mb66energy said:

My bet if it has a red ring: Same outer shell dimensions like the VCM series incl. 67mm filter thread!
If they use high optical correction and a very effective internal "lens hood" design this lens might replace my EF 16-35 f/4 and RF 24-105 which are good lenses but I never loved them.
PZ would be a great addition (1) generally and (2) on a gimbal.
I more and more like the idea to use this one on my R50 V where it has a close to ideal range (for me!) from 32 to 80mm!

Click to expand...

neuroanatomist said:

I suppose those are possible, but I don’t think they’re at all likely. Call Canon directly.

How often do you manually adjust ISO in a hurry? Personally, I almost never do so outside of situations where I have ample time, Auto ISO is my usual setting in both Fv and M (those are the only modes I use). On my R1, I have ISO assigned to the lens control ring and EC assigned to the Quick Control Dial (on the back around the Set button), so when I need EC it’s easy to dial in with my thumb, without taking my eye from the viewfinder.

If I need to set ISO manually, which I do when setting up flash shooting, or on a tripod, I have time to adjust it using the lens control ring or the rear LCD.

Click to expand...

Ian K said:

That depends which 24-105 f4 you are talking about. If it’s the “Z” then it’s big, the original however is pretty decent.

Click to expand...

dwkdnvr said:

If this is as large as the 24-105/4L then I'm probably less excited than I was originally, as that's a bit chunky to be an ideal walk around lens

Click to expand...

m4ndr4ke said:

A fast 28mm is all that’s left on my wishlist, f/2 or wider, it doesn’t even need a red ring.

I’m currently considering repurchasing the Sigma 28mm f/1.4 Art, it’s been almost two years since I got rid of mine, and there’s no alternative in sight. I no longer have any EF lens, but I still have the adapter, so I’m considering making an exception for this one, and keeping it as long as necessary.

I could also enjoy having a 20mm f/2.8 or f/2, at least something mid-range to graduate from the RF 16mm f/2.8, but that is not as important to me.

The system has options for everything else I could need.

Click to expand...

dwkdnvr said:

I can't see this being less than the 14-35, particularly if the size suggests less reliance on software corrections.

I do hold out hope on the zoom action - the 'Ordinary Filmmaker' video certainly seemed to be saying that it wasn't just a rocker-in-the-shape-of-a-ring but was in fact a zoom ring with custom menu settings to control sensitivity etc.

If this is as large as the 24-105/4L then I'm probably less excited than I was originally, as that's a bit chunky to be an ideal walk around lens - I was hoping for something closer to the 14-35. Not too long to wait for confirmation, hopefully.

Click to expand...

AlanF said:

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

View attachment 229244View attachment 229245View attachment 229246

Click to expand...

Noreaster said:

View attachment 229230View attachment 229231View attachment 229232View attachment 229233View attachment 229234


Super happy with the American Bittern. It is so hard to get close to these things.

Click to expand...

neuroanatomist said:

Seems like a solid use case for AI – generate a transcript then summarize that transcript, providing both to the user.

Click to expand...

Noise said:

On R1 in Manual mode with Auto ISO I would like to be able to press +/- button and then use front dial to offset the exposure (in this case ISO) similar to what R1 does in Av and Tv with shutter speed or Aperture when +/- button is pressed.
I dislike having to take my eye away from the viewfinder to touch the exposure compensation scale on the bottom of the screen to adjust compensation or having to assign it to the lens multi- function dial that not all lens have.
On R5ii, which does not have a +/- button or even on R1, maybe have the ISO dial control exposure compensation in Manual mode with Auto ISO until Auto ISO is turned off?

Click to expand...

DocInfoSci said:

This is interesting. I agree that I find M just fine, but I tend to not use it in auto ISO mode. For that I have Fv.

What I would expect (my camera is packed for a trip or I'd test) is that in auto ISO mode M would target a balanced image -- i.e., an exposure of +/- 0, to put it in a crude way. Which is probably why Canon doesn't bother in M mode — either the image is balanced, or you're being "creative."

Let's assume that's how it works for a second — the balanced image of 0 is the target. If I had auto ISO on but the shutter and aperture were set in such a way that auto ISO cannot achieve a balanced image (e.g., my lens cap is on because it's a really slow coffee morning) would the idea be that an EC metric showed that 0 could not be achieved? i.e., -3 or worse.

But even if, wouldn't a histogram achieve such? To such a degree of the JPEG conversion, at any rate.

@Noise — what is the effect and use that you're trying to achieve?

Click to expand...

spartan said:

Hi dear,

I like it (f4) but accept F5.6 but no fressnel or DO.. I need best L optic with perfect bokeh.. Otherwise it is useless to have prime,

Click to expand...

justaCanonuser said:

The most useless and precious lifetime consuming youtube videos are those with guys sitting at their desks, presenting some cameras and/or lenses and talking blah blah (add n-times blah, n = 1, 2, 3, ....).

For birders, I can recommend the videos posted by Aussi photographer Duade Paton, because he goes out and presents the local wildlife, beautiful birds, and he talks only briefly about what you really need to know about a particular gear for wildlife photography. But this guy knows what he is doing, and he is the opposite of a know-it-all.

Click to expand...

justaCanonuser said:

I like the swallow in particular, great shot, Alan. I know how hard it is to catch a swallow in flight. The other BiF images are more from the backside, so the AF already had a relatively long time to get the bird in focus. I personally prefer more images of birds approaching or passing exactly by, so the AF has not that much time to focus on. What definitely helps is switching off eye detection, maybe simply because the R7's processor has to process less data.

I am not sure whether my R7 in particular struggles with with the EF 600mm III, I had the same problems with my old EF 500mm f/4.5 - okay, that's a vintage lens - but also with my RF 200-800mm the R7 doesn't perform always well when I try to shoot against some skies. Interestingly, the Nikons of my wife display the same behavior in some special light conditions, we asked ourselves already if this could be caused by polarization effects (she is a physicist, too). I should start taking notes about these settings. But when I am shooting birds I don't want to distract myself. Well, when I want more reliability, I take my R5 II, like in the DSLR times, when I switched from my 7D's to my 5D3/4 to have a better AF performance.

Click to expand...