GMCPhotographics said:

I've just carefully re-read this article with the emphasis on "multi-media" and it's possible that Canon want the R3ii to be in the same price point that the current R3 is currently sitting in, ie snugly between a R1 and R5. If this is the case, then Canon might opt for a non stacked high density 45-50mp sensor and limit the ES fps to 20. Effectively making a big buffer 1 series R5 with a focus on everything but sports.
A cheaper R1, but with R5 mk1 image quality (maybe even superior) but with a huge buffer and top rugged build and pro battery.

Click to expand...

The R3 is a great camera, all I want is more meat to help with cropping at sports and breaking news events and I am in!

LPSDOTCOM said:

This lens is bad in ways that are hard to express. For me the revulsion is nausea inducing. It's just bad in too many ways.

Click to expand...

Yes, it's not at RF-L level. Only EF 50mm 1.2 L level. Just give it a try. I'm sure your conclusion will be much better than at Opticallimits. Even if you don't want it in the end.

Assuming that the IQ is comparable to the existing non-L f2.8 zooms, this would be a most interesting lens for me. For travel and hiking, I usually go with a 2 lens solution, carrying the 14-35 f4 and 70-200 f4, thus missing a good range of focal length in between. As I mostly do not use the telephoto end too much, having the 50-150mm f2.8 instead of the 70-200 f4 would make good sense for me. This way, the 50-150 f2.8 can work as an indoor/dim light portrait lens as well.

Mark flyer said:

D

That part i sent was the best decided factor, I thought. I can't send the whole file as I don't want to blow all my data this close to the beginning of the month, I may have labeled them wrong, the difference in time was about ten minutes as we went to the car to switch out cameras, as you can see a cloud developed on the r3, both at 800 iso f11. Sorry if I'm waisting your time when you're arguing me.

Click to expand...

Yes, you were playing the fool. The R3 and R5 images were not "may" have been labeled wrong, they were, deliberately. In fact, they almost certainly weren't taken on an R3/R5 pair. They are most likely the same image scaled and exposure altered, with the lower pixel one R5 for an extra laugh. Right?

LPSDOTCOM said:

This lens is bad in ways that are hard to express. For me the revulsion is nausea inducing. It's just bad in too many ways.

Click to expand...

And yet, the PhotoTrend review speaks a fully different language, despite their strong Sony bias.
To be clear, it's not my dreamlens either!

On an APS-C body this will be pretty close (80-240mm) to the 70-200mm telephoto range commonly used in indoor sports and events. Paired with a R7 or R10 this would be a great lens for parents to photograph their kids' sports and aspiring young photographers to learn how the pros do it without spending several thousand dollars. And for pros in less affluent countries who could never afford the top-of-the-line gear.

Meanwhile...


Hey, lookie here! It's almost exactly the lens so many were adamant that Canon would never make! (hey, I'm surprised too).

Interestingly, it's not an RF-S lens, which makes sense I suppose - if it doesn't benefit from being smaller for APS-C, they might as well make it full frame. On an APS-C body that'd give you a 80-240mm effective field of view (at f4.5 equivalent depth of field). Not exactly, but close to the 70-200mm commonly used for indoor sports and events. More usable on the wide end than the 112mm field of view that a 70-200mm would have for closer subjects.

Likewise for full frame users I could see this being used by those on a budget, pairing it with bodies like older R6 versions, R8, and the like, for events and indoor sports. Probably good for volleyball. 50mm would be good for more "environmental" portraits, and longer lengths would be good for torso and head portraits. The

It's an STM, which I hope provides fast enough autofocus to keep up with the action this lens would likely often be used for. The image posted in the article is probably just an estimate, but it looks compact and light.

I agree with last comment, IBIS on wide angles for video is not usable because of wobble. This is the biggest reason for me not to use my canon r6 for home videos. All those magical new features are useless when video is wobbly and ugly.

Richard CR said:

it's L quality performance though. the MTF's are very good. limited zoom range helps with that.

Click to expand...

I was a fan of the Sigma 24-35 f/2. Maybe this would be up my alley to complement a 24-105L

Mark flyer said:

I thought it was fun to drag u guys through that, I knew there was no way a 24mp can outresolve 45mp, just getting all prepared for thr people who think they actually can

Click to expand...

I wonder who comes across as clever in this scenario. Well, no, I don’t wonder.

I thought it was fun to drag u guys through that, I knew there was no way a 24mp can outresolve 45mp, just getting all prepared for thr people who think they actually can

Mark flyer said:

D

That part i sent was the best decided factor, I thought. I can't send the whole file as I don't want to blow all my data this close to the beginning of the month, I may have labeled them wrong, the difference in time was about ten minutes as we went to the car to switch out cameras, as you can see a cloud developed on the r3, both at 800 iso f11. Sorry if I'm waisting your time when you're arguing me.

Click to expand...

From my point of view there is no arguing... the evidence you provided does not support your claims. Simple as that.
It's all good fun though, I'm not bothered at all

Surab said:

You are right that parts of the sensor are not exposed and thus "wasted", so that the image circle from further in has to be stretched outwards but only into the corners, as @neuroanatomist mentioned earlier, leading to a loss of resolution in the corners. Now, this sounds bad on its own, but since most lenses already fair less than optimal in the corners, particularly at lower prices, and as long as the stretching results in an equivalent image quality, we can benefit at "similar" image quality from smaller, lighter, and cheaper lenses.

What I am trying to say is that while this might waste some pixels in the corners, it is effectively irrelevant to us users, if we still get the same image quality as we would get from a not-wasteful larger, but still equally priced lens.

Click to expand...

Exactly. Some people have the belief that optical correction of geometric distortion is the best way, but it’s just one way. There are trade offs with that way, and with the digital approach.

Happy-sad.
I appreciate the idea, but I'm afraid it's not for me.
2.8 is just not fast enough, I need to bring 50/1.8 as well anyway.

If it was a non-L 50-150/2 or /2.2, now _that_ would be a next level development, maybe a continuation of the 45/1.2 "revolution".
Otherwise just a make
85-150/2.8 which is lighter
85-180/2.8 which is longer and still light compared to L stuff
50-150/2L which would just be awesome especially if it is 100g lighter than Sony
85-150/2L if it's considerably lighter or gains IQ compared to 50-150
85-135/2L macro? I mean real 1:1. omg goosebumps

I any case, my usual comment. Pleeeease think about opening a new lens category - meant for "professionals" when weight matters. Mid-tier, non-L with USM.

D

roby17269 said:

Does better in which way?
There seems to be more CA in the R3 image and a smidge more detail in the R5 image.
Why the difference in exposure though? weather?
In any case the quality is so bad that I am not sure how you've reached your conclusion

Click to expand...

That part i sent was the best decided factor, I thought. I can't send the whole file as I don't want to blow all my data this close to the beginning of the month, I may have labeled them wrong, the difference in time was about ten minutes as we went to the car to switch out cameras, as you can see a cloud developed on the r3, both at 800 iso f11. Sorry if I'm waisting your time when you're arguing me.

Mark flyer said:

Thanks for explaining. Makes sense, I've had it wrong all along. Either way, I would say the r3 does better but every man to his own.

Click to expand...

Does better in which way?
There seems to be more CA in the R3 image and a smidge more detail in the R5 image.
Why the difference in exposure though? weather?
In any case the quality is so bad that I am not sure how you've reached your conclusion

Given that the 16-28 and 28-70 don't overlap, I would find it strange for them to add 20mm overlap between 50-70mm.

I do understand that a 35/50-150 F2/2.8 is very enticing in its own right, but it does not feel quite like trinity material to me.

snapshot said:

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

Click to expand...

You are right that parts of the sensor are not exposed and thus "wasted", so that the image circle from further in has to be stretched outwards but only into the corners, as @neuroanatomist mentioned earlier, leading to a loss of resolution in the corners. Now, this sounds bad on its own, but since most lenses already fair less than optimal in the corners, particularly at lower prices, and as long as the stretching results in an equivalent image quality, we can benefit at "similar" image quality from smaller, lighter, and cheaper lenses.

What I am trying to say is that while this might waste some pixels in the corners, it is effectively irrelevant to us users, if we still get the same image quality as we would get from a not-wasteful larger, but still equally priced lens.

Took theses the other Evening on a trip we took to Japantown in SF, I have to say there is a strong argument for only needing the 28-70 and 70-200 to cover a TON of ground I mean a ton. This lens really has floored me It is my go to in my studio here , it has been used heavily for music, product photography, event photography and headhot/portrait work as well. It does almost all of it flawlessly and while It isn't quite on par with my 85 1.2 for full on portrait shots it sure is a fantastic one lens wonder in my eyes.

This lens is bad in ways that are hard to express. For me the revulsion is nausea inducing. It's just bad in too many ways.

AlanF said:

Yes. Resolution is the ability to separate two close lines or points, and your image is virtually devoid of such detail. Resolution and acuity are two very common ways to assess technical quality of photographic images. Resolution refers to how much subject detail is retained in the image or print. Acuity refers to the sharpness of fine edges and lines.

Click to expand...

Thanks for explaining. Makes sense, I've had it wrong all along. Either way, I would say the r3 does better but every man to his own.

Mark flyer said:

Really? Looks like you can almost see individual pixels. The key is almost, count down the left side of the right peak for detail

Click to expand...

Yes. Resolution is the ability to separate two close lines or points, and your image is virtually devoid of such detail. Resolution and acuity are two very common ways to assess technical quality of photographic images. Resolution refers to how much subject detail is retained in the image or print. Acuity refers to the sharpness of fine edges and lines.

Planterz said:

You're missing the 1.6x crop factor. Even if the resolution remains the same as the R7, if you're shooting small/distant things (birds, planes, Kriptonians) that's a lot more pixels on subject. Most likely, this will be Canon's target customer base. I don't really see them trying to compete with either Sony or Fuji in this regard. Sony's a6XXX APS-C cameras are rangefinders and less appropriately suited to action/wildlife and Fuji's tends to cater more towards those interested in the aesthetics of the camera and their jpeg picture profiles.

Click to expand...

Its alllllll about those Kriptonians man...