Canon Rumors said:

Correction (I read the communication incorrectly). Optical quality on par with the EF 50 f/1.2L USM.

Click to expand...

Ok so it's bad wide open; my 40 Art is going to stay, I guess

BFG9000 said:

I don't know if it fits your budget, but Cobra Tether cables are excellent and should work with Camera Connect.

Click to expand...

Thanks,

They do look good. Unfortunately I’ve since discovered that remote shooting on the R5II using Camera Connect only works via Bluetooth or Wifi.

I had been hoping to use the USB-C cable to eliminate the lag you get using Camera Connect for remote shooting.

Might need to look to see what other apps allow for remote shooting of the R5II via USB-C.

Canon Rumors said:

Correction (I read the communication incorrectly). Optical quality on par with the EF 50 f/1.2L USM.

Click to expand...

Oh, so my initial suspicions were right. That makes a lot of sense, considering the double gauss design we saw on that patent.

m4ndr4ke said:

If the double gauss design is confirmed, this could be a successor to the EF50mm f/1.2 L, this time aimed at enthusiasts. A very interesting proposition.

Click to expand...

This may be a lens with a lot of character.

Canon Rumors said:

Correction (I read the communication incorrectly). Optical quality on par with the EF 50 f/1.2L USM.

Click to expand...

Still good enough for that price. Let's see how it will be reviewed.

Canon Rumors said:

Correction (I read the communication incorrectly). Optical quality on par with the EF 50 f/1.2L USM.

Click to expand...

Good to know. That means I don't need to worry about replacing my EF 50mm 1.2 L with it

I believe it is. I was testing several modes so I can’t be 100% sure. I did some research and saw that there was a firmware update available from 2018 (1.0.9) so I installed that last night. The description of the bug that was fixed by the new firmware was not very clear but since it mentioned IS I don’t think it is relevant to the results I am getting.

I will try and collect some more shots when the wildlife reappears in my yard. I will also try and collect some shots with my older 50D to see if that makes any difference.

I think, Canon has released the RF 45 1.2 intentionally after I bought a 2nd hand EF 1.4 50 after waiting 15 years for a replacement (IS would have been welcome) ...
If that thing is really "as good as" the RF 50 1.2 (I do not believe that) I might buy this one - especially if gets closer to subjects and AF is nearly silent. Breathing countermeasures are welcome - maybe a static lens in the back?

Eloniel said:

That's maybe true for now but we will get to 100 mp Full Frame sensors, so if you invest in Full Frame lens at some point you will be able to get it on FF.

Click to expand...

There is a down side. The Fujifilm GFX-100-2 only does 8 FPS, I use 30 or 40 FPS often to capture highly transient events.

Maybe at 20/24MP it’s good enough to be generally similar in terms of sharpness.
I expect the lens to be shown attached to the R8, as it’s aimed at enthusiasts.

I doubt it will perform as well at 45MP though, it just seems too good to be true, BUT…it’s been 7 years since the RF 50mm f/1.2 was released so, who knows…?
It’s quite a claim, though.

I’m expecting low distortion due to the nature of its focal length, tons of vignetting wide open, build quality similar to that of the 35mm f/1.8.

• Quality on par with the RF 50mm f/1.2L USM (Claimed)
• Digital Focus Breathing Correction
• 67mm Filter Thread
• Weight: 346g
• Price: €499 or €599 (We have been told both price points)

Click to expand...

I'm sorry but I am a bit skeptical with the first statement.

Eloniel said:

Why not a 20-105 f4.0 ? With today's technology it should definitely be doable. Nikon sell also a 24-120 F4.0.

Click to expand...

Doable, but it'd make the lens longer (or fatter?) and heavier. The 20-70mm is pretty squat and compact, which makes it popular for travel. Giving it more reach might appeal to some, but for others the increased size/weight would defeat the purpose and kill the appeal.

Two very nice shots, Nemorino. I like its shadow on the first one.

blackcoffee17 said:

Canon also needs a Sony 20-70 F4 competitor. That's one of the few lenses I would be willing to accept Sony's horrible ergonomics.

Click to expand...

Why not a 20-105 f4.0 ? With today's technology it should definitely be doable. Nikon sell also a 24-120 F4.0.

AlanF said:

Darters are still abundant here, as well as pebbles.

Click to expand...

True but I never saw Bam Bam

Jethro said:

Your set-up in the 2nd last picture looks hair-raising!

Click to expand...

this is a making of of the tremella picture I posted earlier:


And to stacks of the same mushroom with different lenses and views.
From above;
R5m2 + RF100L

And the opposite
R5m2 + Laowa RF58

R5 + RF100L
common blue damselfly
@1/4000s, f/7.1, iso 2000

R5m2 + RF100-500L
@ f/9, 1/4000s, iso 12800


And a link for fans of dragonflies living in Germany:
Fantastic documentation espacially the under water part!
As it is a french production there might also be a french version on arte france.

Canon also needs a Sony 20-70 F4 competitor. That's one of the few lenses I would be willing to accept Sony's horrible ergonomics for.

Michael Clark said:

Not really. Most internally focusing lenses have the focusing elements movement in the rear of the optical train. What you are calling "externally focusing" lenses focus by extending the front group, multiple front groups, or all of the lens groups. While there have been a few cases of placing a stationary flat plate at the front of a barrel in front of extending front groups, those are the extremely rare exceptions to the rule.

Click to expand...

No, that's not what I'm calling externally focusing lenses. I'm calling externally focusing lenses to those that extend beyond its original dimensions.
There's no need for a stationary element in the front, just look at the RF 50mm f/1.2, for instance. That lens has no protective front element, yet it focuses inside its housing, never extending beyond its length. Canon just needed to add more plastic, enough to cover the movement.

Michael Clark said:

The 50mm f/1.8 is definitely a Peugeot.

Click to expand...

If you know, you know, right?

Click said:

Very nice shot, shire guy.

Click to expand...

Thank you Click

m4ndr4ke said:

Yeah I think you should really lower your expectations

The new 45mm is a BMW 116 with extras
The 50mm f/1.8 is a Renault Clio, it even has the typical french car build quality

What are cheap chinese lenses then, the bad ones, you’d ask? Well those are just Lada…

Toy lenses like the Oreo lens are two cylinders Aixam

Click to expand...

The 50mm f/1.8 is definitely a Peugeot.

GMCPhotographics said:

The spec for the new R6iii is a bit meh...and underwhelming. I think like everybody esle, I was expecting Canon to push Stacked sensors across the upper range of cameras.
The EVF resolution is a really good thing. However, the increase in sensor resolution really closes the gap between the R5ii and the R6ii. In a side by side comparision between the R5ii files and the R6iii files there will be hardly any noticable real world difference in captured detail. Effectively the R6iii becomes a R5 mki....ie an R5 without a stacked sensor.

I'm also wondering if Canon's game plan here is to sell non R5 users two cameras and not one. The R5ii is effectively Canon's "do it all exceptionally well" camera. Where as the R6iii isn't so sports / high fps orientated, so if you buy this camera then you'll probably need a R7ii as well.
It also makes users of the R5ii think more carefully what camera they choose for their 2nd camera. From Canon's perpective, its a R6iii or a R7ii. However as consumers, we have new/old stock and lightly used S/H R5 mki and R6ii to consider too.

Click to expand...

Canon has done this before. Except for a few minor differences (X-sync 1/180 vs 1/200, minimum exposure time of 1/4000 vs 1/8000, 26.2 MP vs 22.3 MP, etc.) the 2017 6D Mark II was the virtual equal of the 2012 5D Mark III on the spec sheet. Of course the 5D Mark III had more robust construction and weather resistance than the 6D Mark II. But in terms of the spec sheet there was very little difference.

Is this using eye tracking?

padam said:

CVP did some C50 measurements, it's actually the same as before for stills or open gate (18ms) or a little quicker for cinema 4k video (14ms).
In APS-C super 35mm crop mode it uses a different mode that is supposed to have a +1 stop dynamic range, but the same 14ms readout time.
Basically similar to what it was before, but with more resolution and dynamic range with C-Log 2, so a good improvement overall.

Click to expand...

The reason it is faster for Cinema 4K is because the full height of the sensor is not used. The 18ms : 14ms ratio is roughly the same as the 24mm: 20mm ratio of the imaging height.

ctk said:

What first party $600 lens has a 1.2 aperture and internal focus? Plus you do realize internal focus is just external focus with a bigger shell right lol.

Click to expand...

m4ndr4ke said:

Of course it is, and that's exactly the point: they could have made all these lenses with internal focus.

Click to expand...

Not really. Most internally focusing lenses have the focusing elements movement in the rear of the optical train. What you are calling "externally focusing" lenses focus by extending the front group, multiple front groups, or all of the lens groups. While there have been a few cases of placing a stationary flat plate at the front of a barrel in front of extending front groups, those are the extremely rare exceptions to the rule.

Focusing with rear elements can come with its own set of issues. At close focus distances a rear focusing lens often has a much wider angle of view than when focused at infinity. The AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G VR II was notorious for this. When focused at MFD and zoomed to the longest focal length, it gave a barely 140mm angle of view (and magnification), rather than 200mm. Nikon was roundly criticized over this and the next lens in the series, the AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8E FL ED VR, was designed to breathe much less at MFD. Note that rear focusing lenses do not have to demonstrate this property. Canon's EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II has a slightly narrower angle of view at 200mm and MFD than at 200mm and focused at infinity. It also has a slightly narrower AoV at 70mm and MFD than at 70mm focused at infinity.

Stig Nygaard said:

Well. While I don't applause Canon's closed mount policy, you cannot directly compare with historical numbers with focus on that only (if that will be the theme). The market of "system cameras" (DSLRs and mirrorless) is generally much smaller today.

Click to expand...

You're right - any real comparison has to be not just with historical Canon sales, but also the market as a whole, and the major competitors (Sony and Nikon - and maybe the 3rd party lens market). But I suspect those sort of stats are hard to come by?