gbasilemc said:

Like what ? any exemple of any "halo" product that already exists ?

Click to expand...

The RF 28-70/2 is one example. It launched with the R system in 2018 (it took Sony 6 more years to launch theirs).

"There will be at least one “crazy” lens. I have no idea what that could be, but Canon does need to release some things that fit under the “halo product” banner."

Like what ? any exemple of any "halo" product that already exists ?

Maximilian said:

I haven't yet had a personal experience with this lens.
I am considering to get it, knowing that its IQ is limited.
I am not using f/1.x that often to justify the prices of the much better L lenses.
It was clear to me from the start that its sharpness wide open would be only good in the center to mid frame.
It was clear to me that the bokeh wide open exhibits “cat's eye” corners.
I thought, Canon could do a bit more about aberrations.
I am sure, I'll have to take a personal look at it.


Just to make it clear for me:
Your opinion is based on hands on experience or theoretical thoughts form MTF and the reviews in the web?
Thanks in advance for your clarification

Click to expand...

No personal experience - it is from a mix of different videos about that lens, from some technical reviews and the lens design which is of the (modified) double gaussian type.
In my opinion close to the old EF 1.4 50 which I own.

Here the link to the TDP comparison: https://www.the-digital-picture.com...meraComp=979&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

Here the pages on canon.jp for both the RF 45 and the EF 50 which show the lens configuration:
https://personal.canon.jp/product/camera/rf/rf45-f12/spec

https://faq.canon.jp/app/answers/detail/a_id/105318/~/【交換レンズ】ef50mm-f1.4-usm-機種仕様

Maximilian said:

Understood and welcome.

I'd prefer the original 24-100/1.8-2.8 equvalent lens.
But I don't believe that one can keep that form factor if you want that 24-240/2.0-4.5 equ.
With the same lens size, my linear cross-multiplication gives me f/6.7 @240mm.
Still welcome?

Click to expand...

For a vacation pocket camera, that would be acceptable, I think. Although at f/6.7, you start running into higher ISO in lower light situations. But in general, being able to snap photos in a wide variety of situations with a decent sensor and operating system.

I have this little SX620 HS that I bought a few years ago, specifically for taking images of a well-lit celebrity from basically the nosebleed seats. It served that purpose well, though it's not a great camera. It also sports a 25X zoom range, going from 4.5 to 112.5 mm (25-625 mm 35mm equivalent). The max aperture is listed as f/3.2 at the wide end and f/6.6 at the tele end of that range. The lens fully retracts into the camera when you turn it off. I really don't use it, but I think that some of its capabilities regarding size would be beneficial in another body.

Of course, it has a very tiny sensor, 1/2.3 inch, so it's definitely a different animal than what this possible G7 replacement would be.

Is it that hard or expensive to make an APS-C zoom? Because it takes Canon 20 years and 50 patents to finally make one. All this while selling millions of APS-C cameras every year. In the same time Sigma somehow manages to design a whole series of high quality APS-C lenses. And even the much smaller Nikon.

Still hoping for a compact camera like the 740hs with enough zoom around 300mm, an evf and raw mode and a bigger sensor for shooting wildlife with it
And if they make it in a G7 or a V3 or a new 740HS thats up to canon

but please canon make some compact camera's especially for photographers

EricN said:

The 45mm is a little closer to 35 by 5mm. It's not much, but at least it wasn't 55mm, right?

Click to expand...

What a great solace for someone waiting for an RF 35mm f/1,2 L !

Thank you @Skux and @neuroanatomist.

There's definitely a place for lenses like the RF 100-400 for insects, but there is a particular look that you get from true macro at long focal lengths (partly due to sharpness at MFD?), which is why I keep my Sigma 180 f/2.8 as well

Skux said:

The newer ones can be set to "Exposure Simulation + DOF preview" where they will stop down in live view. This resolves the issue of focus shift with the 45mm f/1.2, 100mm f/2.8 L, and other lenses by letting you focus at the desired aperture rather than wide open.

Click to expand...

ExpSim + DoF Preview is my usual setting. Agree that it does resolve the issue of focus shift, though FYI it does not always let you focus at the desired aperture because if you stop down far enough, the camera may need to open the aperture somewhat to allow enough light for AF. Focus shift is evident close to wide open, stop down enough and the increased DoF mitigates the issue.

Here's an example with the R1 and 28-70/2. Stopped way down from wide open, you can see it open the aperture briefly (not to wide open, just 'enough') just before the first AF confirmation beep. I then opened the aperture up a bit (not to wide open, but to an aperture where focus shift could be an issue if this lens exhibited it, which it doesn't) and there is no aperture change before the second AF confirmation beep.

View attachment Stop down focus.mov

AlanF said:

Which Canon bodies stop down during AF?

Click to expand...

The newer ones can be set to "Exposure Simulation + DOF preview" where they will stop down in live view. This resolves the issue of focus shift with the 45mm f/1.2, 100mm f/2.8 L, and other lenses by letting you focus at the desired aperture rather than wide open.

This appears to only be available on RF lenses (when I tried adapting EF glass the option is not available, however this may be limited to a selection of lenses).

Bodies with Exposure Simulation + DOF preview:
R1
R3
R5 II
R6 II
R7
R8
R10
R50

Bodies which do not have this feature:
R
RP
R5
Ra
R100

Snapster said:

I'm surprised more of the reviews didn't catch the focus shift issue. Or it could be a quality control issue because of the cheap price?

If you can't get eyes in perfect focus at f/1.4 - f/2 on an R5 autofocus, the lens is absolutely a no go.

Click to expand...

Focus shift is a property of the lens design, not a production issue.

Portraits should be fine as the issue is only noticeable at close shooting distances.

Exploreshootshare said:

I´ve read the article a second time and I somehow get the feeling that something gets overlooked what a lot of customers want:
- First of all: they want lenses and cameras to fit their budget.
- furthermore, they want good, sometimes great images, that are better than their SP. Otherwise why buy a camera...
- secondly: they want creative control (not all, some just shoot in automode)

A lot of customers don't demand "clinically perfect" images and lenses. But most reviewers don't get that...

Click to expand...

I wonder how many actual buyers read one or more reviews, dig deep into test chart results, etc. No real idea, but the #1 mirrorless lens on amazon.com is the RF 50/1.8, which Klaus gives 3 stars of 5. Heck, the #7 mirrorless lens on Amazon is the RF 75-300, and even Bryan's rose-colored glasses struggle to find the silver lining there – "...it is not a high-performing model. If you are severely budget-constrained or using the lens in a high risk scenario (such as use by the kids), this lightweight lens might be the right choice for you."

I think your initial point is spot on, most people first look at spec and cost and make a decision mainly based mainly on that. It bears repeating – those of us discussing camera gear on the internet are not representative of most buyers.

DocInfoSci said:

But your needs and preferences are yours, absolutely!

Click to expand...

That is exactly my point.

P-visie said:

Maybe YOU do not want or need a macro lens, but please do not tell me what I want (or need).

Click to expand...

I suspect "you" is meant as the royal you, as in "a person of the community in general". In which case, the statement probably holds. The EF 300 IS f/4 L plus an extender (some image quality impact) or spacer (no image quality impact) has been used by many for great insect shots in lieu of a dedicated macro -- as an example.

In fact, I still have this combo still and while I prefer it for ducks, cows, and bears the odd dragonfly has been captured with great detail. I also keep dedicated macro lenses laying about.

But your needs and preferences are yours, absolutely!

Snapster said:

I'm surprised more of the reviews didn't catch the focus shift issue. Or it could be a quality control issue because of the cheap price?

If you can't get eyes in perfect focus at f/1.4 - f/2 on an R5 autofocus, the lens is absolutely a no go.

Click to expand...

Depends on the camera and settings used. It can be resolved with exposure and aperture previews turned on in cameras that support this setting combo.

EOS 4 Life said:

Most reviewers tested the lens on the R6 III.
New cameras do not have a focus shift.

Click to expand...

Which Canon bodies stop down during AF?

Snapster said:

I'm surprised more of the reviews didn't catch the focus shift issue. Or it could be a quality control issue because of the cheap price?

If you can't get eyes in perfect focus at f/1.4 - f/2 on an R5 autofocus, the lens is absolutely a no go.

Click to expand...

Most reviewers tested the lens on the R6 III.
New cameras do not have a focus shift.

Maximilian said:

The acronym stands for "Global Positioning System". And there were too many *** discussions here, so Craig seemed to have blacklisted it

Global Positioning System - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

And IMO it is only bad, if you can't switch the battery drain off (when not needed) or when it is jammed by military

Click to expand...

Thanks for the clarification. I Googled "*** slang" and some obvious offenders showed up. I wasn't aware of the previous controversy on this site.

EricN said:

Probably nobody cares...

Click to expand...

Aaaaww

DocInfoSci said:

I'm always fascinated by the hate for the EF 1.2. What do people use it for and on which body that it becomes unfit for purpose? I use the EF 50 1.2 for portraits of people and animals. I have always loved the outcome. On an R6 it's great, and with DLO it's amazing. In my humble opinion and for my purpose, of course.

Click to expand...

I used it for fashion portraiture but, imho, it did not hold a candle to the 85 1.2 II and, especially for the money, I found its performance unacceptable. Never understood the point of a 1.2L lens that was not useable at 1.2
Just to be clear, I absolutely do not mind you liking it, but I reserve my right to loathe it

roby17269 said:

I guess I just don't care

Click to expand...

Probably nobody cares...

***. An integrated *** receiver would create a ‘hump’ along the top surface. I *** tag all my photos. I use the Canon Camera Connect app on my iPhone. This requires setting my iPhone display Auto-Lock to ‘Never’, as Camera Connect stops updating *** when the iPhone screen goes dark. I haven’t had any battery issues on my iPhone as I lock the screen when finished shooting at a location.

Apparently, the acronym for Global Positioning Satellite is a 'bad word' ???

I´ve read the article a second time and I somehow get the feeling that something gets overlooked what a lot of customers want:
- First of all: they want lenses and cameras to fit their budget.
- furthermore, they want good, sometimes great images, that are better than their SP. Otherwise why buy a camera...
- secondly: they want creative control (not all, some just shoot in automode)

A lot of customers don't demand "clinically perfect" images and lenses. But most reviewers don't get that...

Markov said:

For butterflies and dragonflies you don't need/want a macro lens. I have used the R7 with the RF 100-400 mm lens for that and it works great.

Click to expand...

Maybe YOU do not want or need a macro lens, but please do not tell me what I want (or need).

Exploreshootshare said:

Funnily, some of favorite lenses have gotten bad reviews such as the 85mm F2, 100-400mm F5.6-8 and RF 16mm F2.8. The 85mm was recommended to me by a people photographer on a German camera website and it is a bargain. The 100-400mm was recommended to me by AlanF (among others) here at CR and it is great. It even produces great images with the TC attached. The 16mm was praised by photographer who hikes in the alps and so far, almost every time I used it delivered. All recommendations came from photographers who actually used the lenses, know their value despite their caveats. But the caveats don´t really matter if know how to work around them or know how theses lenses were intended to be used.

Click to expand...

I have all three of those! OL actually gives the RF 85mm/2 a highly recommended and 8.5/10 for optical quality. Even though they pan the 16mm, they have to admit "A 16mmm f/2.8 for this kind of money is an insane bargain even with the mentioned limitations." The RF 100-400mm gives best telephoto bang for the bucks of any telephoto and very decent quality.