor is f/4.7, as opposed to f/5.2 for the R7. DLA is not a sharp cut off but there is a progressive decrease in what can be resolved as you approach it. There are several posting here who use the RF 200-800mm on the R7 at f/9, nearly 2 x the DLA on not the sharpest of lenses, because they squeeze out more detail than on their FF bodies. An f/4 lens would bring out closer to the best.