Latest activity

IRB Kirk · Dec 26, 2025

Full disclosure: My original version had some issues, had Copilot fix a few things LOL

IRB Kirk · Dec 26, 2025

A Canon Christmas
Beneath the tree with lights aglow,
A gift awaits in ribboned bow.
Not toys, nor sweets, nor winter wear—
But lenses gleaming, beyond compare.
A Canon rests in silent grace,
Ready to capture each smiling face.
From frosty mornings to twinkling nights,
It frames the season in pure delights.
Snowflakes dance in crystal streams,
Preserved forever in holiday dreams.
Each shutter click, a carol sung,
A timeless story for old and young.
So raise your glass and cheer with glee,
For Canon keeps our memories free.
This Christmas joy, both near and far,
Lives in the magic of your DSLR.

AlanF · Dec 26, 2025

Richard CR said:
I recall when I did testing, I had a difficult time seeing the diffraction correction effects. They were quite subtle. The aberration correction, especially at the time the Canon EF 85mm F1.8 USM, which had the worst PF known to the modern photography universe, would clean up amazingly well.

That was what impressed me the most - since PF was troublesome to correct in post.

Have you tried the Canon paid add-on of a neural network processing tool?

Nathalietje86 · Dec 26, 2025

Merry Christmas to everyone

john1970 · Dec 26, 2025

Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays to everyone as well. Wishing everyone a Happy and healthy 2026!

Del Paso · Dec 26, 2025

neuroanatomist said:
They’re all 85mm lenses (or close enough with rounding). The likely patent for the RF 85/1.4 VCM has it as an 82.6 or 82.9mm f/1.45 lens, but similarly the likely patent for the RF 85/1.2 is 82.3mm f/1.24. The explanation is not a difference in real focal length.

I eschew YT videos (DIY home repairs notwithstanding) but I did scrub to the ~7 min mark to see it was a noted in a focusing speed comparison with objects arranged in a table and in a portrait comparison. The reviewer failed to provide the proper technical explanation, which is unfortunate but unsurprising.

What’s really going on is that the focal length of a lens is specified as the distance from the rear nodal point to the sensor with the lens focused at infinity. When a lens appears to have a wider FoV (shorter FL) with closer subjects (as in the YT reviewer’s examples), that’s due to focus breathing. That’s why, for example, the EF 100/2.8L Macro has the FoV of a ~68mm lens at 1:1 magnification.

Canon touts the 85 VCM as having minimal focus breathing, which is desirable in a lens intended for hybrid use (lack of focus breathing is one of the reasons cine lenses are so expensive). Focus breathing is not necessarily linear with subject distance, and I suspect what’s happening with the 85 VCM is that Canon’s design puts most of the breathing closer to infinity, so there’s relatively little change in FoV with subjects at different ‘normal’ (for people) distances. Doing so is facilitated with modern focus-by-wire lenses where a microchip instead of gearing is controlling focus motor movement.

Interesting what you wrote about cine lenses.
I always believed Canon's cine lenses were only photo lenses in a different mount, thoroughly checked and adjusted, maybe differently coated for identical colour rendering.

Del Paso · Dec 26, 2025

I hate the very last sentence of the article!

My underwater gear dates from film times, a Fujica HDM and a Nikonos II.
I used them both for some scuba diving, but was never tempted enough to acquire strobes and accessory lenses.
I preferred spending my pocket money on oysters, lobsters, crabs and other seafoods in Bretagne (Brittany). And on Calvados, Muscadet and cidre...

Mirnavi · Dec 26, 2025

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year 2026!
and Happy New Photo Gear!!!

Exploreshootshare said:
Thx Richard!
I too wish y´all a merry Christmas and happy new gear...ups, I meant a happy new year of course

neuroanatomist · Dec 26, 2025

el peso said:
Are you sure the compared lens is strictly 85 mm? Maybe its FL is longer than 85mm?

They’re all 85mm lenses (or close enough with rounding). The likely patent for the RF 85/1.4 VCM has it as an 82.6 or 82.9mm f/1.45 lens, but similarly the likely patent for the RF 85/1.2 is 82.3mm f/1.24. The explanation is not a difference in real focal length.

I eschew YT videos (DIY home repairs notwithstanding) but I did scrub to the ~7 min mark to see it was a noted in a focusing speed comparison with objects arranged in a table and in a portrait comparison. The reviewer failed to provide the proper technical explanation, which is unfortunate but unsurprising.

What’s really going on is that the focal length of a lens is specified as the distance from the rear nodal point to the sensor with the lens focused at infinity. When a lens appears to have a wider FoV (shorter FL) with closer subjects (as in the YT reviewer’s examples), that’s due to focus breathing. That’s why, for example, the EF 100/2.8L Macro has the FoV of a ~68mm lens at 1:1 magnification.

Canon touts the 85 VCM as having minimal focus breathing, which is desirable in a lens intended for hybrid use (lack of focus breathing is one of the reasons cine lenses are so expensive). Focus breathing is not necessarily linear with subject distance, and I suspect what’s happening with the 85 VCM is that Canon’s design puts most of the breathing closer to infinity, so there’s relatively little change in FoV with subjects at different ‘normal’ (for people) distances. Doing so is facilitated with modern focus-by-wire lenses where a microchip instead of gearing is controlling focus motor movement.

Click · Dec 26, 2025

Thank you Richard.

Happy Holidays everyone!

ThomasTH · Dec 26, 2025

Really awesome photos! The bird itself looks great and the compositions too.

AlanF · Dec 26, 2025

EricN said:
It's an interesting concept. I have thought of anoth
using a curved sensor, but it's probably quite difficult manufacture and might potentially require a dedicated sensor and lens pairing

Canon was reported on CR some years ago of patenting a (variable) curved sensor. If the focal length of the concave sensor were equal to the f of the lens, that would certainly help with vignetting. A flexible sensor would require a set of lenses for use with them. That would set up a whole new range of lenses for profit.

AlanF · Dec 26, 2025

Del Paso said:
I'm no scientist at all.
But wouldn't it be an easier way to get rid of all these geometric correction issues to "simply" design MF lenses and use them on FF (like TS lenses)?
Thus, they could make use of the best portion of a lens' projection circle. Could it be the recipe behind the RF 1,2 50 & 85 in order to also get sharp corners at f/1,2?
OK, cost would significantly go up...
But, as I wrote, I'm no scientist., and still hoping for a 35mm f/1,2...

The native diameter of the image circle of a thin simple lens of focal length f is about 2f, independent of the format of the camera. The lens makers have to work hard to get it anastigmatic to about f and then even harder to get the wide angle and ultra wide. If you want to have the image circle of an MF on an FF sensor, it would cost the same as making an MF lens.

Exploreshootshare · Dec 26, 2025

Thx Richard!
I too wish y´all a merry Christmas and happy new gear...ups, I meant a happy new year of course

Del Paso · Dec 26, 2025

EricN said:
It's an interesting concept. I have thought of anoth
using a curved sensor, but it's probably quite difficult manufacture and might potentially require a dedicated sensor and lens pairing

It could work, but only with a variable curvature, since different lenses have different aberrations. And it would be horribly complex to develop and produce with the degree of reliability and precision required.

Nemorino · Dec 26, 2025

Won't be possible as the SAC affects the focal length. Thought about a focus stack and adding a SAC shot for the background. But for mentioned reason this does not work.

AlanF · Dec 26, 2025

Richard CR said:
I recall when I did testing, I had a difficult time seeing the diffraction correction effects. They were quite subtle. The aberration correction, especially at the time the Canon EF 85mm F1.8 USM, which had the worst PF known to the modern photography universe, would clean up amazingly well.

That was what impressed me the most - since PF was troublesome to correct in post.

I have never been happy with DxO on the the RF 100-500mm + 2xTC and tended to use no sharpening and go over to Topaz for that. The testing just done found DPP4 did a decent job. I did mention that DPP4 has the DLO box greyed out for the RF 100-400mm. It was bad with the lens with the remaining settings and gave a soft image compared with DxO.

EricN · Dec 26, 2025

Chig said:
Yes, the SA can be nice for a dreamy look or a rather harsh look (with the 3rd shot at neutral setting) like these shots of my neighbour's magnoliaView attachment 227213 View attachment 227214 View attachment 227215

I've been curious what happens if you do a series of photos adjusting the SA control slightly each time and overlay them in photoshop. Have you tried it?

EricN · Dec 26, 2025

Del Paso said:
I'm no scientist at all.
But wouldn't it be an easier way to get rid of all these geometric correction issues to "simply" design MF lenses and use them on FF (like TS lenses)?
Thus, they could make use of the best portion of a lens' projection circle. Could it be the recipe behind the RF 1,2 50 & 85 in order to also get sharp corners at f/1,2?
OK, cost would significantly go up...
But, as I wrote, I'm no scientist., and still hoping for a 35mm f/1,2...

It's an interesting concept. I have thought of anoth
using a curved sensor, but it's probably quite difficult manufacture and might potentially require a dedicated sensor and lens pairing

Richard CR · Dec 26, 2025

As the holiday season wraps up another exciting year in the land of Canon, we want to take a moment to express our deepest gratitude to all of you, our passionate readers, forum contributors, those who send us the great tips, those who send us the bizarre tips, and all the people who make this […]

See full article...

SirIssacNewton · Dec 25, 2025

Click said:
Lovely shots, Sir. Merry Christmas!

Thanks, Merry Christmas

Click · Dec 25, 2025

Beautiful shots, Dragon.

Richard CR · Dec 25, 2025

AlanF said:
I attempted some testing for the correction of diffraction using DLO and found limitations in lenses where it could be applied. It can be applied to the RF 200-800mm on the R5ii and with the 1.4xTC but it is not compatible with the 2x. It is compatible with the 2x on the RF 100-500mm. And it is not compatible with the RF 100-400mm on the R7. The DLO box was greyed out n those incompatible cases.

I recall when I did testing, I had a difficult time seeing the diffraction correction effects. They were quite subtle. The aberration correction, especially at the time the Canon EF 85mm F1.8 USM, which had the worst PF known to the modern photography universe, would clean up amazingly well.

That was what impressed me the most - since PF was troublesome to correct in post.

Dragon · Dec 25, 2025

Christmas Hummers. R7 & RF 200-800

Yes, those are raindrops

I think I see Santa Claus

Del Paso · Dec 25, 2025

AlanF said:
Thanks for the link, which I have now read and the subsequent discussion. I get your point about the number of pixels in the corners etc when compressed. It remains moot until someone has done the necessary investigation to discover whether there is the same amount of image quality and information content in the periphery of an image that is stretched by an analogue lens method or a mathematical method of expansion of the compressed periphery. Information is lost on compression and the question is whether the analogue lens method manages to avoid that loss by prevention or is it simply expanding the compression similar to digital? I don't know the answer. Do you know as I would like to learn whether it does? It probably depends on how much effort and expenses they put in.

I'm no scientist at all.
But wouldn't it be an easier way to get rid of all these geometric correction issues to "simply" design MF lenses and use them on FF (like TS lenses)?
Thus, they could make use of the best portion of a lens' projection circle. Could it be the recipe behind the RF 1,2 50 & 85 in order to also get sharp corners at f/1,2?

OK, cost would significantly go up...
But, as I wrote, I'm no scientist., and still hoping for a 35mm f/1,2...

Latest activity

Latest activity

Filter

Forum statistics

Gallery statistics