Malm said:

?? It is not my intention to blame Sigma as I mention the reason: "Canons 3rd party politics". We know were the problem is coming from!
I just raise the question why Sigma is not offering it's excellent - Art - lenses as MF or with an EF mount. But that's Sigmas decision and we don't know what Sigma has signed to get a permit for APS-C RF lenses.

Click to expand...

Why would they do that? they'd sell a piddly number of those and it would cost them to make different SKU's, so they wouldn't probably be able to even offer them at a discounted price. This is all on Canon

fox40phil said:

Nice… but sadly not relevant for us …
And isn’t the flagship the 35mm f1.2?!

I’m really really jealous of the the E-mount!
I m thinking of buying the A7 V instead of the r6 iii… to use it with EF-FE Adapter… just to have finally the option to use/buy Glas which doesn’t exist for us Canon users…. And those are maaany!
Thinking about the 28-70 & 50-150 for wedding… r6 with 16-35 2.8 maybe…

Click to expand...

As the third party manufacturers such as Sigma get better, while not raising the price considerably, this is a ongoing problem for Canon's RF mount that is only going to get worse.

Malm said:

I think there got something wrong in the article with the MTF curve for the 'old' Sigma Art 35/1.2.

And isn't this 'CANON rumors'?? This and several other Sigma Art lenses are rather looking like strong arguments to think about another camera brand ....

Click to expand...

You made me double-check.

That's the new Art II MTF unless Sigma Global is wrong.

The Sigma Arts, without a doubt, are fantastic lenses (the APS-C lens, though, is available for Canon RF), while this one is not.

Why do we report on it?
a) because it's still important, and sooner or later Canon may relax its death grip on the RF mount
b) competition gives us an idea on what canon has to come up with to look decent in this marketplace.

EOSR7MkII said:

You have a point. Don't you reckon they refresh the 30mm f/1.4 first, since it released 2 years earlier than the 56 f/1.4? I have been eyeing that 56mm prime for a while as a cheap APS-C portrait lens with decent bokeh, but now I am unsure whether to get it or wait for a much improved MkII. My hope is that it releases before June...

Click to expand...

The 30mm was decent, but it didn't reach the quality level of the Canon 32mm for the EF-M, so there's certainly room for improvement. It was also a very basic design, unlike what we've seen in more modern Sigma lenses. So it wouldn't surprise me if the 30mm is up before the 56mm, which was a stellar lens.

As far as the 56 itself? you really can't go wrong in getting that lens now. I had it for the EF-M mount, and absolutely loved it. A new lens would certainly have better corners, but that's not really as important for a portrait lens. When we were looking at doing some review stuff for CR, and I would be focusing on APS-C it was one of the first lenses I wanted to get again.

SnowMiku said:

I know this lens is for APS-C, but if you mounted this on an R5, would the R5 go into APS-C mode automatically with a third party lens and would the AF still work? (I know it works properly with Canon EF-S/RF-S lenses)

Click to expand...

apparently it auto switches to APS-C. if you use APS-C lenses without any electronic interconnects though, you'd have to switch the camera to APS_C crop manually.

Photography is a luxury hobby and @DocInfoSci is correct that enthusiasts with extra cash can build large collections over time. While the "global average" is low because of casual users, dedicated hobbyists often own 5 to 10 lenses. Using older EF lenses like the EF 50mm f/1.0L or EF 200mm f/1.8L on modern bodies like the EOS R1 or R5 Mark II is common for collectors and professionals who want a specific "look" that modern RF lenses do not provide.

@P-visie is correct that many "Big White" EF lenses support the maximum burst speeds of the R1 and R5 Mark II.

According to Canon’s official compatibility list, the EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II and IS III as well as the EF 600mm f/4L IS II and IS III, support the full high-speed continuous shooting (+H) mode.

However the older EF 200mm f/1.8L and EF 50mm f/1.0L are not on this list. They are limited to slower burst rates (around 7 fps) because their internal focus motors and aperture diaphragms were not designed for 30 or 40 fps movement.

Both of you & @AlanF are correct regarding the power requirements for the fastest autofocus.

Dual Power AF feature is currently exclusive to the R1 and R3. It requires the LP-E19 battery which provides a higher voltage (approx. 10.8V) compared to the 7.2V of the LP-E6P battery used in the R5 Mark II and R7.

RF benefit found in the RF 400mm f/2.8L and RF 600mm f/4L feature "Dual Power" drive systems. When mounted on an R1 the camera sends more power to the ring-type USM motor allowing it to move the heavy glass elements faster than it can on an R5 II or R7.

While the R1 and R5 II can provide more current (amps) to EF lenses to keep the motors at peak performance they cannot exceed the physical design limits of an old EF motor. The R5 II does not use higher voltage to drive lenses it uses the standard voltage of the LP-E6P battery.

Regardless of the battery or lens age the Autofocus Accuracy is improved on all three bodies. Because the sensor itself acts as the AF sensor the mechanical "slop" or calibration errors of a DSLR are gone. The legendary EF 50mm f/1.0L & EF 200mm f/1.8L will have a much higher "hit rate" on an R7 or R1 because the camera is looking at the subject's eye & not just a focus point on a separate mirror.

I know this lens is for APS-C, but if you mounted this on an R5, would the R5 go into APS-C mode automatically with a third party lens and would the AF still work? (I know it works properly with Canon EF-S/RF-S lenses)

Maximilian said:

Can you add an MTF comparison 16 vs. 15 to this article?
A quick look tells me the 15 mm MTFs look even better...

Click to expand...

added, quite a better when you consider the difference in size between the two lenses. Also added in the size comparison and cleaned up the starting paragraph. not sure where my brain was yesterday.

Xpenelas said:

After the 17-40 f1.8, was spected they start renewing the 16 and 56 primes.

Click to expand...

You have a point. Don't you reckon they refresh the 30mm f/1.4 first, since it released 2 years earlier than the 56 f/1.4? I have been eyeing that 56mm prime for a while as a cheap APS-C portrait lens with decent bokeh, but now I am unsure whether to get it or wait for a much improved MkII. My hope is that it releases before June...

I think there got something wrong in the article with the MTF curve for the 'old' Sigma Art 35/1.2.

And isn't this 'CANON rumors'?? This and several other Sigma Art lenses are rather looking like strong arguments to think about another camera brand ....

roby17269 said:

?? Why are you blaming Sigma??
Sigma would happily sell their FF AF lenses to Canon RF users, if Canon would have allowed that.

Click to expand...

?? It is not my intention to blame Sigma as I mention the reason: "Canons 3rd party politics". We know were the problem is coming from!
I just raise the question why Sigma is not offering it's excellent - Art - lenses as MF or with an EF mount. But that's Sigmas decision and we don't know what Sigma has signed to get a permit for APS-C RF lenses.

Berowne said:

No need for spending so much money. I am a quite happy user of second hand Zeiss-Glass: 1.4/50mm Milvus, 1.4/85mm Milvus and 1.4/85mm Planar. I will perhaps purchase some more: 2.8/21mm Distagon and 1.4/35mm Milvus. Only waiting for a good Option. Everything available for small money, usually around 600€.

Click to expand...

The 21/2.8 Distagon has a bit of coma. The 25/2.0 Distagon is probably a better choice. Good & smart solution!

Dopamine-junkie said:

As someone that wants to finally have non adapted Astro primes on my R5 - I was hoping for something in the realm of 20 mm. Or even 28. sigh. But 35? Not sure.

How are you dealing with it?

Click to expand...

OK, non-adapted is difficult! I'm using the 'old' adapted Sigma A 28/1.4 as a good 'astro-lens'. I still have the 'very old' adapted Distagon 25/2.0 which is also a good 'astro-lens', but a little bit slow (f/2.0) and the extreme corners have some coma (so I use it mostly for panoramas). The Canon EF 35/1.4 II is my standard lens for tracked milky-way panos, so I would only be interested in another better 35mm lens. I don't know any good 20mm 'astro' lens for Canon. At 14mm we have the 'old' adapted Sigma A 14/1.8 or the Samyang XP 14/2.4 (needs software update for the modern Canon cameras) plus several slightly worse and cheaper 'China' RF(!) lenses like the Pergear/7Artisan 14/2.8 (it's the same lens construction) and there is also a TTartisan 14/2.8.
I'm looking a little into the VCM lenses, but they cannot convince me for 'astro' (strong vignette, very strong distortion correction).

It's a little bit a shame that Canon shooters have to look for work-arounds to get good lenses for astro photography. Many modern Sigma A lenses are looking very interesting, but Canon .......

Concerning Otus lenses: There is now a 85/1.4 a 50/1.4 and a new 35/1.4. In the 'old ' Otus line for DSLR there was also a 28/1.4 (with more coma than the 'old' Sigma A 28/1.4) and also a Distagon 14/2.8. So Zeiss might extend it's Otus line further in the future.

shire_guy said:

They seem to have a couple of different calls, but one of them sounds a lot like a cat's meow.
Normally these guys are very silent moving through tree branches. Also their colouring blends very well into their surrounds.

Click to expand...

So how did they get the name?
Do they taste like cat?

Hector1970 said:

Interesting list of lens. True RF versions of the big whites are inevitable. It will be interesting whether they can be much lighter. Surprised a 200-400 with inbuilt teleconvertor is not on the list. I wonder can they design a converter that can be on and off without removing.
Personally I’d love a 14mm TS-E. I don’t need autofocus. 24 TS-E II is still amazing but the 17mm TS-E is fine but not as good.
A high MP R3 would be on my wish list.
I can’t help feel though improvements will be hard to come by from now on. EF lens are still great, just heavy. It’s hard to notice improvement from RF lens in images. On charts they might be better but practically the difference is minimal. Cameras too are coming to limits. FPS gains from here on are just creating photo management issues. ISO improvements are minimal these days. Higher MP is possible but there comes a point the file sizes are a pain. Tracking can still improve but how much better can it get. It’s been a great run but it’s coming to an end. Computational improvements may improve cameras but we’ve been able to do it in post processing anyway.

Click to expand...

I fully agree on the 17mm TSE needing an overhaul, preferably as a 14mm TSE. When fully shifted, the sides and corners become a bit weak. A 14mm would also be ideal for very high edifices, like the many cathedrals we have in France. Norwegian stave churches often stand isolated in the landscape, cathedrals rarely...
So, I'm hoping for the rumor to take an actual physical shape, possibly at a still "human" price.

Skux said:

The 28-70mm f/2 is my gig lens and I'll happy hold it for three hours shooting a musical. But I'm not bringing it out on the street or at a party, my point is that the Sigma is great optically but impractical for what you would want to use a 40mm for, and not versatile enough to justify its size and weight.

Click to expand...

It's just a shame that truly portable stuff like the pancakes are treated as toys by Canon. A weather sealed pancake series with a full-time focus control ring would win me over in a second. A pancake set of that grade like 16, 20, 28, 35, 45 all at f/2 or f/2.8 would be an instant purchase. Something like that in my mind would full justify small image circles and over-bearing software corrections — but in a manner totally appropriate to the physical primary goals of portability and resilience, where optical shortcomings and trickery would be an acceptable tradeoff. A little pudgier than a standard pancake would be OK -- more like a biscuit in the American sense.

dolina said:

While I was catching up on the latest birding lens for international travel I also looked at what Nikon Z & Sony FE mount has to offer.

I'm amazed by the Sony 200-600mm & 400-800mm but equally amazed by the Nikons you mentioned. Namely the Z 800mm f/6.3 that is essentially a 500mm f/4 but lengthened to 800mm for a 2,385g lens. Having lived with the 4.5kg 2008 EF 800mm f/5.6L IS USM lens for over 17 years cutting nearly half the weight in exchange of 1/3rd stop of light loss is very acceptable especially when it is 1/2 the 2008 price of my EF 800mm.

Wish we had brighter EF bodies back 2 decades ago! RF bodies are amazing!

Click to expand...

The EF 800mm f/5.6L IS USM was quite a tank gun of a lens. I only once have seen one in the wilderness. Did you carry it in a packpack?

I used my vintage EF 500mm f/4.5 L USM from 1995 until early past year (its 30st year! still works...), mainly because for many years it was the lightest option for a relatively fast supertele lens. 3 kg was light enough for extended hand-held shooting, even with a TC attached, and I did not miss IS much, because on the other hand 3 kg gives enough inertia mass to keep such a lens steady enough even for longer exposure times. Only the more nervous OVF image needed a bit of a learning curve, and if video, not stills, would be my main work, I'd changed earlier to a lens with good IS (in fact, for video I used my old Tammy 150-600 G2, which had a very good IS).

roby17269 said:

I "see" (?) my RF 85 1.2L which weights 1.2Kg and have no issues at all. My most used lens

Click to expand...

The 28-70mm f/2 is my gig lens and I'll happy hold it for three hours shooting a musical. But I'm not bringing it out on the street or at a party, my point is that the Sigma is great optically but impractical for what you would want to use a 40mm for, and not versatile enough to justify its size and weight.

Malm said:

And the MTF curves are looking impressive, especially for my focus on 'astro'. But that has to be proven with a real review.

Click to expand...

As someone that wants to finally have non adapted Astro primes on my R5 - I was hoping for something in the realm of 20 mm. Or even 28. sigh. But 35? Not sure.

How are you dealing with it?

Local reservoir...

neuroanatomist said:

Wide open it seems that at 1/3 the price, the RF 45/1.2 is a little sharper throughout the frame than the EF 50/1.2L. You can say the RF lens is a little less dreamy, if you prefer.

Click to expand...

Is "dreamy" a technical term?

This is an APS-C lens, there will be no L mount version.

chrysoberyl said:

What size is the image circle?

Click to expand...

Small. Check Dustin Abbott's review. Used in on a full frame there's tons of space that's blocked, and cropping it away leaves only a slight tad more than the APS-C crop. He's using a Sony though, so a Canon 1.6x crop sensor will crop a slight bit more.

AlanF said:

If you want a soft EF 1.2, there is a very cheap RF alternative of the RF 45mm f/1.2.

Click to expand...

Wide open it seems that at 1/3 the price, the RF 45/1.2 is a little sharper throughout the frame than the EF 50/1.2L. You can say the RF lens is a little less dreamy, if you prefer.

dolina said:

The EOS R1 and R5 Mark II can drive the focus motors of "Big Whites" with more voltage than older DSLRs.

Click to expand...

Only the R3 and R1 support dual power AF, because of the higher battery power of the LP-E19 battery pack.

Edit: With RF lenses that support this, like the RF 400mm f2.8 and RF 600mm f4.
See: See: https://www.canon-europe.com/pro/infobank/rf-mount/ under "Faster focusing".

P-visie said:

The RF300-600mm zoom is likely to be Canon’s mid price “answer” to the Nikon PF lenses.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately, it won't be in weight, which is the limiting factor for me.