Yea I don't want this, for the STM line just do a 70-180 or even 70-150 and make it as small as possible don't start it at 50, if 70-150 (or even 135) meant it was as small as the 16-28 and 28-70 its an instant buy.

HOWEVER

I would LOVE a 50-150 f/2.0

You will also notice that it's not as cropped in

Quack said:

R5 is very obviously out-resolving the R3. Not sure why you can't see it.

Click to expand...

Mark flyer said:

Top is r3, bottom r5, cropped in on mount bachelor, im not sure if the r3 out resolved the r5 but either way there's not much difference

Click to expand...

R5 is very obviously out-resolving the R3. Not sure why you can't see it.

M4rcin said:

You serious with that 3rd party on Canon APSC? Bruh.... Also it's wildlife body and Canon have many high end glass for that porpoise good enough for 40mp apsc sensor.

Click to expand...

Maybe people want to photograph more than porpoises with their APS-C cameras. And I don't just mean dolphins or whales. Maybe they want to shoot landscapes or portraits or street life too.

Mark flyer said:

View attachment 227424View attachment 227425

Click to expand...

Top is r3, bottom r5, cropped in on mount bachelor, im not sure if the r3 out resolved the r5 but either way there's not much difference

neuroanatomist said:

That is not correct. It's not cropping, it's digitally correcting the barrel distortion. Light that would have filled the corners was bent further into the frame, the correction stretches it back to the corners. As an example, when comparing the RF 14-35/4 (black corners at 14mm), with correction in DxO the resulting image gives a FoV equivalent to ~13.5mm on the EF 11-24/4 (which is essentially distortion free at 13-14mm as it transitions from strong barrel distortion to milder pincushion distortion). It helps that the uncorrected RF 14-35/4 has a FoV of a bit wider than 13mm.

Click to expand...

The sensor corners are not collecting photons, but i sort of see your point.

You serious with that 3rd party on Canon APSC? Bruh.... Also it's wildlife body and Canon have many high end glass for that porpoise good enough for 40mp apsc sensor.

"robust against manufacturing errors"

A way of decreasing manufacturing costs.

GMCPhotographics said:

£1600 UKP. It was a very good price for a new R5mk1

Click to expand...

wow that's a steal for sure

I personally have no issues with the current CF SD split.

Just do it! Canon EF-S 15-85mm a couple of years back would've made me keep the R7. Now, I´m not in the market for RF-S lenses, but my father in law is. He´d love one of these designs I bet.

50-150mm does sound like an interesting focal length, but for the f2.8 STM trinity I´d prefer a 70-180mm since everything up to 70mm is already covered and 30mm extra sound great. Furthermore, I do believe people buying one of these lenses are considered potential buyers for a second (in some cases even third) lens. So covering more focal length without an overlap would be nicer imo.

50-150mm with a different kind of f-number and not as part as the mentioned trinity sounds more intriguing imo.

yaswanthsv said:

Honestly expected 70-180

Click to expand...

That's kind of where I was at (and still am, since this is just a patent rumor, and nothing more) with the first two legs of the budget trinity already complete. Hopefully that's the more likely iteration that we'll see. Maybe this is an APS-focused concept? Hard to say.

snapshot said:

seems like mostly a cake and eat it too thing. i want to buy lenses that create low distortion images. in the film days, without digital lens correction i had to buy big / heavy and live with a lot of aberration (EF 17-40: i am talking about you). EF17-40 was pretty popular before the full frame digitals became available.

Click to expand...

That pretty effectively makes the point that 'optical correction' can leave a lot to be desired.

snapshot said:

once the corners are dark, the digital lens correction is essentially cropping in. (2 mm-ish in the above example)

Click to expand...

That is not correct. It's not cropping, it's digitally correcting the barrel distortion. Light that would have filled the corners was bent further into the frame, the correction stretches it back to the corners. As an example, when comparing the RF 14-35/4 (black corners at 14mm), with correction in DxO the resulting image gives a FoV equivalent to ~13.5mm on the EF 11-24/4 (which is essentially distortion free at 13-14mm as it transitions from strong barrel distortion to milder pincushion distortion). It helps that the uncorrected RF 14-35/4 has a FoV of a bit wider than 13mm.

snapshot said:

But, now designs are assuming digital lens correction from the jump, maybe choosing to exhibit easier to correct distortions and better control hard to correct distortions. I feel like my full frame is wasted but probably need to appreciate the size, weight, and cost savings present in the lenses. I have to say I am pretty happy with the picts from the RF 24-240. I havent owned the EF 28-300 but it looked big and heavy. BTW, I also liked the Tamron EF 28-300 as a travel lens, DLC helps it too.

Click to expand...

I like the have the cake and eat it too design approach. The full frame is not being wasted, as stated above. The advantages of designing with digital corrections in mind are evident. One need only compare the size, weight and optical quality of the EF 11-24/4 to those of the RF 10-20/4, with the latter having similar optical quality (after digital correction of both lenses), but being wider, much smaller and lighter, and cheaper into the bargain. That's a big win, in my opinion (and in my photo bag – I bring the 10-20/4 along a lot more often than I brought the 11-24/4).

I also like the RF 24-240 as a travel lens. I did own the EF 28-300L, it was big and heavy and nothing to write home about optically, especially at the long end. The wider portion was similar to the EF 24-105/4L, the longer portion was not as good as the EF 70-300L, so I switched to the combination of those two lenses and sold the EF 28-300L.

mimbu said:

RAW to CFexpress, JPG to SD. It does suck for video because there is no great solution.

CFexpress Type B is the wrong size for smaller ILCs. Type A exists and is supposed to be used for small devices. Sony went with this and puts two Type A slots (that can also accept SD cards) into the A7S, A7R, FX3, A9 II, A9 III, A1, and A1 II. It's ridiculous that the R5 II has one Type B and one SD instead of two Type A.

Click to expand...

The speed of the type A CF express cards is half that of a type B CF Express card.

In an ideal world R5 Mk II would have 2 CF Express Type B CF Express card slots, preferably, CF express 4.0.

Etnaphele said:

This makes me VERY jealous of Sony boys with the new TC compatible 100mm Macro. Or would it still not cut it?

Interesting, I have a couple of butterfly shots taken with the 200-800 but environmental rather than closeup macro. I won't ever justify an additional 100-500 for myself, but am seriously thinking about the 100 Macro. I have to dig deeper to understand what floats my boat...

Click to expand...

Adding a TC to a 100mm macro lens on a APS-C camera will increase your chances of not disturbing a dragonfly or butterfly by coming too close.
I have the RF 100-500mm which can be used for getting close up shots, but I prefer the EF180mm macro + 1.4 extender (on full frame, R5 Mk II) since you can get real close with a cooperating subject. The RF 300mm f4 macrolens from this patent application would be an instant buy.

David the street guy said:

Even then, if your camera uses a CFexpress and an SD, they can't really be redundant, can they?

Click to expand...

RAW to CFexpress, JPG to SD. It does suck for video because there is no great solution.

CFexpress Type B is the wrong size for smaller ILCs. Type A exists and is supposed to be used for small devices. Sony went with this and puts two Type A slots (that can also accept SD cards) into the A7S, A7R, FX3, A9 II, A9 III, A1, and A1 II. It's ridiculous that the R5 II has one Type B and one SD instead of two Type A.

neuroanatomist said:

I'm still waiting for someone to demonstrate in the final image the inferiority of digital geometric distortion correction, compared to optical correction that some people claim is superior. I tried and failed, finding that digital correction was just as good. Since you clearly believe that optical correction is better, perhaps you'll be the one to actually show some evidence to support that belief?

I won't hold my breath.

Click to expand...

seems like mostly a cake and eat it too thing. i want to buy lenses that create low distortion images. in the film days, without digital lens correction i had to buy big / heavy and live with a lot of aberration (EF 17-40: i am talking about you). EF17-40 was pretty popular before the full frame digitals became available.

i guess i FEEL like i spend all this money on a full frame sensor (rather than a APSC) and so i want lenses that illuminate the whole thing. once the corners are dark, the digital lens correction is essentially cropping in. (2 mm-ish in the above example)

For the EF 17-40 the entire 35mm frame was covered in light but the corners were not very good. digital lens correction can make a big difference in its images and i am happy for DLC.

But, now designs are assuming digital lens correction from the jump, maybe choosing to exhibit easier to correct distortions and better control hard to correct distortions. I feel like my full frame is wasted but probably need to appreciate the size, weight, and cost savings present in the lenses. I have to say I am pretty happy with the picts from the RF 24-240. I havent owned the EF 28-300 but it looked big and heavy. BTW, I also liked the Tamron EF 28-300 as a travel lens, DLC helps it too.

Richard CR said:

Given the lack of elements and the fact that the lens does not fill the entire image circle on the wide end, I don't think this is an L-grade design, but it would make a lot of sense as a prosumer constant f/2.8 lens.

Click to expand...

Looks like ~17 elements (hard to be sure on my phone screen). That’s the same number as in the RF 70-200/2.8 lenses (Z and non-Z), so I wouldn’t call that a ‘lack of elements’. Also worth noting that the RF 24-105/2.8L Z does not fill the entire image circle on the wide end.

Having said that, I agree that this is most likely a design for prosumer lens to match the current 16-28 and 28-70 f/2.8 STM lenses.

Honestly expected 70-180

What happened to that patented RF-S 15-60 F2.8 Z? That one would have been my preference (though it's a teeny bit less exciting now that the Sigma 17-40 f/1.8 is available) but if that's been scrapped then here's hoping for the 15-70 f/2.8-4. Even with it apparently darkening quickly, that extra stop of light on the wide end is VERY useful indoors.

Also hope Canon's revising the 18-45 so future budget RF-S bodies have something more useful. Still can't believe they started it at 18mm vs the 15mm of it's predecessor!

GirlsAreBeautiful said:

R52 is definetely worth it over the 1, AF is spotless if you have a capable RF lens. How much did you pay for the body?

Click to expand...

£1600 UKP. It was a very good price for a new R5mk1