Latest activity

ISv · Sunday at 1:59 PM

AlanF said:
It's always exciting for us to see the first Cuckoo of the year - they are very elusive and they are easily heard but not seen. Ours was yesterday. I am posting the not at all exciting images of a very far away bird to show that the R7 + RF 100-400mm used by wife (the first shot) gives results hardly distinguishable from that of my much more expensive and heavier R5ii + RF 100-500mm (both very heavily cropped and not reduced in size). At that distance and image size, you are looking at pixel-peeping resolution.

View attachment 229268 View attachment 229269

These are very difficult to approach...

Dragon · Sunday at 1:40 PM

AlanF said:
It's always exciting for us to see the first Cuckoo of the year - they are very elusive and they are easily heard but not seen. Ours was yesterday. I am posting the not at all exciting images of a very far away bird to show that the R7 + RF 100-400mm used by wife (the first shot) gives results hardly distinguishable from that of my much more expensive and heavier R5ii + RF 100-500mm (both very heavily cropped and not reduced in size). At that distance and image size, you are looking at pixel-peeping resolution.

View attachment 229268 View attachment 229269

The 100-400 even holds up pretty well with the R7 and 1.4 extender. Some diffraction loss, but otherwise decent and sooooo light.

mimbu · Sunday at 1:28 PM

Del Paso said:
They should hire you as the universal genius!

They could do to learn from the best when it comes to run&gun video setups, and that would be Sony. That's not to say Sony is the best at everything, but they are the best at this.

Edit: Laugh all you want, Sony owned the run&gun market with the FX3 and ZV-E1 for years. Before that with the A7S and A7SII. Finally Canon releases the C50 (with a yesteryear FSI sensor) and Sony is coming back with a fully stacked FX3 II monster that's due this summer.

mimbu · Sunday at 1:27 PM

Billybob said:
Intriguing lens. I automatically think of the Sony 20-70mm lens, which was $1100 on release. The Sony is a G lens rather than GM, which roughly corresponds to Canon's L, which means that Canon will undoubtedly have superior IQ, albeit with a shorter focal range. Nonetheless, the Sony gets favorable IQ reviews. I picked it up to shoot with my Sony A7rIV (60MP) as a compact standard-zoom range. The IQ was okay, but the 20-24mm additional range was less compelling to me than I thought. I ended up picking up the 24-70mm GM lens, which--though bigger-- is not that big and has much better IQ for my taste. When I need to go wide--or ultra wide--the Canon 14-35mm does the job much better for me, and I hope no problem carrying two lenses (and two bodies ). I started this post by calling this lens intriguing--which I'm sure it is for some--but not for me.

Being PZ, it's more like Sony's 16-35/4G PZ which sells for $1300 today. Excellent lens. But it sounds like the Canon is going to be a whole lot bigger and heavier which makes it pretty gimbal-unfriendly. I guess we'll see on release.

Del Paso · Sunday at 1:21 PM

mimbu said:
So it's a lens for video shooters designed for gimbal use (PZ, internal zoom), but it starts at 20mm and is really big (24-105/4L size)...?

What is Canon thinking??

For a lot of gimbal use 20mm isn't really wide enough and the 24-105/4L is huge. This seems like an odd lens. I can only assume that Canon knows something I don't. (Or maybe Canon is still clueless about the needs of run&gun video? That's certainly possible.)

They should hire you as the universal genius!

gwb · Sunday at 12:25 PM

Remove the AA filter from the sensor.

rombe3jr · Sunday at 12:07 PM

I do not understand this release. It is very similar to the C50 that was just released.

SirIssacNewton · Sunday at 12:01 PM

Turkey Vulture taken with my Canon R8 and RF 600mm f11

Billybob · Sunday at 11:57 AM

Intriguing lens. I automatically think of the Sony 20-70mm lens, which was $1100 on release. The Sony is a G lens rather than GM, which roughly corresponds to Canon's L, which means that Canon will undoubtedly have superior IQ, albeit with a shorter focal range. Nonetheless, the Sony gets favorable IQ reviews. I picked it up to shoot with my Sony A7rIV (60MP) as a compact standard-zoom range. The IQ was okay, but the 20-24mm additional range was less compelling to me than I thought. I ended up picking up the 24-70mm GM lens, which--though bigger-- is not that big and has much better IQ for my taste. When I need to go wide--or ultra wide--the Canon 14-35mm does the job much better for me, and I hope no problem carrying two lenses (and two bodies

). I started this post by calling this lens intriguing--which I'm sure it is for some--but not for me.

neuroanatomist · Sunday at 11:02 AM

Canon Rumors said:
...if Canon isn't doing any of their computational tricks, which I hope won't be the case.

That would be a surprise. Certainly other hybrid-use lenses do so, including the RF 24-105/2.8L Z.

Kjsheldo said:
Since it has internal zoom, then I would guess the size would be close to 24-105 f4 collapsed, but I’m hoping it is closer to size and weight of the 14-35mm

The 24-105/4L is only ~7 mm longer than the 14-35/4L, that doesn't bother me as either is fine to use on an R8 (in my use cases for that camera). Like you, I hope that the 20-50/4L is closer to the weight of the UWA zoom than the standard zoom, and I suspect that will be the case.

I guess we'll know in 10 days.

mimbu · Sunday at 10:27 AM

Canon Rumors said:
Yes, it's an internal zoom.

So it's a lens for video shooters designed for gimbal use (PZ, internal zoom), but it starts at 20mm and is really big (24-105/4L size)...?

What is Canon thinking??

For a lot of gimbal use 20mm isn't really wide enough and the 24-105/4L is huge. This seems like an odd lens. I can only assume that Canon knows something I don't. (Or maybe Canon is still clueless about the needs of run&gun video? That's certainly possible.)

blobmonster · Sunday at 10:02 AM

Lots of desire for powershot g1 / eos m6 style body with 22mm equivalent.

Rf mount is just too big imo. I'd love to see an m6 /G1 aps-c replacement with 22mm fixed to it, ideally with a leaf shutter and built in flash. It would beat the fuji x100 imo.

These days canons ovf sim evfs are potentially as good or better vs a little slr viewfinder, although not as good as an old fashioned add on optical viewfinder imo...

Exploreshootshare · Sunday at 9:19 AM

Let me see if I got this right in comparison to the 24-105mm F4:
- same size
- similar weight
- same max aperture
- both lenses have IS
- 2,5 zoom instead of 4,3 zoom
- similar price tag

Wow, from a stills photographer standpoint this lens isn’t interesting at all!

But then again, it does start at 20mm

Seriously, I am definitely out on this one

AlanF · Sunday at 8:40 AM

It's always exciting for us to see the first Cuckoo of the year - they are very elusive and they are easily heard but not seen. Ours was yesterday. I am posting the not at all exciting images of a very far away bird to show that the R7 + RF 100-400mm used by wife (the first shot) gives results hardly distinguishable from that of my much more expensive and heavier R5ii + RF 100-500mm (both very heavily cropped and not reduced in size). At that distance and image size, you are looking at pixel-peeping resolution.

AlanF · Sunday at 8:32 AM

Another view of the Tipula lunata, similar to that of the Tipula vernalis, taken by my wife on the R7/RF 100-400mm.

Click · Sunday at 8:19 AM

Beautiful series, ISv. I especially like the last one. So cute!

Click · Sunday at 8:14 AM

AlanF said:
So many insects to shoot. tipula Vernalis, ephemera Vulgata and tipula Lunata.

I really like the green eye on the first one.

Kjsheldo · Sunday at 8:07 AM

Since it has internal zoom, then I would guess the size would be close to 24-105 f4 collapsed, but I’m hoping it is closer to size and weight of the 14-35mm - that seems way more likely and would sell a lot better if so. So hoping for no more than 600 grams. If it’s closer to 750-800, it becomes less desirable.

Also guessing $1299-1499, but hope they have an R6V kit that knocks off $200-300.

Tom R5R7 · Sunday at 7:49 AM

At first, I was thinking that this is something of a duplicate of the 14-35, but a bit longer. And it kind of is - but, I think in conjunction with a video-oriented camera, this (providing its' not too heavy) would be a nice walkabout lens for photo/videographing street scenes and indoor event situations where you are more inclined to grab quick table shots or people where you want to include the environment. But going to 50 gives you some portraiture capability as well.

I know, it seems that the trend is to go wide to get that "big nose phone camera" look that so many produce, but that just makes people look weird and distorted to me, and should be used sparingly.

scyrene · Sunday at 7:41 AM

neuroanatomist said:
Then you’d have no need for EC in M mode.

Yeah I've never used it.

neuroanatomist · Sunday at 6:37 AM

scyrene said:
Fwiw I always control ISO manually, changing it regularly as I go along.

Then you’d have no need for EC in M mode.

AlanF · Sunday at 6:28 AM

P-visie said:
With some content creators it will be hard to tell if the hallucinating is from the original video or from the AI model creating the transcript.

Garbage in, garbage out.

john1970 · Sunday at 6:16 AM

A naive question: Will this lens be internal zooming because it is a PZ design? I assume that it would be and I very much prefer a compact reasonably fast internal zoom covering 21, 28, 35 , and 50 mm focal ranges.

mimbu · Sunday at 5:46 AM

DhlcadR6 said:
I still hope it's 1kUSD or slightly below

The Sony 16-35/4G PZ is $1300. I wouldn't expect this Canon to be cheaper than that. $1500-ish, maybe.

riker · Sunday at 5:33 AM

20-50/4 at the size of the 24-105/4? That's not very attractive to me. The 24-105 is not small at all.

Well, what do I care at all, it's for video anyway, I'm wishing for 28-55/1.8 or /2. 28-70/2m2, etc.

Latest activity

Latest activity

Filter

Forum statistics

Gallery statistics