dolina said:

I turned on my 2024 EOS R1's DLO for my 2006 EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM & 2008 EF 200mm f/2L IS USM.

All the noticeable CA, LoCA and other image quality oddities were absent from my SOOC JPEGs.

It was like having a newer gen EF lens without extra money much less RF L lens money.

Click to expand...

DLO has basically reinvigorated my entire EF lens stable. I have yet to see the need by means of final image quality or mechanical function to upgrade to RF. I do enjoy playing with RF lenses as my friends bring them by, but my EF stable has been quite fit for purpose for what I enjoy photographing when combined with the R cameras. My EF stable covers the focal range from 20mm through 600mm in primes and zooms.

In fact, I'm starting to doubt that many of the RF lenses truly have a quality or mechanical difference that justifies the multi-thousand dollar price hikes vs their EF peers. Yes, some clearly outperform their predecessors — but not the majority. I feel that many RF lenses are living off of hype from the cream of the crop and the fact that EF is starting to fade frm the shelves. Not that I blame Canon for making a buck, but I think many (but not all) photographers would better off buying cheaper yet more reasonable priced glass than RF glass, especially with the inventory clearing deals popping up.

To be clear, I'm not saying the RF glass is bad — it's great on its own merit. I'm saying mm for mm most of it is not worth a premium for the performance difference, for my experience, when mm equivalent EF glass is on the shelf.

Just last year in Canada the EF 50mm f/1.2 and 24mm EF 1.4 II when on sale for ~ 50% off, new with warranty, placing them in the $1,500 +/- range. They are more than adequate for all of my family and friends, whether they print or post. And I'm willing to bet that most photographers aren't so extreme in their needs that the size or focus speed differences are justified in job-accomplishing terms. At the Olympics? Sure! The new 14mm lens for astro? Yup! Photos of children at graduation, gymnastics, hikes, picnics, family reunions, or travel? Not a chance. Any need for RF in those moments for the typical well heeled person would be gear-head need (and yes, I can fall into that category too) or lack of EF glass availability due to time.

I say this as a guy who can afford the newer stuff. But most of my family and friends cannot, and I'd rather see the cost-benefit balance of Canon's EF lenses return to the fold. If smaller is what Canon needs to do to put good glass in the hands of family and friends going forward, well so be it. But history and competition shows this is more a modern Canon choice, and one self-imposed, than anything else.

dpc said:

Cherry blossoms...

View attachment 228071

Click to expand...

This is much more cheerful than what I currently see out my window, snow and what the bunny left in it.

EthenJ said:

That's not crazy. There are tons of Canon crop cameras out there, and users have almost nowhere else to go for RF-S lenses; I can imagine such an exclusive, high volume market being a big business priority.

Click to expand...

There are tons of Canon crop cameras out there, but most of those users are content with the lens(es) that came in the box with their camera.

stillviking said:

For a f5.6L $6k is too much. I remember EF 400mm 5.6L is a brilliant lens and was $1k.

Click to expand...

The EF 1200 f/5.6 was also famously cheap, because f/5.6 = f/5.6

dpc said:

Man and beast...

View attachment 228072

Click to expand...

I first thought "What unusual orthotics."

Stig Nygaard said:

Not next from Canon, but probably next to Canon....

Sigma RF-S 15mm f/1.4 DC DN (to replace their current RF-S 16mm f/1.4)

View attachment 228065

View attachment 228066


The old 16mm was equivalent to 24mm on fullframe when mounted on a 1.5x APS-C camera.
The new 15mm is equivalent to 24mm on fullframe when mounted on a 1.6x APS-C camera.

It is probably putting too much significance into this, if thinking Sigma has prioritized Canon's 1.6x crop-factor higher than 1.5x when considering fullframe equivalence of their new lens?

Click to expand...

That's not crazy. There are tons of Canon crop cameras out there, and users have almost nowhere else to go for RF-S lenses; I can imagine such an exclusive, high volume market being a big business priority.

...On a related note, do you think Sigma (or Tamron) will add IS to any of their RF-S lenses besides the travel superzooms?

I find it odd, as stabilization was far more common in their EF-S lenses.

I think it was asked earlier in the thread, but what about the digital retro AE-1-esque body? The 50th anniversary is right around the corner, is that rumor simply DOA?

justaCanonuser said:

Forget about any 500mm f/4 prime in future. Since Canon managed to strip down the weight of the 600mm f/4.0 to about 3 kg (same weight as my old EF 500mm F/4.5 L USM), an additional 500mm f/4 prime doesn't make any sense anymore. Canon would create only more production costs for two lenses that cannibalize each other's sales. In former times, in particular when the 6 kg EF 600mm f/4.0 Mk I was on the market, such a 500mm lens made sense, because it addressed users who wanted a fast, long supertele, but one they still could carry in a backpack with additional gear and, if trained enough, could shoot hand-held.

That's now all combined in the latest generation 600mm lenses, in particular because the radically new tele lens design Canon came up with the EF Mk III lens moved the center of weight towards the photographer. That made hand-held shooting even easier than before. My old club of an EF 500mm was much more top-heavy than the EF 600mm f/4.0 III, so I personally can follow e.g. flying birds perceptibly longer with the 600 than I could with the 500. So, to wrap it up: the market for a separate 500mm is killed by a huge progress in supertele lens designs. It is no neglect that Canon never came up with an EF 500mm f/4.0 III version.

Click to expand...

I think Canon's waiting for the Sony & Nikon's 500mm f/4 before releasing their RF 500mm at 2.45-2.55kg. This shaves 20-23% of the 3.19kg 2011 EF 500mm f/4L IS II USM.

By comparison 2.52kg's the weight of a 2008 EF 200mm f/2L IS USM. For that lens I expect the much rumored EF 200mm f/1.8L IS USM to weigh 2.2-2.3kg

zardoz said:

I haven't. I shouldn't have to. If Canon gave me options that weren't riddled with distortion, I wouldn't need to worry about this. If I can't even correct my lenses with the most popular photo post-processing tool around, then there's a big problem.

Every image I've ever shot is in Lightroom for dating back from my 1Ds Mark II and 20D. I'm somewhat wedded to that platform. LR's library management is critical to me. [...]

Click to expand...

Same here, I need the DAM portion of Lightroom as well so I use DxO PureRaw as a plugin for LR. That gives the the lens correction and noise reduction capabities of DxO and all the good bits of Lightroom. Both DxO PL and PR have a trial period,

I turned on my 2024 EOS R1's DLO for my 2006 EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM & 2008 EF 200mm f/2L IS USM.

All the noticeable CA, LoCA and other image quality oddities were absent from my SOOC JPEGs.

It was like having a newer gen EF lens without extra money much less RF L lens money.

BlancRay said:

Thanks for your comment, zardoz. On my side, I am very happy with the results I get with the MPE combined with my R5 and a diffused MT26EX-RT flash, without tripod (hand held), working at 3-4 magnification. I imagine what results could be obtained with a similar RF lens. I hesitate to buy an EF 180 macro, second hand, tu use it on the R5, because I still hope for a future RF 200 macro. If you want to have an idea of the results obtained with the MPE on the R5, have a look at my website https://www.lesjardinsmerveilleux.be/galerie.php?page=12 for example. The problem I see with Laowa macro lenses is the difficulty to use them with a good macro flash, like the MT-26. And as long as I see, the quality of the Canon MPE remains the best, even if this brave lens is quite old.

Click to expand...

Splendide!

neuroanatomist said:

I agree the size and weight of my RF 85/1.2L DS are not an issue in use, though it’s not my most used lens (that would be the RF 24-105/2.8L Z, which weighs a little more).

But I don’t travel with either of those lenses. I will be traveling with the RF 14/1.4, and will have no qualms about packing it. The Sigma 14/1.4 is the same weight as and longer than the EF 11-24/4L, and when I traveled with the latter lens it was always a carefully considered decision that usually meant not taking some other lens. The RF 10-12/4 and the RF 14/1.4 combined are about the same weight as the EF 11-24/4 or Sigma 14/1.4, and don’t take up too much more space.

Click to expand...

My typical travel backpack is R5 + 10-20, 35 1.4, 85 1.2 and 100-500. Plus Mini 5 Pro
That's what comes with me on the plane. When we are on location, each day I choose a couple of the lenses, especially if hiking

Man and beast...

Cherry blossoms...

dolina said:

I want to see a

• ...
• RF 500mm f/4L IS USM

Click to expand...

Forget about any 500mm f/4 prime in future. Since Canon managed to strip down the weight of the 600mm f/4.0 to about 3 kg (same weight as my old EF 500mm F/4.5 L USM), an additional 500mm f/4 prime doesn't make any sense anymore. Canon would create only more production costs for two lenses that cannibalize each other's sales. In former times, in particular when the 6 kg EF 600mm f/4.0 Mk I was on the market, such a 500mm lens made sense, because it addressed users who wanted a fast, long supertele, but one they still could carry in a backpack with additional gear and, if trained enough, could shoot hand-held.

That's now all combined in the latest generation 600mm lenses, in particular because the radically new tele lens design Canon came up with the EF Mk III lens moved the center of weight towards the photographer. That made hand-held shooting even easier than before. My old club of an EF 500mm was much more top-heavy than the EF 600mm f/4.0 III, so I personally can follow e.g. flying birds perceptibly longer with the 600 than I could with the 500. So, to wrap it up: the market for a separate 500mm is killed by a huge progress in supertele lens designs. It is no neglect that Canon never came up with an EF 500mm f/4.0 III version.

Very nice shots, shire guy. You've done a good job of isolating the subject against this rather busy background.

Since we are having fun speculating about how such a dual resolution idea could come to fruition: My first instinct was something akin to Foveon, in particular Quattro Foveon for which some of the color layers had less resolution.

Anyway, just a fun idea and that's it.

John Wilde said:

Rumor has it that there will never be one.

Click to expand...

I fear you are right.
I was holding back upgrading from my R5 to a 5.2 but went ahead last week with no sightings of an R3.2 at the games.
I love my R3, but sometimes I need just a little more meat than 24.

Green Catbird

AlanF said:

Do I recall that the advice about cooking and eating a Bush Turkey is to boil it for 24 hours then throw it away and eat the saucepan?

Click to expand...

Haven't heard that specific one but there is one very similar about Galahs, where the rocks around the campfire are eaten in preference to the bird after a 3 day boil

justaCanonuser said:

Beautiful damselfly portraits! I am impressed that you get such good results with the manually focusing MPE and hand held - respect!

Click to expand...

Thanks

Re: R3 Mark II.

I was curious about the average # of days from a Mark I announcement to a Mark II announcement for a variety of Canon cameras. This is based on the announcement dates of each camera...culled from putting the squeeze on cgpt.

EOS 5D — 1,122 days
EOS 6D — 1,746 days
EOS 7D — 1,840 days
EOS R5 — 1,469 days

EOS R3 Mark I (days since announcement) — 1,621 days to 2/23/26.

There seems to be modest time left, yet, at this point, the strongest evidence for an R3 Mark II is a blank cell in my complex spreadsheet and my optimism — and those are each questionable.

P-visie said:

It is a special kind of astrophotography, without spellchecker.

Click to expand...

Perhaps, related to penwings?

HenWin said:

You can't have everything...like lighter weight and a faster lens...well not until you successfully break the laws of physics. Same probably goes for the other options: longer and lighter or longer and faster. Or maybe you can have them if your name is on this list: https://www.bloomberg.com/billionaires/. Fortunately for me, I've got the lenses I want and I can rent the others........

Click to expand...

Weight savings from last EF lens to curent RF lens is 22-30%.

Prior EF lens main draw is lighter and faster.

What about RF 100-300 F4-5.6L IS USM?