m4ndr4ke said:

Wouldn't the same happen to the R5, if it had auto-standby off as well?

Click to expand...

Yes... but I didn't have that setting properly on the RP :-(
I haven't tested it though. I wouldn't need the grip either if the RP allowed USB charging while it is working. Charging only works with it turned off (another lesson learnt)

m4ndr4ke said:

I usually keep my RP on top of the desk all week, to photograph the cats. It's always turned on but I allow it to sleep. The battery lasts well over a week, that way. After work, usually I don't charge the battery that is inside the RP, I just put it to personal use as is, and charge it just before leaving for a new assignment.

Click to expand...

Once I left home with the camera but with no battery. Now I always have a battery in and rotate them to an external charger.

blackcoffee17 said:

Replacing some EF lenses wouldn't make sense these days, like the EF 200mm 2.8 or the 400 5.6 or maybe even the 500 F4. Also, many RF lenses never had an equivalent in EF, like the 16mm 2.8, 24-240 or 28-70 2.8 and F2.

Click to expand...

I agree that some RF lenses have made some EF lenses not relevant anymore. Not releasing a 300/2.8 (or f4) due to 100-300/2.8 is one area but adds cost and weight.
No 500mm or 200-400/4 replacement makes sense if a 200-500/4 is ever released but until then...
Not having mid-priced teles besides RF100-500 is a gap that has let Nikon/Sony bodies and lenses in. How much of a loss is unknowable.
The cheaper end with rf200-800, 600/11, 800/11 is well covered as well as the pointy end of the market.
The Chinese lens makers may be the solution for Canon's reticence and for niche lenses... we shall see.

P-visie said:

People who compare the RF lens line up with Canon’s EF lens line up also tend to overlook the fact that the camera market has shrunk dramatically since the heydays of the EF mount. It is unrealistic to expect that Canon will produce an RF replacement for very EF lens.

Click to expand...

Maybe unrealistic but it hasn't stopped Canon from producing some innovative RF lenses.
My point was that if Canon isn't willing to compete in certain market segments then they should license a 3rd party if they are interested.
Win-win-win for Canon, 3rd party and users.

justaCanonuser said:

I think that's the best approach, since Canon's EF-RF adapters work extremely well. I'll keep some of my EF lenses for a while, including a few 3rd party lenses.

Click to expand...

Laowa's 200/2 with AF for EF is an a very interesting option. It may not have fantastic focusing speed compared to Sigma's version but it isn't available for EF/RF anyway.

justaCanonuser said:

Now that's a wide angle - with such an ultra-wide lens you don't need AF, even wide open
Btw not only Chinese makers of manual focusing lenses (may) produce lenses for Canon's RF mount: Zeiss offer their Otus 50mm and 85mm f/1.4's for Canon's RF mount, too.

Click to expand...

It sees behind the lens with 220 degree coverage. tripods, feet and fingers will be the challenge except if I shoot directly vertically for night sky/milky way.

I will be focusing at infinity and will need to tape the focus ring to stop it from moving but it is possible to focus up close with MFD ~8cm ie almost touching the front element.

It's sharp only from f2.8 so it's a no for me, there are 70-200's especially for EF with equal sharpness at same aperture but the bonus of being able to zoom backwards, and also cheaper to buy; see Chris Frost's side to side with Sigma, posted 10mins ago (yesterday he also posted full dedicated review):

roby17269 said:

I guess I was debating the "overly expensive" bit - compared to other 200 f/2 lenses (I had the EF one)

Pity though: I liked the EF 200 f/2 a lot and I could use a new one... the price is great, and it could have made me overlook the need for an adapter... but the softness fully open is a big no-no for me

Click to expand...

Same here. The lack of fast focusing and soft wide open are deal breakers for me regardless of the price. Once I factor in the EF-RF drop in adapter and sales tax the total cost is $2400, which is still a significant amount of money.

Richard CR said:

Laowa today has officially announced the Laowa AF 200mm FF 200m F2.0 C-Dreamer lens, the first Chinese manufacturer to make one of the big and fast halo lenses. Laowa touts several key advantages over its OEM and Sigma competition, including the size, weight, and price of the telephoto prime, with the Laowa lens being smaller, […]

See full article...

Click to expand...

And because it is EF, it does auto-focus? I didn't see that mentioned in the story.

Ever since Sigma has been allowed to make APS-C lenses for RF, that's what I've been buying. I use my R7 more than my R6-2 now.

roby17269 said:

Well the images were definitely sharper at f/2 in the DCW review. The difference was so stark that I'd be surprised if the resolution difference was the cause.
Maybe that lens has issues with Sony's AF? No idea.
I'll have to check Gordon L's later as YT is not allowed at work

Click to expand...

Gordon Laing is a preview, he has some images of Brighton Pier (@about 4:20 in the video), he says “crisp details, but not as sharp as the Sigma 200mm f2”.

P-visie said:

Yes, DCW are more positive, the pictures in the review are taken with Z6 II, a 24 mp camera, Petapixel tested the lens on an A1 II, which is 50MP. That may account for the difference. And DCW reviews in general are usually positive.

Click to expand...

Well the images were definitely sharper at f/2 in the DCW review. The difference was so stark that I'd be surprised if the resolution difference was the cause.
Maybe that lens has issues with Sony's AF? No idea.
I'll have to check Gordon L's later as YT is not allowed at work

roby17269 said:

Their narrative is quite more positive though and they call it sharp at f/2
They tested it on a Nikon which may change things a bit

Click to expand...

Yes, DCW are more positive, the pictures in the review are taken with Z6 II, a 24 mp camera, Petapixel tested the lens on an A1 II, which is 50MP. That may account for the difference. And DCW reviews in general are usually positive.

While it sounds like a good performer, I fail to see what makes its lower element count impressive, considering the lack of IS.
The original Canon EF 200mm f/1.8 only used one more element than the Laowa.

Very nice series, Nemorino.

Gordon Laing’s first test with R6m2, looks good to me but the price could be lower...

P-visie said:

Yes, the measurements in the review from Digital Camera World confirm the results from PetaPixel: soft at f2, sharp at f4.

See: https://www.digitalcameraworld.com/cameras/lenses/laowa-200mm-f-2-af-ff-review

Click to expand...

Their narrative is quite more positive though and they call it sharp at f/2
They tested it on a Nikon which may change things a bit

Interesting solution for Canon RF shooters: Build with EF mount but with a strong focus on RF users. That solution can become popular ...