AlanF said:

The birds and the bees is still a bit of a phalacy.

Click to expand...

But not a phallus-y.

foda said:

Roughly 3% of birds, primarily waterfowl such as ducks, geese, and swans, have an external phallus. cf. Leda and the Swan.

Click to expand...

The birds and the bees is still a bit of a phalacy.

GirlsAreBeautiful said:

Absolutelly.
And I hope that STM focusing will keep improving if that's the road for future less expensive lenses. I don't know how it is on the 24mm, but when I tried it on the 28mm I hated it, that's the main reason I didn't buy it.

Click to expand...

Yeah, my only STM lens is the EF 40mm f/2.8 STM pancake, and I have such a mixed relationship with it: on one hand, I love the compact nature for casual walk-around — but on the other the AF drive and manual interaction really irks me. I won't say I hate it, but I will say the only reason it remains in my kit is the compactness. If that's how STM lenses in general are being done I wouldn't vote for them with my cash. It's been such a turn off I haven't even made time to try the RF editions, but I suppose I should to see if they've improved.

But it's not the tech itself per say that bothers me, it's the implementation. If the speed picked up to be more like my USM lenses (I mean more like that, doesn't need to be perfect) and the FTM interaction had a smidge more resistance (physically dampened control ring?) then I might be won over.

I do appreciate that my 40mm doesn't break when I spin the control ring powered off — I bought an EF lens way back in the day that had a drive that could break when unpowered, but I didn't know that at the time I bought it. Immediately sold it the second I found out. I read horror stories.

I did have the EF 28mm f/1.8 USM, which my kiddo now has. It was only B grade for colour work less than 2.8, but actually pretty awesome for black and white work. Landscapes at 5.6+ were solid with excellent colour. DLO on my R6 improved the overall character at open apertures considerably. Overall feel for use was excellent, very zen. Not pancake compact with an adapter, but fun to use if you find one on the cheap.

m4ndr4ke said:

but 2019 was 7 years ago, and 2016 was 13 years ago.

Click to expand...

I like to think we get to subtract 3 years for the pandemic. 4 years if you were involved in the work tracking the virus pre-North America awareness. All of my lenses are much fresher that way. And movies. And my own age, to be honest.

m4ndr4ke said:

Iphones dropped 28mm as their main focal length back in 2019, almost seven years ago.
Samsung Galaxy S series dropped 28mm in 2016, even before the RF system existed.
ASUS Zenfone, back when they were a thing, never had 28mm as their main lens.

Click to expand...

GirlsAreBeautiful said:

Not everybody change their iphone every 3 years.

Click to expand...

No doubt, I actually own a phone that is over 5 years old, but 2019 was 7 years ago, and 2016 was 13 years ago.

GirlsAreBeautiful said:

Also the fact that the only 28mm RF Canon produced is a pancake is pretty telling in my opinion in how the lens is marketed. And there is no new 28mm from Sigma, despite having done a huge Art one previously. For me it's just sad.

Click to expand...

I'd say it's not a new phenomenon, the market seems to demand 24mm, and Canon just seems to acknowledge that. After 1995, they have released just two 28mm full-frame lenses, but five 24mm full-frame lenses. I think that says a lot.

I doubt I'll ever get that faster RF 28mm I wish for.

AlanF said:

And male birds are distinctly lacking anatomically to be a suitable paradigm.

Click to expand...

Roughly 3% of birds, primarily waterfowl such as ducks, geese, and swans, have an external phallus. cf. Leda and the Swan.

ISv said:

Long story short: I was planing to go today on the other side of the Island but landed in Waikiki: decided to give one more chance to the Orange-Cheeked Waxbil (last seen 2025.12.31! Few more attempts later were unsuccessful) before I check it "eventually lost". It was there!!
Took some photos but my attention got on another Waxbill (for sure the Common Waxbill but "strange"!). I took bunch of photos to document the bird, posting just two.

Starting with photos of Japanese White Eye and Saffron Finch. The last photo is how the Common Waxbill should look.

View attachment 228653View attachment 228654View attachment 228655View attachment 228656View attachment 228657View attachment 228658View attachment 228659
View attachment 228660

Click to expand...

Nice photos! Where in Waikiki did you see the Orange-Cheeked Waxbill?

"White-breasted Nuthatch"

EOS R1, EF 600mm f/4L IS USM II, 1/2000 s, f/4, ISO 200

DocInfoSci said:

28mm or the equivalent has a rather long history in photography, especially for reportage where it still gives a decently natural looking wide view for situational context. Much better than 35mm. Tired smart phone looks for the 28mm perspective aside, I think that (in the backdrop of zooms) for primes 24mm simply took off and is “close enough” — similar to how 50mm is generally accepted as the natural perspective lens but really a high 40s is closer to that goal. I think 28mm will live a long, long life as a consumer grade lens but for the limited manufacturing and sales space 24 has too much gravity and will remain king across the quality / robustness tiers. Just like the 50mm.

Click to expand...

Absolutelly.
And I hope that STM focusing will keep improving if that's the road for future less expensive lenses. I don't know how it is on the 24mm, but when I tried it on the 28mm I hated it, that's the main reason I didn't buy it.

GirlsAreBeautiful said:

Not everybody change their iphone every 3 years. But I do agree that there is a variety of reasons for why it is not a popular focal lenght in serious cameras, and surely they overlap.
Also the fact that the only 28mm RF Canon produced is a pancake is pretty telling in my opinion in how the lens is marketed.

Click to expand...

28mm or the equivalent has a rather long history in photography, especially for reportage where it still gives a decently natural looking wide view for situational context. Much better than 35mm. Tired smart phone looks for the 28mm perspective aside, I think that (in the backdrop of zooms) for primes 24mm simply took off and is “close enough” — similar to how 50mm is generally accepted as the natural perspective lens but really a high 40s is closer to that goal. I think 28mm will live a long, long life as a consumer grade lens but for the limited manufacturing and sales space 24 has too much gravity and will remain king across the quality / robustness tiers. Just like the 50mm.

R52 + RF600/4, Accipiter nisus

m4ndr4ke said:

He pretty much wrote the opposite.

Iphones dropped 28mm as their main focal length back in 2019, almost seven years ago.
Samsung Galaxy S series dropped 28mm in 2016, even before the RF system existed.
ASUS Zenfone, back when they were a thing, never had 28mm as their main lens.

It’s been a long time since “smartphones used 28mm on their main cameras”, and Canon never invested seriously in this focal length, as there has never been a 28mm L lens in their history. Nikon did invest seriously, Leica does, Sony doesn’t, Canon doesn’t.

As much as I like 28mm, I have to recognise it is not the most common focal length.

Click to expand...

Not everybody change their iphone every 3 years. But I do agree that there is a variety of reasons for why it is not a popular focal lenght in serious cameras, and surely they overlap.
Also the fact that the only 28mm RF Canon produced is a pancake is pretty telling in my opinion in how the lens is marketed. And there is no new 28mm from Sigma, despite having done a huge Art one previously. For me it's just sad.

neuroanatomist said:

And bees have no sex-linked chromosomes at all. Yet we teach kids about ‘the birds and the bees’. Lol.

Click to expand...

And male birds are distinctly lacking anatomically to be a suitable paradigm.

Why these vague statements instead of saying "we are still in the middle of contract negotiations"?
I'm pretty sure there is plenty of interest from third-party manufacturers to produce full-frame lenses (which they already have; they would just have to convert the mount). It would be silly to believe a third-party manufacturer would not be interested in converting lenses for the most popular brand.

This can only mean that Canon either wants excessive licensing fees or some other form of assurances (like exclusive rights).

neuroanatomist said:

Sometimes I wonder how some of the people posting here function in their daily lives, when the statements they make here show a clear disconnection from objective reality.

Click to expand...

The world's in the state it is for a reason.

EOS 4 Life said:

Canon Russia publicly stated that there was more chance of a new model than not.
That logically tells us they were considering to NOT make another one.
Even when they cancelled DSLRs, we know that a 5D V was under development and later cancelled.
With Powershots, the G7X and SX only went back into production because market demand was so strong.
You are free to infer whatever you want from the information available.
I am free to consider other possibilities.

Click to expand...

Just saying that Canon (and all the other manufacturers) will tell us whatever is they think will keep us buying their gear.
I believe they (like all others) have been less than forthcoming with the truth is a few occasions. They are corporations beholden to their stakeholders, not to us.
You are indeed free to think differently from me.

Bob Howland said:

Sometimes I wonder if you aren't paid by Canon to post here.

Click to expand...

Sometimes I wonder how some of the people posting here function in their daily lives, when the statements they make here show a clear disconnection from objective reality.

AlanF said:

Interestingly, birds are the opposite of humans for sex linked chromosomes. Whereas human men are XY and women YY, male birds are ZZ and females WZ.

Click to expand...

And bees have no sex-linked chromosomes at all. Yet we teach kids about ‘the birds and the bees’. Lol.

Celts88 said:

Can the mods change the tread title as at present doesn't seem to have anything to do with RF 300-600mm

Click to expand...

@Celts88, meet the Internet. The Internet, meet @Celts88. It’s clear that you two are previously unacquainted.

neuroanatomist said:

The RF 14/1.4L has two VCM motors, though I think that's the only lens so far with that configuration.

Click to expand...

It seems that the RF 85/1.4L VCM is also VCM-only, without a Nano USM motor. Several online reviews state that it has both, but I can’t find anything from Canon saying anything other than VCM. The lens appears to have only a single focusing group, whereas lenses with VCM + Nano USM or Dual Nano USM have two focusing groups (one floating).

Eric84 said:

Maybe a dumb question, but would it be impossible for Canon to take the RF 50mm F1.2L (or the 85mm) USM and "just" replace the USM-motor with a VCM style motor? or is the motor inside a lens so composed that a total redesign of everything is necessary?

Click to expand...

I suspect a redesign would be needed, for either a smaller focusing group or two focusing groups. I believe Ring USM is still more powerful. Compare the focusing group of the RF 85/1.4L VCM (3 elements) with that of the RF 85/1.2L (7 elements), for example.

neuroanatomist said:

Lol, yeah Canon has a team of PR flaks working around the clock to deflect, defer and diffuse the massive public outcry over this huge issue. The burning resentment raging through the camera market is killing Canon’s camera sales, leaving them in the embarrassing position of being #1 in ILC sales for the 23rd year in a row.

If Canon doesn’t stem this massive tide of customer angst, what will happen to their market leadership?

Spoiler: This…

Nothing, of course. The minuscule number of people who gripe about this non-issue on the internet might switch brands. But probably most of them will just keep whining and do nothing.

Click to expand...

Sometimes I wonder if you aren't paid by Canon to post here.

USM is a vibrating drive that rotates a glass group, whereas VCM pushes/pulls using the magnetic force. The glass groups can probably be recycled, but moving from USM to VCM specifically probably requires some case redesign. Still, Yongnuo was able to clone the EF 14mm using a gear drive motor and still maintain the same form factor so probably not too big of a deal.

I’d love to see winning EF designs recycled into quality but relatively affordable consumer lines that keep prices down by avoiding the glass R&D costs to keep OEM lenses with Canon benefits like DLO more affordable for younger shooters. I doubt that will happen any time soon, but over the expected life of the RF line probably not crazy.

David - Sydney said:

Canon has recently thrown everything into the 14/1.4 to the extent that it is an expensive but wonderful lens. I fear that they may do the same with the TS-E lenses.

Laowe have 2 lenses for tilt/shift or shift only to differentiate from a 25% price difference. This makes sense to me as I would only use shift if I was to get one and AF wouldn't be a critical issue. To line up the vertical elements would be manual/tripod. Not sure how AF could also shift automatically for composition.

I can't imagine Canon having 4 options for one focal length: shift/tilt-shift, AF or manual so Canon is likely to add everything in and then be a marvellous technological creation but with a $$$$$ price ("The Homer"?).... especially for a 14mm TS-R
Not even sure what the nomenclature would be for a shift only lens "S-R"?

Click to expand...

I have the Laowa 35mm TS for my X2D II. It is a good lens in terms of IQ, but it is also quite a bit heavier than the 2 TS-E lenses I used to have (24mm II and 17mm)... so much so that I cannot use it without tripod, while I was comfortable to hand hold the TS-E lenses. Tilt is actually doable hand held, but shift, especially vertical, is a problem. for me at least

blackcoffee17 said:

It sounds better in press and interviews when journalists ask about it. So instead of saying "we not allow it", they can just say they negotiating or something.

Click to expand...

Sure it does. Canon can say they're not technically lying so no suing them (as if one would).
But the bottom line does not change: however they do it, they are still preventing 3rd part FF AF lenses for RF.
It's their mount so they are absolutely free to do as they please with it. As I, as insignificant as I am, am free to be sour about it.

EOS 4 Life said:

That is a reasonable conclusion, but another one is that Canon set the price too high just to make enough money for themselves to sense when we buy a third-party lens instead of a Canon lens.
A price that makes sense for Canon does not necessarily make sense for a third party.
They all are businesses.

Click to expand...

Both can be true.