Philnick said:

Have her get the Sigma RF-S 17-40mm f/1.8 DC Art. It's a standard zoom (equivalent focal lengths 29-64mm) more than a stop faster than most of the full-frame models, and is substantial enough, being comparable in size and weight to a full-frame standard zoom, to give her the heft she wants, in what's Sigma's equivalent to an L lens.

It doesn't have the telephoto reach, true, but she can get decent fast lenses for that - look at my signature for a list. The problem with Canon's EF-S and RF-S lenses is that they don't give them wide enough apertures to overcome the crop sensor's low light issues - the Sigmas and Canon's full-frame lenses do. I don't use any lens slower than f/2.8 except for the telextended 448mm f/4 combo resulting from the 200mm f/2.8L + 1.4 telextender.

Click to expand...

I would take interest in that Sigma 17-40 myself if I didn't have an R5 also - it sounds like a great lens for low light situations like receptions, concerts, events, or just people photography during night life activity. I tend to go full frame when I'm going wide-normal, and would use it for most "people" photography. I tend to use my own R7 for birding and wildlife.

She already has a copy of the 18-135 EF USM lens and adapter on its way, and based on her happiness with her Nikon 18-140, I think she'll be happy with this. It's an all in one zoom, and certainly not competition for an L lens, but it's a much more substantial build quality level than the 18-150. Optically, I think it looks similar based on The-Digital-Picture's web comparison tool.

I kind of wish that Canon had made a bit more investment into the RF-S lens lineup. They want to relegate the crop bodies to the toy department and push everyone into full frame, it seems. They could at least bring a couple of the EF-M lenses over, like that 32 mm f/1.4 and one of the 15-xx lenses. 15 is a nice wide angle start for a normal-range zoom on a crop body.

Have her get the Sigma RF-S 17-40mm f/1.8 DC Art. It's a standard zoom (equivalent focal lengths 29-64mm) more than a stop faster than most of the full-frame models, and is substantial enough, being comparable in size and weight to a full-frame standard zoom, to give her the heft she wants, in what's Sigma's equivalent to an L lens.

It doesn't have the telephoto reach, true, but she can get decent fast lenses for that - look at my signature for a list. The problem with Canon's EF-S and RF-S lenses is that they don't give them wide enough apertures to overcome the crop sensor's low light issues - the Sigmas and Canon's full-frame lenses do. I don't use any lens slower than f/2.8 except for the telextended 448mm f/4 combo resulting from the 200mm f/2.8L + 1.4 telextender.

Del Paso said:

There's also the R8's "horrible" EVF, compared to the R6's. I could never get used to the R's (3,69 million dots).

Click to expand...

I liked the R´s EVF. Only the blackout in high-speed shooting is/ was a problem. The R5 on paper has a better EVF, but I never really noticed that difference. The R5 also has a blackout phase, but at least it's shorter than the R´s. I really like the EVF of the R5mkii, it is really beautiful. But, the big EVF hump makes the camera even bulkier.

Del Paso said:

The R 8 has only 2,36 million dots...Though I know many wouldn't care, a good EVF is essential for me.

Click to expand...

Why is the R8´s EVF "horrible"? I only tested in a camera store, but it seemed fine to me. Is 2.36 m dots such a setback?

Del Paso said:

There's also the R8's "horrible" EVF, compared to the R6's. I could never get used to the R's (3,69 million dots). The R 8 has only 2,36 million dots...
Though I know many wouldn't care, a good EVF is essential for me.

Click to expand...

I'm still used to the optical viewfinder on APSC DSLRs where I couldn't see almost anything so the R was a huge upgrade to me Yes the EVF on the R8/R6 is one of the little things. Not a deal breaker but it makes the decision (to buy the R6) easier. It was one of the reasons when I was deciding between the 60D and 700D. The 60D had bigger battery, top LCD and bigger viewfinder. It won over the better sensor at the 700D.

ISv said:

No reason: the Great Blue is not a natural inhabitant of Japan and as I know it's not recorded even as a vagrant. I survived so far !

Click to expand...

Next time when you want to shoot: use your camera.

AlanF said:

You didn't shoot yourself, I guess.

Click to expand...

No reason: the Great Blue is not a natural inhabitant of Japan and as I know it's not recorded even as a vagrant. I survived so far !

Tomba said:

Yes, the Sigma is sharper, but I liked the pictures I took with the Canon better. That's why I decided to let the Sigma go.

Click to expand...

I don´t like the overly sharp Sigmas... sometimes it doesn't look like separation in the image, but like someone photoshopped a person into a landscape pic. I think in Germany they called the "sticker look". That's why I sold my Sigma portrait lens rather quickly.

Tomba said:

Yes, I wouldn't buy the EF 50mm 1.2 L new for 1.699€ in the Canon online shop.

Click to expand...

Nope, I wouldn't either. It is sometimes funny how the canon online stores keep very high prices when one get buy the lens for 50-60% less. I don't really get why they do that and how buys those lenses.

Walrus said:

People like to brag L lenses, even when the lens sucks...it's just "I have a thicker wallet then yours"; you can afford it, and you want people to know you can. Some thinks buying third party lenses makes them "poor", but it's ok, as they swap lenses very easily at any new release, so in a short time they flood the used market with many pro lenses at bargain prices for people really needing them to buy. I actually appreciate that

Click to expand...

That's exactly what I did.
After buying the R6 in 2020, I replaced a Sigma 50mm f/1.4 Art that I used with my 5DIII with a used Canon EF 50mm 1.2 L for 650€.
Yes, the Sigma is sharper, but I liked the pictures I took with the Canon better. That's why I decided to let the Sigma go.
Yes, I wouldn't buy the EF 50mm 1.2 L new for 1.699€ in the Canon online shop. However, if it were defective, I would buy it again at the used price of €650 if I didn't have the money for a RF 50mm 1.4 VCM.

Walrus said:

People like to brag L lenses, even when the lens sucks...it's just "I have a thicker wallet then yours"; you can afford it, and you want people to know you can.

Click to expand...

I´m sure these people exist, I just haven't met them in photography (yet). Usually, I see a lot of people act like that when they talk about cars.

Walrus said:

Some thinks buying third party lenses makes them "poor", but it's ok, as they swap lenses very easily at any new release, so in a short time they flood the used market with many pro lenses at bargain prices for people really needing them to buy. I actually appreciate that

Click to expand...

The used market is a real bargain but also kind of crazy. The R6 hit the price point of about 1.300 - 1.400 € after the first discounts for the mkii came out. It has been sitting at exactly this point for over two years. The camera has really been stable in value although the mkii is better and now the mkiii is about to show. This phenomenon is even more true for lenses as they tend not to get a direct replacement within approximately 10 years.

This gives me the opportunity to buy and use lenses for a while and resell them later for the same price. One can keep the "cost of ownership" to a minimum if one has the funding to buy and sell. That's the reason why I've never preordered any lens or camera, I usually wait for prices to drop to a point where I can sell my gear (if necessary) for about the same money. Only exception so far: RF 50mm F1.4 VCM, which I bought last month with "only" a discount of 150 $ because I need for family shots. And now comes an affordable 45mm F1.2... grrrr

John Wilde said:

If I am reading things correctly, B&H lists the EF version of that as discontinued, and they don't list an RF version.

Click to expand...

I can’t speak for B&H, they’re irrelevant on this side of the Atlantic, but the EF 50mm f/1.2 doesn’t attach to a Canon mirrorless camera in any different way than the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 Art does. For the price the canon EF lens costs, if buying new is impossible, better buy a second hand Sigma and send it in for maintenance. You could probably buy two or three of the Sigma lens for the price of one EF 50mm f/1.2.

P-visie said:

Canon in the Netherlands has the EF 50mm f1.2 lens in it’s webstore and in stock, as have other large photoshops (for 1699€, incl. VAT, if you are interested ).

Click to expand...

Jesus
I’ve passed on the RF 50mm f/1.2 for about the same price twice this year, here in Portugal (not imported). Actually cheaper, once.

You state that the expected Max ISO of the R6 Mark III is 64,000. Yet, isn't that a downgrade? The Max native ISO of the Mark II is 102,400.

John Wilde said:

If I am reading things correctly, B&H lists the EF version of that as discontinued, and they don't list an RF version.

Click to expand...

Canon in the Netherlands has the EF 50mm f1.2 lens in it’s webstore and in stock, as have other large photoshops (for 1699€, incl. VAT, if you are interested ).

m4ndr4ke said:

It still amazes me how some people keep buying the lens, even today, instead of the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 Art.

Click to expand...

If I am reading things correctly, B&H lists the EF version of that as discontinued, and they don't list an RF version.

m4ndr4ke said:

It still amazes me how some people keep buying the lens, even today, instead of the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 Art.

Click to expand...

People like to brag L lenses, even when the lens sucks...it's just "I have a thicker wallet then yours"; you can afford it, and you want people to know you can. Some thinks buying third party lenses makes them "poor", but it's ok, as they swap lenses very easily at any new release, so in a short time they flood the used market with many pro lenses at bargain prices for people really needing them to buy. I actually appreciate that

BFG9000 said:

A review of the original EF 50mm f/1.2 USM L lens:

https://photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/472-canon_50_12_5d?start=2

Click to expand...

It still amazes me how some people keep buying the lens, even today, instead of the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 Art.

ISv said:

Nothing interesting today - just this White Tern...

View attachment 226613View attachment 226614

Click to expand...

You didn't shoot yourself, I guess.

A review of the original EF 50mm f/1.2 USM L lens:

https://photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/472-canon_50_12_5d?start=2

ISv said:

Just Gray Heron: at this exposure the thighs of the Great Blue should be much darker. Off course Del Paso can easily solve the problem if he tells us where he took the photo. If he say's Americas I have to shoot myself (Great Blue is rare vagrant to Europe!) He should make it faster because I'm holding Pfeifer Zeliska .600 Nitro Express - so heavy for a long holding)!

Click to expand...

I took this photo in Kyoto. I also believe this is a grey heron. But I am in no way a specialist!

Nicely done. I really like your shots, ISv.

deorum said:

not gonna sell my 2 bodies to get better EVF or a bit more resolution. to put it into perspective resolution gonna be like 6900*4600 instead of 6000*4000.

however 14 bit e-shutter, better readout speeds, better DR & noise, is way more tempting.

Click to expand...

I also would have loved it if they kept the 24mp and focused on improving readout speed, 14bit ES and maybe dropping the mechanical shutter.

akc said:

Well, i dont think so.
Even the R5m2 and also the Video-Cam C50 do not have that feature

Click to expand...

And the R6 II has better quality 4K60 than the R5 II for this reason.

ISv said:

He is different family! Do you like to watch Flintstones?

Click to expand...

I was never a fan. even though it was very popular.

blackcoffee17 said:

Higher resolution sensor and EVF are just as photo oriented.

Click to expand...

not gonna sell my 2 bodies to get better EVF or a bit more resolution. to put it into perspective resolution gonna be like 6900*4600 instead of 6000*4000.

however 14 bit e-shutter, better readout speeds, better DR & noise, is way more tempting.

NDNSNAPPER said:

Will the canon R6 mark III do 4k60p uncropped oversampled from the new sensor like the R6 Mark II does with it’s sensor?

Click to expand...

Well, i dont think so.
Even the R5m2 and also the Video-Cam C50 do not have that feature

JohanCruyff said:

Wow!
So maybe I could buy this cheap 45mm and buy the 85mm 1.4 VCM using the money I thought I would use for the RF 50mm 1.2...

But I need to check the optical quality first: I never liked the cheap RF 50mm STM and I'm currently happy with an adapted Sigma 50mm 1.4 Art.

Click to expand...

The Sigma 50mm f/1.4 Art has always been better than the EF 50mm f/1.2, the only parameter where the 1.2 lens took the lead was pretty much bokeh.

Tomba said:

On Canon RF bodies the AF reliability of the EF 50mm 1.2 L (and all Canon EF lenses) is much much better than it was on Canon DSLR bodies. Even the RF 50mm 1.2 L lens is hardly any better at autofocus. So why to spent money on a RF 45mm 1.2 STM lens with similar optical performance but weaker built quality. Ok, some less weight.
I would replace my EF 50mm 1.2 L with a RF 50mm 1.4 L VCM, in the future.

Click to expand...

My guess is this 45mm will be slightly sharper wide open, at least in the center of the frame - not by a lot, but slightly - mirrorless designs have been giving us that. But it's understandable, yours is a high end lens, this is not.