Nathalietje86 said:

Enough new super zooms? The only one i know that is the tz99 of last year of Panasonic...
Sony doesn't have super zooms anymore and all other super zooms are pretty old.

Click to expand...

There is definitely NOT enough super zooms! I have been hoping for a new SX750 HS as I want something that has the same or more zoom than the TX99 but with better quality low light and camera picture ability. I have no problem paying $1k to $2K depending on the specs. The SX740 is so old yet it is selling for way more than it sold new, clearly the demand is there for a powerful compact superzoom that can do things a phone cannot....

There were rumors on DPREVIEW a long time ago when the 28mm was released that there *might* be a series of pancake lenses... Apparently Canon has the tech to do it. Maybe the 85 on the homepage right now is related to that??

Sounds cool. I hope I don't die before it is released!

Del Paso said:

I don't rely on TDP's or D. Abbott's chart pictures, among other reasons because they are taken at a distance which doesn't necessarily match my photography habits.
I have also noticed in the past that lenses I found exceptional performed badly for chart photography.
Therefore, I will test mine, and keep it or send it back. Yet, I'm quite convinced I'll keep it!

Click to expand...

When it comes to video the amount of resolution required is vastly overstated...

EricN said:

I'm guessing the 45mm was a test: "Will enough people buy a cheaper 1.2 from Canon?"

Click to expand...

Or part of a strategy to widen customer basis.

neuroanatomist said:

Not that I have noticed. The RF lens does exhibit mild focus shift, but only at magnifications over 1x and in any case, if your camera supports exposure + DoF simulation then focus shift is a non-issue because focusing is done with the lens already stopped down.

Click to expand...

Good to know, thx. I'll probably get a used copy of EF version then. I just looked and the difference is about 500 €. Enough money to get the adapter and some left over for maybe another lens. Since the RF 14mm F1.4 and 20mm F1.4 are out of my price league for my rare use cases, I thinking about getting the sigma 20mm f1.4 for the summer once again. I´d like to take some nightscapes at the North Sea.

I’m excited about this lens and definitely am the target audience. Right now I prefer the M6ll with the 32 1.4 over the R8 with the 501.8, and when the M6 dies an R10 / 50 with the 35 1.8 will be the substitute but I don’t look forward to that day,and this lens will be competing with the Sigma 56 1.4 on APSC, which I use much more than the 85 f2 on the R8, which is so bulky I like it less than the EF 85 1.8. Maybe these fast modest lenses will tip the balance from EOS M to R for walkabout with family, it’s not a slam dunk yet.

How about that. My order (9) will arrive in 2 days. Maybe a sign that my pre-ordered RF 20-50 will arrive soon too.

Del Paso said:

It should be much better, think of what Canon did achieve with the RF 28mm f/2,8, which also uses resin lenses.
The only real issue might be a psychological one, and some brainless internet "experts"...

Click to expand...

I'm guessing the 45mm was a test: "Will enough people buy a cheaper 1.2 from Canon?"

el peso said:

If it would provide the same image quality as RF 45/1.2, then no thanks.

Click to expand...

It should be much better, think of what Canon did achieve with the RF 28mm f/2,8, which also uses resin lenses.
The only real issue might be a psychological one, and some brainless internet "experts"...

GMCPhotographics said:

For example, the EF 100-400 f5.6 LIS II vs the RF 100-500mm f7.1 LIS. Sure the newer lens is slightly lighter, longer and it's AF is a bit better too. However optically, the old one is brighter and equally sharp. In the UK, the nwer lens retails at around £2.5K, the trade in for a the EF lens is often quite low, maybe £800 in trade in. So I would still need to find £1.7K, which is a LOT for something that's only a bit better than my existing lens.
Other lenses like the RF 50mm f1.4 VCM L and the RF 24mm f1.4 VCM L have no direct EF lens comparision that is worth mentioning.

Click to expand...

Considering that tele zooms are most often used at the longer end, at least the way I tend to use them, I find the fact that the RF reaches 100mm farther to be quite meaningful. And since I do hike with it, the weight difference is very welcome too.

The difference in brightness / max aperture is really minimal - these are the max aperture value thresholds as per TDM:

RF 100-500
100-150mm = f/4.5
151-253mm = f/5.0
254-362mm = f/5.6
363-471mm = f/6.3
472-500mm = f/7.1

EF 100-400 II
100-134mm = f/4.5
135-311mm = f/5.0
312-400mm = f/5.6

So in the equivalent ranges the difference is practically non-existent.

Having said so, I do agree that 1700 GBP is a tough ask for these benefits.

candyman said:

I can fully understand that. Testing it yourself works best for decision-making.

I also read Richard's article from CanonNews about the RF 20-50's MTF. His explanation of the MTF confirms that the mid-frame and periphery are not as good as the center. Based on my own tests, I want to see what this means for architecture photography (indoor and outdoor) and landscape photography. I certainly believe this is a great lens for street photography.

Click to expand...

Sure, mid-frame , periphery and corners are never as good in general as the centre. The Rf 20-50 shares this
characteristic with 99% (or more?) of all photo lenses.

Exploreshootshare said:

Is there any difference between the two lenses in terms of sharpness, iq or AF behavior?

Click to expand...

Not that I have noticed. The RF lens does exhibit mild focus shift, but only at magnifications over 1x and in any case, if your camera supports exposure + DoF simulation then focus shift is a non-issue because focusing is done with the lens already stopped down.

esglord said:

At the time, spending less on the RP over the R, and putting the difference toward a lens was the right move for me. However, today, the R8 is worth paying a bit more for. Hopefully, they drop its price a little (or at least that of the R10) for the budget conscious.

Click to expand...

I did the same, a local camera store had the option to rent the R+RP+RF50L for free and that made me realize the R wasn't €1000 better than the RP. So I bought an RP + EF100L macro lens and sold my EF100-non-L macro.

I'm not sure what features in an R8II would make me replace my R8, it still works great for everything I do. Flash with ES is the bare minimum, but not enough

btw: a great fit for this thread: Canon RP for 599 $ at Canon refurbished.