Del Paso said:

Different use for the 85mm f/2 here!
Only for longer walks, mostly in the mountains, where focusing speed doesn't matter at all (for me!), but sharpness and close-ups do!

Click to expand...

I use to have the same use case as well. Great lens for hiking, low light, close ups (e.g. cherry blossoms) and then of course portraits (mainly of my wife). Now, enter my nearly four month old son: although he can't even crawl yet, he already moves so quickly in his chair, the 85mm misses a growing number of shots. The VCM lens does not... therefore, the vcm gets the call every single time now... Thats why I´m considering the 100mm macro (better close-ups, use case for portraits as well) and selling the 85mm F2. A second VCM lens is not in the books right now and if it was, I´d love to get the 20mm, not the 85mm.

Del Paso said:

Sadly, the f/1,4 VCM has an inappropriate short focusing distance

Click to expand...

That´s true, the mfd is not suited for close-ups. But then again, I don't believe Canon designed the lens for it and it really excels at all other things.

I'm good with the RF 45, but I'm sure some would appreciate a higher end 50/55mm f/1.8 lens, similar to Sony's 55mm f/1.8 ZA, with better optics and build quality. Such lens would definitely find its place with those who expected higher and modern optical performance on a lens sitting between the 50mm f/1.8 and 50mm f/1.4 L VCM.

As for the 85mm f/1.8, I could consider such lens if it dropped the macro b******* and featured internal focusing, like the 45.
I don't quite know how to read patents, but it seems to me like the focusing groups are at the rear, so I guess that's promising.

Xpenelas said:

Nikon is getting lighter and smaller telephotos reducing image circle and correcting vignetting on processing. Just go further and you have more.

Click to expand...

Can you provide an example?
Canon does that on the wide end, but not for telephoto.
If you are referring to Nikon lenses with built-in teleconverters, then those lose a stop of light when the teleconverter is activated.

Exploreshootshare said:

45mm, 50mm and then 55mm sounds like quite the line-up I honestly don't believe Canon will release another 50ish mm lens, but I could imagine a replacement. How many versions of the original nifty-fifty were made? Three if I´m correct. So, thats definitely in the books.

A refresh for the 85mm F2 would be quite welcome if Canon improves the Af motor. I own the 85mm f2 and I loved it very much until I picked up the 50mm F1.4 L VCM. Now, I rarely use the 85mm F2 because in comparison it is reaaaaaaaly slow. The optics are reasonable good-very good, but it doesn't work well with (fast) moving objects. I currently only use it for "macro" (actually fake macro at 0,5 magnification) but I´m probably going to sell it and help fund a true macro lens like the RF 100mm F2.8. I can make use of it as a portrait lens as well.

Click to expand...

Different use for the 85mm f/2 here!
Only for longer walks, mostly in the mountains, where focusing speed doesn't matter at all (for me!), but sharpness and close-ups do!.
Should the f/1,8 be optically even better, not much heavier, and offer 0,5 magnification: Why not!
Yet, I am presently more than satisfied with the f/2, my children are adults now, so, I don't care about AF speed for this particular lens!
But the 55mm, if really light, compact and sharp, and (!!!) close-up able, a sure buy. Sadly, the f/1,4 VCM has an inappropriate short focusing distance, and my Zeiss Classic 50mm f/2 lacks sharpness at longer distances.

45mm, 50mm and then 55mm sounds like quite the line-up I honestly don't believe Canon will release another 50ish mm lens, but I could imagine a replacement. How many versions of the original nifty-fifty were made? Three if I´m correct. So, thats definitely in the books.

A refresh for the 85mm F2 would be quite welcome if Canon improves the Af motor. I own the 85mm f2 and I loved it very much until I picked up the 50mm F1.4 L VCM. Now, I rarely use the 85mm F2 because in comparison it is reaaaaaaaly slow. The optics are reasonable good-very good, but it doesn't work well with (fast) moving objects. I currently only use it for "macro" (actually fake macro at 0,5 magnification) but I´m probably going to sell it and help fund a true macro lens like the RF 100mm F2.8. I can make use of it as a portrait lens as well.

I have the 85 f2 and would dump it in a second for the 85 1.8 stm as a walk around lens!

The 55 is not a terrible idea at all.
I have both the 50 stm and the 1.2 and the stm is my walk around lens.

Canon Rumors said:

A few weeks ago it came to our attention that a new camera lens brand Vistilen was going to be launched autofocus lenses for the RF mount for both APS-C and full-frame sensors. Like most of the world, I had never heard of the brand, but it was somewhat interesting. Who is Vistilen? It looks […]

See full article...

Click to expand...

These lenses have been available in Vietnam for over a year (probably in other asian markets too). There are reviews on YouTube.

zapper said:

But no commercial lens is a simple lens. In a complex lens, the size of the rear and intermediate elements can scale with sensor size, as these elements determine the image circle, not the front elements that set the entrance pupil.

Click to expand...

It is the exit pupil that determines the image circle. The important points that were in in my reply are: that the image circles from the longer telephotos are so large that an APS-C or smaller sensor lenses cannot be made significantly smaller than those for full frame - indeed the lens often has to be baffled to stop the light outside the sensor from bouncing onto the sensor; for wide angle lenses the smaller the sensor the easier it is to make complex lenses to enlarge the circle to cover the sensor - it is cheaper and easier to make a light wide angle lens for crop, however, this is offset to various degrees by needing a wider angle lens to give the same field of view.

On the other hand, at the trade-off of increased noise and increased problems with diffraction, a crop camera with a shorter length telephoto lens can give you the same reach as full frame. As I very frequently crop my FF images to less than APS-C size, the noise problems are the same for both and I am very happy to use APS-C cameras, and have an R7 along with my R5ii.

justaCanonuser said:

Thank you, I'd only buy a CLA'd copy from a professional seller, like I always do with more expensive used gear. But I am quite happy with my Canon 7 series rangefinders, you get good copies for nearly nothing compared to Leicas. Plus, if I want a more modern look, I prefer my New Mamiya 6 medium format system anyway, and this camera has a big, very bright, very good VF that no 35mm camera really can match.

Edit: Canon's 7 rangefinders have also the advantage of a steel shutter. Even wrinkled ones because of not so sensitive use work with no problems. And the shutter noise has something addicting at least to me: it isn't disturbingly loud and sharp, it sounds more like the closing door of a luxury car.

Click to expand...

Thanks! And a very nice image to boot.

zapper said:

I think the value of equivalence is to understand the range of capabilities of a given set of equipment, and the relative compromises one makes.

My first FF DSLR was the 5Dii, and I spent a lot of money on a f2.8 trinity. I quickly discovered that unless photography was my one and only objective for the day, I hated carrying it. I much preferred to carry the APS-C DSLRs that I had before and after the 5Dii for everything other than totally dedicated photography. But what's the compromise? Well, a f2.8 lens on an APS-C body gives you about the range of capabilities as shooting no faster than f4.5 on the FF body. You give up that first f-stop and a third for a kit that's easier to carry. That's the type of tradeoff that equivalence helps to clarify.

I've since had a FF mirrorless system with f4 lenses, and don't hate it. That's about my happy place for size vs capability.

In the case of the lens that's the topic of this thread, you give up another stop of light. If you can imagine shooting no faster than f6.3 on FF, it will be about the same as that.

Click to expand...

Only new comers might be tempted if sold as kit with R7Ii. This is not going to affect Sigma and Tamron sales as they are aimed at a different market segment. Cannon once again slow zooms for APSC cameras. Why?

phree_ed said:

How I would have liked a replacement to the 15-85 for my R7 but sorry Canon - too late. I got tired of waiting and just three days ago picked up a Sigma 17-40 f1.8.

Yeah I know it's only 40mm at the long end but I've got it and I won't be stuffing around selling it and purchasing another lens.

But never say never I guess

Click to expand...

I bought it as well. I took it to Japan with R7. I only took this combo and a very good combo. I am going back next month with the same combo. You will enjoy using this fast zoom morning to night. No swapping

Del Paso said:

Should you buy an M6, don't forget to check the shutter , using an UWA. There could be some surprises...One lower seal could be worn.
As to the M3, whatever came afterwards represented a decrease in quality!

Click to expand...

Thank you, I'd only buy a CLA'd copy from a professional seller, like I always do with more expensive used gear. But I am quite happy with my Canon 7 series rangefinders, you get good copies for nearly nothing compared to Leicas. Plus, if I want a more modern look, I prefer my New Mamiya 6 medium format system anyway, and this camera has a big, very bright, very good VF that no 35mm camera really can match.

Edit: Canon's 7 rangefinders have also the advantage of a steel shutter. Even wrinkled ones because of not so sensitive use work with no problems. And the shutter noise has something addicting at least to me: it isn't disturbingly loud and sharp, it sounds more like the closing door of a luxury car.

It would have been better if Canon had chosen a constant f3.5 aperture lens, from a commercial perspective it sounds more appealing than f4, even though the difference is only 1/3 of a stop

AlanF said:

You have mentioned the EF 400/4.5 a couple of times. I got intrigued a few months ago when one was on sale from WEX. It was priced too high at about £1500 or so. At 25+ years old and focus by wire with no recourse to repair, I passed it by. At £500, I might have bought one for fun. I would guess that at the sacrifice of 1.3 stops, the RF 100-500mm is clearly sharper, and I would further guess that the RF 200-800mm is far sharper at 700mm.

Click to expand...

You mean the EF 500mm f/4.5 L USM . It is an old lens now, and if its AF drive fails, the lens is dead. In fact, my copy still works, after more than 30 years now. Currently I have not enough time but if I could get a broken copy with a still mechanically good mount, I may use it to replace the quite worn-off mount of my copy, also the hood of my copy isn't in a good shape anymore (but one could also use a soft hood).

What I like about this lens is that it fits very good in my hands (medium size, male), it is 3 kg only (like Sigma's later 500mm f/4.5 HSM non-VR lens, my wife has one), very rugged, and delivers very good image quality for its age. At f = 4.5 it gets a little bit soft in the edges, but that's not really disturbing as it is sharp enough in the center for very good results, and stopping down to f = 5.0 improves IQ in the corners already very substantially.

One downside is that the 1st gen. USM drive is a bit slow so if an object is moving fast towards the photographer, it cannot follow it. But even speedy birds like puffins are no problem if they fly in a more parallel direction, and overall this AF drive is fast enough for most typical settings when you are birding.

The other downside is the lack of IS since one has to get used to the more nervous image in the viewfinder. For me that was not problem because I used Canon's EF 400mm f/5.6 for some years before I got the 500mm lens, so I already had my learning curve behind me. For stills images, I never missed IS much, because with a camera attached, you have already close to 4 kg in your hands. So you have a good, passive "inertia" IS that allows you to use quite slow shutter speeds with good results, I managed to get sharp images down to about 1/200 s with no problems. Another plus for me is that you don't have to switch any IS mode between "standard" 3D IS and 2D IS for panning when you shoot BIF, what is required with more modern 500mm and 600mm primes.

If videography is more important for you, that picture changes, and the lack of IS turns out to be a real problem, because even on a solid tripod with a good head, in a bit more windy conditions the lens starts to vibrate, in particular if you have the long hood on it. So I often put my arms on the lens to dampen it. But for video, you already have the great RF 200-800mm available, and video requires slow shutter speeds anyway if you want to have a natural look with no "edgy" movements.

Another nice feature I discovered was that this vintage lens worked very well with Canon's 1.4x TC III attached on it, so this was often my standard combo giving me 700mm @ f/6.3. The result of many years is, that I now ordered a new 1.4x TC III because I noticed that the mount on the lens side of my old copy has also some play after many years use with the 4.5/500mm, and I do not want to destroy the mount of my new EF 600mm f/4 III.

Here is an example for BIF with a speedy bird I shot with that lens and my old 7D2 - it was no in-focus hit by accident, I have a lot of such sharp images (mostly with my 5D3, only 6 fps but an in-focus hit rate of 60-80 % with that lens):

Absolutely loved this lens!!! I bought it with the EOS R (besides the 24-105mm basically my first chosen L lens) and it was a top notch combo for several years. I´m glad Canon has a worthy successor with the RF 100-500mm for which I traded my 100-400mm for. While the RF has the edge on weight, reach, better AF with higher f-numbers, the EF version just felt better (metal construction) and the usage of extenders throughout the entire zoom range.

I was very glad that I was able to sell my copy to a young man who - in his words - saved up for several years to purchase this lens. He paired it with the 90d for birding. I can still remember how excited he was. So much, I even gave him a rebate although we had already agreed on the price. I told him to get some kind of accessory for this lens one of the very few sales that stuck with me, probably only happens with special lenses

justaCanonuser said:

In fact, Nikon made some better lenses in the 1950s, but in Western countries nobody knew that until the famous photographer David Douglas Duncan started to use a 2/85mm Nikkor lens (and later other Nikkor lenses) on his Leicas. Pro colleagues were impressed, and that made Nikon well-known quickly. In Wetzlar, they were the first time really under pressure by the Japanese optical industry to improve some of their lenses. Here's the story:

NIKKOR - The Thousand and One Nights No.36 | NIKKOR - The Thousand and One Nights | Nikon Consumer

Btw Norbert Rosing, a German wildlife photographer famous e.g. for his polar bear images he shot for National Geographic, used a Leica R system with big glass (and slide film, of course), here are some of his famous images:

Norbert Rosing Archives - National Gallery of Fine Art

Born in northern Germany in 1953, Norbert Rosing is a passionate nature and wildlife photographer with special dedication to the Arctic, North American landscapes, and the national parks of Germany. In 1980, Rosing published his first photograph in a German photo magazine. Since then he has...

ngfineart.com

I got a Novoflex M39-RF adapter and have a lot of fun using it on my R5II with some of my beloved Canon M39 lenses from late 1950s and 1960s, in particular Canon's wonderful and rare 85mm f/1.8 lens.

The only M Leicas I personally would be interested in are the M4-6 film cameras. M3 is too much hyped and too expensive, and from that time I prefer my Canon 7 s"z", despite Canon's rangefinder viewfinders aren't a complete match with Leica's very complex VF, but they were parallax controlled, too, and good enough to get reliable in-focus images even with very fast glass in most settings.

Click to expand...

Should you buy an M6, don't forget to check the shutter , using an UWA. There could be some surprises...One lower seal could be worn.
As to the M3, whatever came afterwards represented a decrease in quality!

justaCanonuser said:

4.5 kg was always to heavy for me, because I prefer to shoot birds hand-held. I found out, that a 3 kg lens for me personally sets the limit for shooting BIF in useable time frames before I have to put the lens down, in particular because I often pair it with a 1.4x TC III. That's why I used an old EF 500mm f/4.5 L USM for many years, before I upgraded to an EF 600mm f/4.0 III past year, which has about the same weight but is less front heavy, a gorgeous fast lens for hand-held shooting. I bought that lens used from MPB.com, btw. I buy the big glass always used, also my EF 500/4.5 many years ago. Back then, this lens already looked quite battered but was optically and technically in perfect condition (I could test it), so I got it for a decent price. It then served me through literally many 100.000s, I guess far more than a Million, shots, w/o failing (crashes, very dusty environments, combined sand & salt water spray storms on shores etc.). Canon's rugged quality turned out to be much better than Nikon's in our experience. My wife uses Nikon, and and we had so many failures with that gear, DSLR mirror stuck, several AF drives broken, failed buttons on a rainy trip that this can't be just bad luck - my wife caresses her gear much more than me; only Nikon's D500 seems to be up to Canon's quality, it never failed.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately here in Oz we don't ever see for sale any 2nd hand EF 600mm f/4 mkIII or RF 600mm so the only choice is either buy new or look for an EF 600mm f/4 mkII.

I see there's rumours circulating not just about the 300-600mm, but also that the RF 400 f/2.8 and / or RF 600mm f/4 may be updated in time for the World Cup. Would prefer a zoom if I'm honest as it gives more options in the field, but can also understand why the big primes would be updated as they're both essentially the older EF versions with built in adaptor.

I suppose will have to wait until late May, early June to see if anything eventuates prior to the World Cup.

Del Paso said:

I often bought new Leica gear in the -distant- past. They were expensive, but still not in an excessive way. And quality, apart from the R4, was top. Few Japanese lenses could compete.

Click to expand...

In fact, Nikon made some better lenses in the 1950s, but in Western countries nobody knew that until the famous photographer David Douglas Duncan started to use a 2/85mm Nikkor lens (and later other Nikkor lenses) on his Leicas. Pro colleagues were impressed, and that made Nikon well-known quickly. In Wetzlar, they were the first time really under pressure by the Japanese optical industry to improve some of their lenses. Here's the story:

Btw Norbert Rosing, a German wildlife photographer famous e.g. for his polar bear images he shot for National Geographic, used a Leica R system with big glass (and slide film, of course), here are some of his famous images:

Del Paso said:

Edit: As I wrote in another post, I am more than happy that I can now use even the Leica M UWA lenses without issues on the R5 II. "Italian flag": Gone!

Click to expand...

I got a Novoflex M39-RF adapter and have a lot of fun using it on my R5II with some of my beloved Canon M39 lenses from late 1950s and 1960s, in particular Canon's wonderful and rare 85mm f/1.8 lens.

Del Paso said:

Sorry, but for the price of one single M11, I can get two R5 II + an RF 50mm f/1,4...
I still like the M, but not what it is now meant to represent.

Click to expand...

The only M Leicas I personally would be interested in are the M4-6 film cameras. M3 is too much hyped and too expensive, and from that time I prefer my Canon 7 s"z", despite Canon's rangefinder viewfinders aren't a complete match with Leica's very complex VF, but they were parallax controlled, too, and good enough to get reliable in-focus images even with very fast glass in most settings.

neuroanatomist said:

It's a useful concept to understand, if only to avoid sounding foolish when making comparative statements about different cameras. I've seen many people buy into the idea that there is a free lunch, and that a smaller sensor delivers a smaller, cheaper system with no tradeoffs. For some reason, people stop that line of thought at APS-C (or m4/3 on other forums), but no one seems to carry it forward and believe that an ILC with a P&S-sized sensor would be even better than their APS-C camera body, if their logic was reasonable.

Click to expand...

100%

neuroanatomist said:

The MILC market is trending up overall, but I'm not sure that fully applies to the APS-C segment. By the numbers, that segment is shrinking pretty substantially. From around 90% in the heyday of DSLRs, last year APS-C MILCs were 63% of the market. So Canon may prefer to avoid making 'too good' a range of lenses and bodies with APS-C sensors, to further drive sales of FF MILCs.

Click to expand...

Interesting. I hadn't looked into crop market at all -- once I went full frame I never looked back. As much as I liked the reach of my crop cameras I was never ever satisfied with the noise or the hassle of cleaning it up before sharing anything remotely serious on a family or friends outing at the end of the day around the hotel room or camp site. So, while I miss my reach — I've simply compensated by getting or borrowing or renting longer lenses.

But, that stated, I acknowledge that the crop format let my family buy into the digital game when we were poor graduate students. For interchangeable cameras I wonder if it's the same game? Or is it really just smart phones and then straight to FF. A quick search shows the RP still available for only $1,099 CAD from Henry's. My kiddo was lucky enough to skip the line by inheriting my name brand retired gear.

neuroanatomist said:

My first DSLR was a Rebel T1i/500D, that I replaced with a 7D. I subsequently added a 5DII, and used both side by side until the 1D X delivered both FF and speed, and since then my only APS-C cameras have been M-series for the portability.

Click to expand...

Memories.

neuroanatomist said:

The lesson I remembered from shooting film was glass >> body.

Click to expand...

100%. Although another lesson I learned mid-way.

Aldherrian said:

This supposed RF-s 15-70 F4 is a lens I would have gladly bought to upgrade from the EF-s 18-135 and update the EF-s 15-85.

Both are variable apertures of 3.5 - 5.6 so a constant aperture at 4 is nice.
I don't find realistic to expect such a wide range of focal length to offer F2.8 unless it's a L lens and totally not the same package of size and price (and ultimately audience)

The lack of such a lens made me upgrade to FF format but I'm glad some stuff is finally happening to the APSC side

Click to expand...

I think from a standard consumer perspective I'd agree, but if we take the R7 it's pro turf in appropriate contexts. I think in that case bright glass design makes lots of sense, in which case a sealed edition of the 17-55 (or now 15-70) at 2.8 or better would be great just for the normality of the effective perspective range provided that would be much better than simply attaching a copy of the 24-70 or 14-35.

AlanF said:

You are 100% wrong. A speed booster reduces the size of the image circle, as stated by @Bob Howland . If it increased the size, it would spread the light over a larger area and be a speed reducer. A speed booster works by reducing the focal length of a lens.

Click to expand...

Building on this response from AlanF, it might be handy if you ready the Metabones white paper on speed boosters. It's quite informative:

The Speed Booster – a New Type of Optical Attachement

You might even notice Metabones states:

[...] since the Speed Booster essentially compresses the image formed by the objective lens into a smaller size it helps to undo the cropping effect.

Click to expand...

i.e., in effect the lens is wider relative to the physical actuality from the perspective of the sensor.

mimbu said:

I recommend you stop with the corporate bootlicking before the boot polish gives you cancer.

Click to expand...

You have reached a new low. Cancer kills millions of people each year.

nadroj said:

You bet! Happy to hear you're experiencing the same. I'm over the moon with Sigma lenses on Canon bodies and I am excited for the R7 Mark II because of it. Should be a stunner with the 17-40mm f/1.8 which I adore.

Click to expand...

I'm a bit jealous. I was so excited when the 18-50 f2.8 was announced that I pre-ordered it. I rarely do that, preferring to see what the critics say first. But I had confidence in Sigma, having had several of their DSLR APS-C lenses in the past. But ... I had no inkling that a 17-40mm f1.8 was in the pipeline! I'll spring for one eventually I'm sure. But the R7ii is the first priority.

neuroanatomist said:

I'm not sure that many people really care about equivalence. I certainly don't take a picture with my R1 then try to set up a completely equivalent shot with my M6II.

It's a useful concept to understand, if only to avoid sounding foolish when making comparative statements about different cameras. I've seen many people buy into the idea that there is a free lunch, and that a smaller sensor delivers a smaller, cheaper system with no tradeoffs. For some reason, people stop that line of thought at APS-C (or m4/3 on other forums), but no one seems to carry it forward and believe that an ILC with a P&S-sized sensor would be even better than their APS-C camera body, if their logic was reasonable.

On the flip side, I've seen some FF users treat equivalence as a bludgeon to claim FF cameras are superior, when of course there are good reasons for both formats (and for medium format and P&S cameras, too). As I mentioned above, a system that's smaller, lighter and/or cheaper has meaningful advantages. When packing a carryon for an overnight business trip, it's far easier to pack the M6II, M11-22 and M18-150 in the suitcase than the packing lenses with the corresponding coverage along with the R8. But the shallow DoF you can get with a fast lens, or the wider FoV with a lens like the RF 10-20/4, can't be replicated on a Canon APS-C MILC (at least, I don't think there is a rectilinear 6mm lens for RF-S).

Click to expand...

I think the value of equivalence is to understand the range of capabilities of a given set of equipment, and the relative compromises one makes.

My first FF DSLR was the 5Dii, and I spent a lot of money on a f2.8 trinity. I quickly discovered that unless photography was my one and only objective for the day, I hated carrying it. I much preferred to carry the APS-C DSLRs that I had before and after the 5Dii for everything other than totally dedicated photography. But what's the compromise? Well, a f2.8 lens on an APS-C body gives you about the range of capabilities as shooting no faster than f4.5 on the FF body. You give up that first f-stop and a third for a kit that's easier to carry. That's the type of tradeoff that equivalence helps to clarify.

I've since had a FF mirrorless system with f4 lenses, and don't hate it. That's about my happy place for size vs capability.

In the case of the lens that's the topic of this thread, you give up another stop of light. If you can imagine shooting no faster than f6.3 on FF, it will be about the same as that.