Dragon said:

Rain donuts .

Click to expand...

Click said:

Another very nice series, Dragon. Pretty cool with the raindrops.

Click to expand...

Rain donuts .

Another very nice series, Dragon. Pretty cool with the raindrops.

A Whitetail Doe, her fawn and Granny! Taken with my Canon R8 and RF 600mm f11

Hummingbird reflections continued---. This is a Canon new FD 500mm f/8 mirror lens on the M6 II as it has more aggressive focus peaking than the R7. This lens has a better t-stop than the Solid Cat and one of the easiest to focus. MFD is about 13 ft, so workable for my small birds. A dark and rainy day, so all shot at ISO 6400 and pushed at least a stop in post, so effectively 12,800. DXO PhotoLab did the best job of recovering detail and color followed by Topaz for sharpening. The birds were hungry in the cold weather, so lots of opportunity for shots. All handheld at 1/640, so right on the edge of motion blur from both the camera and the birds.

STN12 said:

I've had a hefty sigma 50 1.4 ART for a few years, worked with it on 5D3 and 4, then R6 and R6II, I've never been happier trading a lens than this one: it never matched the image quality of my L lenses fleet, you could easily tell which photos were shot with it, and not in a pleasant way. Finally found a EF 50 1.2 at an irresistible price, it's easily the best 50mm i've ever used: it is plenty sharp at any aperture above 1.6, in any part of the image, it's very three-dimensional even at f4 or 5.6 when shooting group photos. unbelievable. the only downside is, it's an old lens with an old focus motor, it does not support the full burst capabilities of the EOS-R cameras, it's blackout time between shots is a little bit more noticeable than more recent lenses, but that is it. it's half the size of the 50ART, which, I almost forgot, happened to fail me twice, on paid jobs: once, the lens mount screws got loose, luckily I found a hardware store halfway between the wedding ceremony and reception, and fixed it while my assistant covered the aperitivo (hello from italy!). another time, again working at a wedding, one screw got loose and the whole lens group moved inside the barrel. luckily, everything worked anyway, it did focus (thanks mirrorless system!), so I could keep on working. I was checking focus a lot more often than i normally do.

if this 45 is real, its image quality matches the EF 50 1.2, has good 2026 focusing capability, and it's not going to break the bank, i think i'm going to have one permanently mounted to my R6.

Click to expand...

Anche al mio si erano allentate le viti e ballava un po' dopo 6 mesi circa dall'acquisto (nuovo), me l'han sistemato in garanzia anche se era europea e non italiana (per questo motivo non ho potuto portarlo direttamente in assistenza, l'ho dovuto spedire a Galaxiastore, da cui l'avevo comprato, con etichetta prepagata mandata da loro, lo han fatto poi riparare loro e me lo hanno rimandato, turnover totale circa 3 settimane), da lì ha lavorato quasi 10 anni senza mai più un problema. Venduto solo per passare al 40 Art, ma lo ricomprerei domattina, obiettivo splendido.

Evidentemente aveva rogne di progetto il 50mm se ad entrambi si sono mollate le viti, ho tutt'ora altri tre Sigma Art (40 e 105 fissi e 24-105) e non ho mai più avuto mezzo problema.

Sounds like just the lens I am after, I have to say the brand that starts with an "S" has a 200-600 that multiple friends of mine own or have supplied by employers and love. Being F4-5.6 is a big plus over the other brand, really makes it usable for what I do and am hoping for reality in this one, hoping it is indeed arriving. I heavly use an ef version of 400 2.8 (fantastic lens), the potential/hopeful weight savings would also be a plus. I have to say the 200-600 with the incentives along with the weight of their 400 2.8 paired with discounts on the other company's equipment has definitely made switching attractive, but I despise the ergonomics of the company's cameras that begin with "S".

mariosk1gr said:

If only c50 could have IBIS I believe that would a different story! Now this is a c50 without fan but with IBIS! I know you can't have it all with Canon but at least that is something..!

Click to expand...

With the GH5S Panasonic made the same no-IBIS decision, because that's what videographers wanted.

Chickadee

If only c50 could have IBIS I believe that would a different story! Now this is a c50 without fan but with IBIS! I know you can't have it all with Canon but at least that is something..!

miker33 said:

On par with the EF 50mm f/1.2L USM, huh? So sharp in the middle, not so much in the corners. Too bad, was hoping to replace my hefty Sigma 50mm 1.4, which is sharp corner to corner but heavy enough on its own, let alone with the mount adapter.

Click to expand...

I've had a hefty sigma 50 1.4 ART for a few years, worked with it on 5D3 and 4, then R6 and R6II, I've never been happier trading a lens than this one: it never matched the image quality of my L lenses fleet, you could easily tell which photos were shot with it, and not in a pleasant way. Finally found a EF 50 1.2 at an irresistible price, it's easily the best 50mm i've ever used: it is plenty sharp at any aperture above 1.6, in any part of the image, it's very three-dimensional even at f4 or 5.6 when shooting group photos. unbelievable. the only downside is, it's an old lens with an old focus motor, it does not support the full burst capabilities of the EOS-R cameras, it's blackout time between shots is a little bit more noticeable than more recent lenses, but that is it. it's half the size of the 50ART, which, I almost forgot, happened to fail me twice, on paid jobs: once, the lens mount screws got loose, luckily I found a hardware store halfway between the wedding ceremony and reception, and fixed it while my assistant covered the aperitivo (hello from italy!). another time, again working at a wedding, one screw got loose and the whole lens group moved inside the barrel. luckily, everything worked anyway, it did focus (thanks mirrorless system!), so I could keep on working. I was checking focus a lot more often than i normally do.

if this 45 is real, its image quality matches the EF 50 1.2, has good 2026 focusing capability, and it's not going to break the bank, i think i'm going to have one permanently mounted to my R6.

P-visie said:

I’m not one of those “believers”. Yes I would like to have optically corrected lenses, but those have a cost, in price, size and weight. @neuroanatomist frequently challenged those who would state that optical corrections are superior to digital corrections, but AFAIK, no one could deliver the ‘evidence’.

I can only speak from experience of the EF 11-24mm f4 lens, optically corrected, and the RF 10-20mm f4, which relies on digital corrections a.o. to fill the corners of the frame from 10-13mm and correct distortion and vignetting. When you pixel peep at corners, it is hard to tell them apart. Corner image quality of the EF lens was not it’s strong point.
The EF lens weighs 1180 gram and is big, the RF 10-20mm weighs 570 gram and is compact. I frequently left the EF lens at home because of the weight and size (it would not fit into my 40 liter backpack when filled with 2 bodies and 3-4 other lenses and filters). I know which lens I prefer.

Uses cases where optical corrections can be superior:

• Astrophotography where ‘stretching’ the image corners to fill the frame might result in distorted stars. The RF20mm f1.4 VCM shows that digital corrections without distortions are possible (see this thread by @neuroanatomist).
• Stitching panorama’s and focus stacking.
• Severe lens vignetting (3-4 stops) needs a lot ‘burning’ ‘dodging’ to lighten the image corners. This causes noise in the corners of the image. When you need to lift the shadows of the image by 1 -2 stops, you would get 4-6 stops of brightness correction in the corners of the image. This would have a visible negative impact on image quality.

To be exact: It is Adobe Camera RAW that has the lens profiles, not Photoshop (sorry couldn’t resist ).

Click to expand...

I can see how digital vs optical corrections is an issue for some. I guess, for me, it isn't. I mainly do portraits. I like a little vignette sometimes. I never peek at anything. Thank you.

Michael Clark said:

I haven't. But then I haven't used any of my Flashpoint/Godox lights with the newer cameras.

Sorry no one who has actually used them with newer bodies hasn't answered you!

But I think things like real lights and modifiers are more things actual photographers would be worried about, rather than what gearhead fanboys who haven't a clue how to actually light a portrait are concerned with.

Click to expand...

Thank you. I thought I'd read a rumor concerning compatibility issues at one time. I'd like to upgrade to the R6 Mark III, so was hoping somebody who uses Flashpoint would chime in. Nothing against Canon flashes, I just want to use moonlights. Thanks again.

Beautiful shots, Pieter. I especially like the first one.

Ruddy turnstones (Arenaria interpres) on the beach of the Dutch island Texel. Taken in september, I’m still busy culling and processing.




R5 Mk II + EF 600mm f4 II + 1.4 extender.

I hope canon still comes with a compact camera for photographers who want a travel buddy with raw M modus, good zoom like 400mm thats more then enough for a good travel compact camera.
A good sensor 1 inch or bigger and with an evf.

I have now a Panasonic lx10 and i absolutely adore this little compact camera, the only thing i hate so far is the lack of an evf and not much zoom 24-72mm

I absolutely hope that canon listens to its buyers and will bring some new awesome compact camera's for photographers

Maximilian said:

I think you've already made your decision

Click to expand...

Well, definitely not, how can I decide until lens is out and we know for sure all its qualities, and if the incredibly low price is confirmed? Maybe is super sharp, but AF sucks like the 85 STM and flare is a disaster. I value sharpness, but something else should be there, too.

RaPhoto said:

Some backyard Red-tailed Hawk photos at ~50m in a cottonwood tree. R5mkii and RF200-800mm.

View attachment 226707View attachment 226708View attachment 226709View attachment 226710

Click to expand...

Nice shots. Hawk doesn't seem too concerned about the crows harassing. We have hawks and ravens here and they seem to share a mutual respect.

Planterz said:

It wasn't just Canon, Nikon also abandoned the idea of a pro-level APS-C camera, and Sony abandoned the SLR style APS-C body altogether, going either with rangefinder style compact bodies, or going even smaller and eliminating the viewfinder altogether. If you think the R7 is cheapened compared to the 7D, look at the Nikon Z50 compared to the D500. Probably not a far comparison, but that's my point - there is no fair comparison because Nikon's "best" APS-C mirrorless is a budget one that's not in the same class as the R7, Fuji X-HS2, or Sony a6700.

With 3 other APS-C cameras - R10, R50, R100 - plus the R50V (but that's for vlogging), I'm not surprised that Canon is going back the other way with a more "pro" oriented R7 II. The issues people have had with the R7 are well-documented and prominent, and to me it seems they've not only been paying attention to the criticisms, but also from whom they were coming (birders, youtubers, birding youtubers, etc). I think they realized that a lot of R7 owners and prospective R7 purchasers are ones that already own fullframe Canon bodies but want the 1.6x crop and high MP count for more pixels per duck in some situations, and are willing to pay a bit more than the $1500 price for it. Simultaniously they realized that people on a budget weren't looking at the "expensive" R7, but rather the R10, R50, or R100. At least, that's how everything appears to me. I see a lot of R7 owners here and DPR that also own R5s and R6s, and guys like Duade Paton on youtube who doesn't always lug around his 600mm (500mm?) f4.

Click to expand...

very true statement. Nikon essentially abandoned APS-C which initially pushed me towards the R7 as I was coming from a Nikon D3200 at the time of purchase. Might have possibly stuck with Nikon if the Z8 were out at the time.

Have the R6ii as my current main body with the R7 as a backup. Have been tempted to add an R5ii to my lineup by one or two people. Though looking more at the upcoming 300-600 and R7ii in 2026 as better purchases.

amfoto1 said:

Likely a truly improved R7II will cost more than the original... perhaps in the $1800 to $2100 US range. But keep in mind that the original 7D sold initially for $1700 and the 7DII for $1800... in 2009 and 2014 respectively! Both of those sold like hot cakes! It's baffling why Canon felt the need to cheapen the R7 and give it an introductory price of $1500 in 2022. Between 2014 and 2022 inflation was almost 24%... so theoretically the market shiould have welcomed a modernized, mirrorless 7DII that cost over $2000. Instead Canon went the other direction.

Click to expand...

It wasn't just Canon, Nikon also abandoned the idea of a pro-level APS-C camera, and Sony abandoned the SLR style APS-C body altogether, going either with rangefinder style compact bodies, or going even smaller and eliminating the viewfinder altogether. If you think the R7 is cheapened compared to the 7D, look at the Nikon Z50 compared to the D500. Probably not a far comparison, but that's my point - there is no fair comparison because Nikon's "best" APS-C mirrorless is a budget one that's not in the same class as the R7, Fuji X-HS2, or Sony a6700.

With 3 other APS-C cameras - R10, R50, R100 - plus the R50V (but that's for vlogging), I'm not surprised that Canon is going back the other way with a more "pro" oriented R7 II. The issues people have had with the R7 are well-documented and prominent, and to me it seems they've not only been paying attention to the criticisms, but also from whom they were coming (birders, youtubers, birding youtubers, etc). I think they realized that a lot of R7 owners and prospective R7 purchasers are ones that already own fullframe Canon bodies but want the 1.6x crop and high MP count for more pixels per duck in some situations, and are willing to pay a bit more than the $1500 price for it. Simultaniously they realized that people on a budget weren't looking at the "expensive" R7, but rather the R10, R50, or R100. At least, that's how everything appears to me. I see a lot of R7 owners here and DPR that also own R5s and R6s, and guys like Duade Paton on youtube who doesn't always lug around his 600mm (500mm?) f4.

Snapster said:

IQ should at least be on par with 50mm Sigma Art. And much better than the RF 50mm 1.8. Otherwise, whats the point?

Click to expand...

To be better than the RF 50mm f/1.8, it just needs to be as good at the same aperture and have the ability to go wider
Jokes apart, I imagine this lens at 1.4 could be similar to the Sigma at 1.4, yes.
And then there's rendering, colors, bokeh, coatings, build quality, autofocus (with the new STM)...there's a lot of aspects where this lens could easily be an improvement compared to the RF 50mm f/1.8.

Walrus said:

That's what I'm thinking; otherwise why people should spend 600€ on this vs 300€ for an used 50 Art? Yes, weight, size, extra bright kick, no adapter, I get it, but double the price for less sharpness at comparable apertures? I'd say nah.

Click to expand...

If this is released at 600€, I expect being able to buy it at 450€ or less, brand new, just with the usual weekend discounts.
The Sigma, with the adapter, weights about as much as three of these. You know I had it, and I'm not going back.

I still have the adapter, but I sold all my EF glass a year ago. I only keep the adapter for the case someday I need a specific lens, like a super telephoto, and I can't afford a RF, or if I want to adapt a completely different lens. Earlier this year I used a mirror lens, for instance.

G650ER said:

I don't see the usefulness of this range. I love my 100-500L but still hold onto my 500 f/4L for those low light situations. I'd much rather see an RF 500 F/4L DO type of lens or a f/5.6 version of the 100-500L as I truly find it versatile. Even 150mm on the low end is too much from my experience whereas 100mm works great as a landscape lens all the to its 500mm end.

Click to expand...

I'm the complete opposite - versus the 100-500, I gain a little more on the long end as well as 2/3 of a stop more light, which is pretty significant. I would like to see a little more range on the wide end, but it's a tradeoff I'm willing to make as is. Of course, it all boils down to price in the long run.

Tom R5R7 said:

I'd like to see it sitting next to the old EF 50/1.4 USM to see just how compact it really is. I suspect that it's about 1.5 times as long as the old EF lens.

And probably 1.5 times sharper too.

Click to expand...

This is what EF 50 1.4 look on Canon R against RF 50 1.8 and Sigma 40 1.4 Art


And no, it's not sharp

I'd like to see it sitting next to the old EF 50/1.4 USM to see just how compact it really is. I suspect that it's about 1.5 times as long as the old EF lens.

And probably 1.5 times sharper too.

Walrus said:

I remember you had problems with the 70-200 L classic, I showed in the past a sample from mine here https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/t...meras-lenses-update.44469/page-2#post-1024667 shot wide open handheld 1/160s (so slightly below security shutter) @200mm and even at 800iso the focus plane was crisp, I was really lucky with that lens, and that's why I have it since almost 20 years, while the average lens stay in my bag is around 2/3yrs

Click to expand...

YES, that! Looking back, perhaps I was a little optimistic. I don't think my copy of the lens was as sharp as I mentioned there
I don't miss it at all, I sold it almost three years ago, had the Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 G2 for a year, and then I finally bought the RF 70-200mm f/2.8.

The Tamron had decent glass and autofocus, but the build quality was not on par with Sigma Art lenses. My copy of the lens was less than three years old, I bought it from an amateur, and the lens looked worse than my 50 Art that had over 5 years in the hands of a wedding photographer. At first I though it was due to poor handling from the previous owner, but then I realised it was the lens really, I'd rub my hands and its letterings would come off Yes, that easily! Also, the matte finished plastics didn't age well.
Plus, the glass didn't have any "special rendering" like Sigma lenses do so, when comparing third party versus third party, the Tamron lens always felt a little lower grade. I used it for a year, sold it for 20€ less than I'd bought it for, and never looked back at Tamron.

Walrus said:

For camera bodies, in fact, if you remember in the following paragraph I stated that the gimmicks on AF are surely the most important of the gimmicks

Click to expand...

The thing is, I feel like the ratio of usable photos has increased massively with the mirrorless transition. Sure, glass is still more important, but now we're getting consistency levels that were unimaginable with DSLRs. You aim, you initiate focus, and you know you'll have something.

Not only that, but the ratio of photographs that are actually 100% in focus (not just "good enough to be usable") also increased significantly. How many of us used to stop down to have enough room to keep subjects in focus while recomposing or focusing continuously? Now we're tracking moving subjects continuously at f/1.2, f/1.4, f/2, and we still get files that are good enough for cropping, if we later decide to do so, because they're perfectly focused.
Also, now we're relying more on camera bodies for distortion corrections, we have stupidly high usable ISOs...
I think more credit goes to camera bodies now than it ever did in the past. These days, you may consider not buying the faster glass because you'll just crank up ISO in your camera and do the work that way.