Latest activity

docsmith · Mar 2, 2026

Like others, I received mine on Friday. A few pics:

CafferyPhoto · Mar 2, 2026

Why oh why is there no industry desire to produce a wide-aperture portrait lens for full frame? 50-1XX f/2? Why oh why...

Makmut · Mar 2, 2026

Would love an updated G9X2. Put it in your jeans pocket and you will forget about it. Great for concerts, love the orange screen info "dark mode". Wish it was a little faster though at everything like my RX100VA but that makes a big visible bulge in my pocket... and takes forever to start.

AlanF · Mar 2, 2026

neuroanatomist said:
Sigh. Because physics. Wide and standard lens designs are limited by the image circle diameter, telephoto designs are not. There is no point in a telephoto lens ‘for crop cameras’ since such a lens would work fine on FF. That’s why there are no such lenses.

Look at the Oly/OM 150-400mm, for example. It’s for m4/3 (2x crop) but it’s about the same size as the Canon 100-500 (and if OM made a FF camera, the lens would work on it).

As for wide lenses not making money, I really don’t get why some people seem to think they know better than Canon what lenses people will buy. I mean, Canon has led the ILC market for over two decades and dominates it today…but you know more about what lenses they need to make? LOL. You get to decide what lenses you want to buy, but Canon doesn’t care what you personally want.

I think we need an automatic button to click everybody time this suggestion of making dedicated teles for APS-C is posted.

Exploreshootshare · Mar 2, 2026

brent1395 said:
Or, hear me out, Canon could revive what was one of the best compact systems of all time--the M series. Of course that ship has sailed, but the way that company handled that system was such a lost opportunity.

The way technology trends come and go, such as film cameras having a comeback and vinyl music selling like crazy, it'll probably just take a few influencer or YouTube who state "they absolutely love the old, little M-cameras made back way then..." and boom: the m-system will be back

of course, keep your cameras now because prices will climb like crazy

Just kidding here, but "proof-reading" it I thought: I might be right here

Del Paso · Mar 2, 2026

Sporgon said:
I wouldn’t like to say, but what I can say is that the optical performance of the RF 28/2.8 is really quite impressive, with superb clarity. So called ‘micro contrast’ doesn’t seem to suffer from the resin elements, there’s not a lot not to like.

I fully agree!
As I wrote in a former post, the RF 28mm f/2,8 is as sharp as my Leica M 28mm f/2,8 Asph.
There's absolutely nothing "not to like", not even the price!

AlanF · Mar 2, 2026

Buteo buteo flying over my garden (R5ii + RF 200-800mm).

JRT256 · Mar 2, 2026

Old Man FL/FD said:
Pretty amazing aspherical shape for that final element on the 24-45 mm f/1.4 L.

It looks something like the spherical aberration correction lenses that used to be found in large refractor (lens) telescopes.

twoheadedboy · Mar 2, 2026

Well, getting a giant 24 - 45mm f/1.4 zoom would be one way to get 28mm f/1.4 native on the RF mount, I guess...

TexPhoto · Mar 2, 2026

I received my 7-14 on Friday last week, and had a chance to do some shooting on Sat. I've had an 8-15mm since they were introduced and really enjoy the fisheye perspective. It's certainly not an every shoot, every photo lens, but it sure is fun to shoot.

First thing you notice is the weight. It's very light. It's significantly longer than the 8-15, and slightly longer than the 8-15 with and EF to RF adapter, so you almost expect it to be heavier. It's so light that my first thought was to check the lens mount to see if it was plastic. It's metal. It does feel very sturdy, but very plastic.

In FF is is noticeably wider. Obviously 14 is wider than 15, but it's hard to know what to expect. The 8-15 was still full frame at 14, maybe 13.5. Likewise this lens is FF down to 12, or 12.5. Being able to shoot wider is certainly beneficial, but being used to the 15mm perspective, I kind of miss it. You can shoot some subjects with a fisheye and not even tell, of course you can always crop.

The circular image at 7mm is noticeably wider than the 8mm of the EF lens. You are more likely to get you feet in the photo if not careful. I do own the 6mm Venus Optics lens, that lens is even more extreme. You can't use the grip with that lens, you fingers will be in frame. But the biggest benefit is the circle at 7mm is slightly smaller. On the 8mm, you can loose a little of the age of the circle at the top and bottom of the frame. Not the actual image, butt he blue halo around the image.

Being 2.8-3.5 is very beneficial to me as I shoot sports. f2.8 is sort of the gold standard.

Is is sharp? Sharper? Hard to say so far. I think so, but all need to do some more shooting before I can say.

Here is my first good image:

Exploreshootshare · Mar 2, 2026

I just hope these patents mean Canon is actively working on a much lighter 28-70mm F2 (or better 24-70mm F2) and a 70-135/ 150mm F2 zoom. Those are the two lenses I´d be hoping for (not wishing for/ or telling Canon has to do them).

Exploreshootshare · Mar 2, 2026

Well, Sony honestly knocked it two out of the park with their F2 zooms, maybe Canon feels "pushed/ poised" or whatever to top that with a f1.4 zoom.

Honestly, I don't think a lens like the a 24-45mm (or 50mm?) f1.4 is likely to happen. I´d love to see it, but I don´t believe in it. Plus, what would a lens like that cost? Taking into account, the prices of three vcm primes (24/ 35/50) or maybe four once Canon fills that glaring hole (28mm), I´d guess the price would be north of 4k € at least.

brent1395 · Mar 2, 2026

Or, hear me out, Canon could revive what was one of the best compact systems of all time--the M series. Of course that ship has sailed, but the way that company handled that system was such a lost opportunity.

PhotonShark · Mar 2, 2026

AJ said:
Lenses these days are a two-part system: the physical lens, and the software/profiles needed for mandatory corrections. It seems to me that for manufacturers, the value is in the lens and not the software or profiles. If anything, giving away the profiles adds value. Having companies like dxo retro-engineer the corrections seems counterproductive to me.

Exactly!

neuroanatomist · Mar 2, 2026

Malm said:
Well, I'm not the author of that comment but come on: Each of us has HIS preferred lenses (and of course Canon knows best which lenses will give them the most profit). And we are most interested to get the lenses we are dreaming of. Me too!

Of course...we can all wish for lenses and hope that Canon makes them. But there's a significant difference between hoping for a lens and claiming that Canon not making the lens one hopes for will have negative consequences for their business. The former is quite reasonable, the latter (which is what @swingman did) is asinine.

neuroanatomist · Mar 2, 2026

Old Man FL/FD said:
On the schematic of the 24-45, the transmission path of the edge rays do not go through the entire width of the central elements. Is this the constraint of the image circle at the focus plane?

I can intuitively visualize in a telephoto lens with a narrower angle-of-view the edge transmission path taking up more of the width of the central elements.

The ray diagram is going to 'stop' at the edges of the diagrammatic 'sensor' by convention, even though that's technically the image plane and is thus a 2D surface.

Malm · Mar 2, 2026

neuroanatomist said:
...

As for wide lenses not making money, I really don’t get why some people seem to think they know better than Canon what lenses people will buy. I mean, Canon has led the ILC market for over two decades and dominates it today…but you know more about what lenses they need to make? LOL. You get to decide what lenses you want to buy, but Canon doesn’t care what you personally want.

Well, I'm not the author of that comment but come on: Each of us has HIS preferred lenses (and of course Canon knows best which lenses will give them the most profit). And we are most interested to get the lenses we are dreaming of. Me too!

Old Man FL/FD · Mar 2, 2026

neuroanatomist said:
...Wide and standard lens designs are limited by the image circle diameter, telephoto designs are not...

On the schematic of the 24-45, the transmission path of the edge rays do not go through the entire width of the central elements. Is this the constraint of the image circle at the focus plane?

I can intuitively visualize in a telephoto lens with a narrower angle-of-view the edge transmission path taking up more of the width of the central elements.

Etnaphele · Mar 2, 2026

Old Man FL/FD said:
I just flip up the rear LCD screen on my G7X III to get a waist-level finder. It's bright enough.

I don't know if this word is still even used, but that's just not hipster enough! Too much digital garbage, don't you long for the Canon-flavoured ANALOGUE XPERIENCE? Don't mind the tiny sensor put in there just to call that a camera

neuroanatomist · Mar 2, 2026

swingman said:
Why can’t we have some mid range tele for crop cameras. Keep doing more and more wide lenses is not going to make more money.

Sigh. Because physics. Wide and standard lens designs are limited by the image circle diameter, telephoto designs are not. There is no point in a telephoto lens ‘for crop cameras’ since such a lens would work fine on FF. That’s why there are no such lenses.

Look at the Oly/OM 150-400mm, for example. It’s for m4/3 (2x crop) but it’s about the same size as the Canon 100-500 (and if OM made a FF camera, the lens would work on it).

As for wide lenses not making money, I really don’t get why some people seem to think they know better than Canon what lenses people will buy. I mean, Canon has led the ILC market for over two decades and dominates it today…but you know more about what lenses they need to make? LOL. You get to decide what lenses you want to buy, but Canon doesn’t care what you personally want.

Sporgon · Mar 2, 2026

Del Paso said:
Made of optical glass or optical plastics like the one on the RF 28mm f/2,8?

I wouldn’t like to say, but what I can say is that the optical performance of the RF 28/2.8 is really quite impressive, with superb clarity. So called ‘micro contrast’ doesn’t seem to suffer from the resin elements, there’s not a lot not to like.

neuroanatomist · Mar 2, 2026

Malm said:
Concerning all the patent applications: Is it possible that Canon want's to distract a little bit from the potential new lenses, so that they created some 'nonsense' patents to 'hide' the potential new lenses in this larger amount of patents?

Canon files thousands of patent applications per year, they have been in the top ten companies in terms of that for over four decades. They release <10 lenses per year. So very unlikely to be a ‘distraction’, as you suggest.

Most patents are not necessarily intended to become products directly, and in many cases some claim(s) in a patent have broad applicability, e.g., a new lens coating included in a patent may be used on many lenses.

swingman · Mar 2, 2026

Why can’t we have some mid range tele for crop cameras. Keep doing more and more wide lenses is not going to make more money.

Malm · Mar 2, 2026

Hi!

This 'reflecting forth and back' sounds a little bit like interference, but there the distance between the two reflecting surfaces is VERY small.
Concerning all the patent applications: Is it possible that Canon want's to distract a little bit from the potential new lenses, so that they created some 'nonsense' patents to 'hide' the potential new lenses in this larger amount of patents?