John Wilde said:

The last figure I could find is that 1.6 lenses shipped for every camera body shipped, so it's not like everyone has a huge collection of lenses.

Click to expand...

it should be noted that CIPA only counts Japanese manufacturers.

Korean and Chinese are not included in those numbers. So we really don't know that much on how that is going.

The last figure I could find is that 1.6 lenses shipped for every camera body shipped, so it's not like everyone has a huge collection of lenses.

P-visie said:

@mimbu is a Sony fanboy, see my quote from Roger Cicala.

Click to expand...

Yes, yes. It's always just easier to dismiss someone as a fanboy than it is to admit that whatever brand you are deeply in love with has faults. Often many faults.

The difference between me and you is that I have absolutely ZERO brand loyalty. None. Never have. It's for suckers. It's true I shoot Sony right now but it's because they are the least-bad option of the major brands. I will never return to a brand with a locked down mount. It's anti-consumer and I do not understand why anyone accepts it. I would consider buying into Z mount, if they ever let Sigma in. If Canon ever loosens their death grip on RF I'd consider Canon too, but I don't expect they will. It's pretty likely that I'll end up on L mount when DJI and/or Viltrox start bringing out cameras, even though I would miss Tamron there.

P-visie said:

You’ve posted this nonsense before, yet you have never used the RF200-800mm lens. And you are wrong about the AF motor of the RF200-800mm lens.
Roger Cicala was and still is right when he said: “Sonyfanism: The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy with other equipment. “

Click to expand...

It was people in this forum, Canon users, who tested the 200-800 and noted the subpar performance. It has no increase in resolving power past ~650mm. It makes the image bigger but you get no more detail. That's why it is often noted as being less sharp the further past 600mm that you go.

It's okay to admit that Canon isn't perfect. None of these makers are. If people defend bad designs, they won't do better.

Recently i obtained a used EF 400/2.8L IS Mk II and i must say, that in my impression AF and IS works better with my 5Ds than with the R6 plus adapter. This is also true for the EF 85/1.4L IS and the EF 100-400L IS Mk II. The cooperation between IBIS and IS seems to be not optimal in some adapted EF-Lenses. So i guess, this is the reason for the converted EF Versions.

David_B said:

And what happens when a Chinese company brings out a MILC camera that is compatible with (say) the Sigma/Panasonic mount that's open and deliver similar IQ to the R5II but at half the price?

I think this story covers half the problem seen by Canon - they don't want Canon lenses being used on other bodies.also (is the other half of the equation.)

Click to expand...

This is what is coming. (Though "L" mount is originally from Leica with Panasonic and Sigma joining to create the alliance a few years later.)

DJI is likely to be first. They are already a member of L mount and have extensive experience with cameras. They also own Hasselblad which I've no doubt they have learned a truckload from.

Viltrox is probably not too far behind, another member of the L mount alliance who is very likely to bring L mount cameras to market.

Not only will these cameras be inexpensive but they will be incredibly feature rich. They have no high end cine products to protect. They have no R1/Z9/A1 level cameras to protect. They will throw everything including the kitchen sink into their cameras and are likely to bring out at least an R6/Z6/A7 competitor and a R5/Z8 competitor.

The very first iterations will probably have some issues. No doubt many firmware updates will follow and the products themselves will iterate generations fairly quickly at first.

But the Chinese are coming, and unless companies like Canon, Sony, and Nikon get their sh=t together PDQ, the Chinese are going to eat their lunch and take all their customers.

AccipiterQ said:

The "RF" 600 just being the EF with an adapter hard-mounted *really* irritated me.

Click to expand...

The 800/5.6 being the EF400/2.8+2xTC+adapter and the 1200/8 being the 600/4+2xTC+adapter are even worse. And Canon charges $19k and $23k for these lenses. Downright shameful. What happened to the innovative and fast-moving Canon of days gone by?

AccipiterQ said:

The "RF" 600 just being the EF with an adapter hard-mounted *really* irritated me.

Click to expand...

And they did the same to the RF 400mm f/2.8.

I've bought an R50V and five Sigma APS-C lenses in the last 2-3 years, plus had two Sigma primes converted from EF-M to RF. I'm using my R7 much more than my R6-2. The Sigma lenses are much better for video than 15-20 year old EF-L lenses.

Click said:

Lovely shot. Nicely done, candyman

Click to expand...

Thank you Click.

candyman said:

Canon EOS R5 Mark II
EF100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II USM
Shot at 400mm with f/5.6, ISO 2500, 1/500
Distance: 6.9 meter

Click to expand...

Lovely shot. Nicely done, candyman.

tomscott said:

So the thing is everything is so much more expensive in life atm but the issue I have with Canon is that upgrading to the newest lenes is a significant cost increase over the EF line. Often a lot of these lenses perform similar to the EF lenses they replace. For example the RF 24-70 IS F2.8 actually performs worse than the EF24-70MKII it replaces, sun flare is awful. RF600 is a repackaged EF600MKIII etc etc but they are significantly more expensive. Yet the EF lenses perform incredibly well.

I am not one that wants to use 3rd party lenses but I havent adopted the RF lenses because honestly they are too expensive. I bought the RF24-70 2.8 IS as I use that a lot and the RF35 F2 for video. Instead of replacing the rest of my lenses im using adapting my old ones because in most cases they work better than on my DSLRs.

Im sure im not the only one.

Click to expand...

The "RF" 600 just being the EF with an adapter hard-mounted *really* irritated me. I didn't buy that one. I haven't gotten the 24-70 for the reasons you just mentioned; I already have the EF MKii. I love my R5, and I love the RF50 1.2L. I didn't have a comparable lens in EF. But even all these years later I feel like Canon still hasn't covered the full breadth of the "universe" with their RF options. There are holes in the lens lineup. The R7 was an embarrassment, unless you wanted a replacement for the 90D. I get that it takes time to build a whole ecosystem out, but the R mount was announced in 2018. I'm not saying Canon is doomed, but there have been, in my opinion, some missteps. It seems like upcoming announcements will patch over those holes, and I hope they do, but in the meantime I haven't gotten as much RF glass as I thought I would have by now.

I recently added a Fuji GFX 100 II to my bag and decided to gamble a bit and, along a set of native GF lenses, bought two Laowa shift lenses.

To my surprise, not only do they perform extremely well, some solutions actually outperform Canons EF tilt shift offerings (which I own and use extensively). For example, I find that Laowa's turn-the-ring-to-shift is miles better than Canon's fiddly gear knobs. Laowa also sells a very good native lens mount that can be used across multiple lenses.

Yes, the flare is not as well handled as with Canon and I do miss electronic control of aperture - if nothing, then to make sure I haven't inadvertently shifted the aperture ring. But the bottom line is that Laowa is selling excellent medium format lenses at half the price of Canon's full frame tilt shifts. I think that this comparison is very appropriate since both are manual focusing lenses and Laowa comes out on top - no doubt.

Chinese manufacturers have made incredible leaps in less than a decade, not only in lenses, but other camera gear in general. I swear that Godox has some products that are better than the likes of Profoto or Broncolor.

ERHP said:

Just a few from August, sorting through the shots of multiple coveys of CA quail and others visiting the rapidly depleting seep.

One of the pair of surviving juvenile CA Thrashers who consider the seep part of its area.

Only one juvenile Steller's Jay this year.

Juvenile CA Quail male molting slowly.

This trio of juvenile CA Quail were navigating through the boulders.

A CA Quail crossing the 'bridge'. Always find it interesting how the feathers develop.

Click to expand...

Fine shots as usual!

Canon EOS R5 Mark II
EF100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II USM
Shot at 400mm with f/5.6, ISO 2500, 1/500
Distance: 6.9 meter

DhlcadR6 said:

No mention of Yongnuo? They made their long way from reverse engineer NifftyFiffty to better price-performance ratio 50/85mm f1.8 than Canon/Sony /Nikon.

EF mount was never open officially like Sony E and Fuji X ever did. It was open because it was out more than 10 years. And times were slower back in the days.

Right now Canon needs to bring more affordable zooms. Cheap primes both Canon and Yongnuo provide adequate amount. And RF-S has Sigma covered.

Click to expand...

Canon is right to worry. I got the Yougnuo 85/1.8 AF before it was banned and it is my favorite walking around lens. A personal, not objective, opinion is that it is brighter and has better color rendition than my inexpensive Canon primes. Don't know if I could back that up with facts but that's what I see.

And what happens when a Chinese company brings out a MILC camera that is compatible with (say) the Sigma/Panasonic mount that's open and deliver similar IQ to the R5II but at half the price?

I think this story covers half the problem seen by Canon - they don't want Canon lenses being used on other bodies.also (is the other half of the equation.)

I bought only two RF lenses while hoarding a staple of lower and medium class EF lenses. f/2 100mm is a great lens - this at 500 € maybe with IS would have drawn mit more into the RF world and maybe a 400€ RF 50 1.4 IS. But Canon has decided to go high quality/high price leaving lots of holes in the lower class high quality prime market.
I might profit because some more EF glass with AF (and IS?) might be released and it fits better in my current scheme using a ND filter adapter between EF glass and e.g. the great EOS R50 V ...

Tired of Canon's RF closed mount policy last week I bought a SONY A1 II along with a 50-150mm f/2 and a Sigma 28-45mm f/1.8 Art.

I'm not switching systems, but I'm not going to renounce to unique lenses like the Sigma 15mm f/1.4 fisheye, Sigma 35mm f/1.2, Sigma 28-45 f/1.8, Sigma 135mm f/1.4, SONY 50-150mm f/2, Sigma 200mm f/2, Sigma 300-600mm f/4, etc., or cheap and nice chinese lenses like what Viltrox offers to play with.

For me, adding a SONY camera to my arsenal is adding a powerful toolkit to get the job done and differentiate myself from other photographers even more.

I don't believe in brand loyalty. Being married to a brand is so stupid.

Exploreshootshare said:

If this lens holds up against the F1.4 VCM lenses... it would mean Canon is really overcharging us.

Click to expand...

Which company isn't overcharging? Canon, Sony, Sirui or Viltrox are no welfare organisations...They only want our best!

I always am a bit skeptical about MTF data by lens manufacturers, and prefer to wait for reliable reviews.
Data like statistics have too often been manipulated or cosmetically improved...