Bon appétit. Nicely done, Nemorino.

Great crested grebe with fish

R5m2 +RF200-800 + 1.4TC
@ 1/4000s, f/13, iso 20 000, 1120mm

Canon Rumors said:

The first thing that jumps out is that all of these are older lenses.

See full article...

Click to expand...

There are two other things that jump out imo:
- they are all heavy lenses
- at least the 50/85 primes and 28-70mm suffer (heavily) from focus breathing.

Of course, this could all be due to old lens designs. But maybe Canon hit a wall and realized that lighter or improved focus breathing is not possible or possibly ineffective with ring type usm. For me, this would (it´s all very hypothetical) make sense. Canon realized that these lenses have flaws which need a major redesign. Therefore, they might skip ring type USM and go ahead to develop the lenses differently.

This needs time and would explain the otherwise inexplicable long and silly absence of the 35mm F1.2. I always suggested, Canon skipped the lens because it fits the exact same built type as the three lenses above and the competition made better in the meantime. Also, I've always speculated that the 35mm F1.2 will feature new tech, be lighter and won't suffer from focus breathing.

Tom R5R7 said:

Still have my EF 50/1.2L though. For all its quirks, it is a nice producer of bokeh. The 85 was even smoother. But old school, both of them.

Click to expand...

I had the EF 85/1.2L II, and really liked it. I now have the RF 85/1.2L DS, which is an amazing portrait lens.

neuroanatomist said:

Many of the newer lens designs have two separate focusing groups, typically driven by either two separate Nano USM or one each of VCM and Nano USM. The RF 14/1.4L has two VCM motors, though I think that's the only lens so far with that configuration.

Having one big, heavy focusing group necessitated Ring USM to move it fast enough. Even then, sometimes that wasn't very fast – like with the EF 85/1.2L (I and II), where the 'focusing group' was all of the glass in the lens except the thin rear element. One reason the RF 85/1.2L focuses much faster is that the focusing group is smaller, only 7 of the 13 elements and not including the two largest ones in front, but it still needs Ring USM to move it.

Click to expand...

Yeah, the 85/1.2L in EF form, as well as the 50/1.2 (and the old 50/1.0), the focusing motor moved the entire length group. And that lens group is quite HEAVY! Still have my EF 50/1.2L though. For all its quirks, it is a nice producer of bokeh. The 85 was even smoother. But old school, both of them.

EricN said:

The psychiatrist could call the police. Forcing someone to spend 13 years getting electroshock therapy before escaping by making a ladder from plastic spoons and cross dressing in a nurse's uniform. This is not from my personal experience. Honest. I would not lie.

Click to expand...

I have my doubts, very strong doubts!

About time we bring high-end lenses to higher standards

DocInfoSci said:

I still have EF II extenders and they still work great once you learn their needs.

No judgement on anything that works for someone. If a turnip lens gets it done…

Click to expand...

Well I meant more, I haven't any lenses they fit (apart from the MP-E, and using extenders with that is super niche).

DocInfoSci said:

Do you have an extension tube? They often allow the extender protrusion to fit into a space pre-lens and the space is just air. That kills infinite focus but if you replicate filling the frame in each case you can make a good estimate.

Click to expand...

Not any more. I broke one, if I had any others they were stolen. I used to be very experimental but now I stick to what's practical and what works

Click said:

Very nice series. I especially like the last photo.

Click to expand...

The 1 ft minus tide let me get all the way down the beach to peek into Seal Cove. First time I was able to do that as usually the ocean is in the way. Here are a couple more shots of that view. The square one is a vertical pano from back a bit. It is a very cool scene

scyrene said:

On the 2x extenders - I have both the RF and EF (somewhere!) but I can't mount the same lens in front of them so how would I compare, genuine question? Am I being dim?

Click to expand...

Do you have an extension tube? They often allow the extender protrusion to fit into a space pre-lens and the space is just air. That kills infinite focus but if you replicate filling the frame in each case you can make a good estimate.

Note that DLO for a lens + TC combo accounts for related factors (clarity, contrast, sharpness, distortion, and so forth) so if you don’t have profiles for any one of the setups then I suggest inspecting the images with DLO and corrections turned off for all setups compared. Just as a reminder for people making other comparisons.

scyrene said:

PS if anyone is wondering why I kept my EF extenders, 1. they still work with the MP-E, and 2. they had no trade-in value

Click to expand...

I still have EF II extenders and they still work great once you learn their needs.

No judgement on anything that works for someone. If a turnip lens gets it done…

neuroanatomist said:

Maybe just not adventurous enough... You need to get an EF-RF mount adapter (preferably a 3rd party one) and modify it by widening the opening so the protrusion of an RF extender can fit. Then you can use an EF lens and either mount an RF extender behind the adapter or an EF extender in front of it. Or both. I used a Commlite adapter because it's the one that starts with the widest opening.

View attachment 228600

That's how I tested RF vs. EF and various combinations of them with the EF 600/4 II. In this case, since I'm planning to test two copies of the RF 2x, I'll just use the 100-300/2.8.

Click to expand...

Haha — I remember the digital picture article on that. Loved the fun-ho attitude!

scyrene said:

I remember that, pretty tempting But alas I now only have long RF lenses, the longest I can go with EF is 180mm (and as a third party lens it doesn't take native extenders anyhow).

Click to expand...

PS if anyone is wondering why I kept my EF extenders, 1. they still work with the MP-E, and 2. they had no trade-in value

neuroanatomist said:

Maybe just not adventurous enough... You need to get an EF-RF mount adapter (preferably a 3rd party one) and modify it by widening the opening so the protrusion of an RF extender can fit. Then you can use an EF lens and either mount an RF extender behind the adapter or an EF extender in front of it. Or both. I used a Commlite adapter because it's the one that starts with the widest opening.

View attachment 228600

That's how I tested RF vs. EF and various combinations of them with the EF 600/4 II. In this case, since I'm planning to just test the two copies of the RF 2x, I'll just use the 100-300/2.8.

Click to expand...

I remember that, pretty tempting But alas I now only have long RF lenses, the longest I can go with EF is 180mm (and as a third party lens it doesn't take native extenders anyhow).

Many of the newer lens designs have two separate focusing groups, typically driven by either two separate Nano USM or one each of VCM and Nano USM. The RF 14/1.4L has two VCM motors, though I think that's the only lens so far with that configuration.

Having one big, heavy focusing group necessitated Ring USM to move it fast enough. Even then, sometimes that wasn't very fast – like with the EF 85/1.2L (I and II), where the 'focusing group' was all of the glass in the lens except the thin rear element. One reason the RF 85/1.2L focuses much faster is that the focusing group is smaller, only 7 of the 13 elements and not including the two largest ones in front, but it still needs Ring USM to move it.

Maximilian said:

I would welcome that. Knowing the EF-S 24mm, I would prefer it a little wider, eg. the 20mm you mentioned.

Click to expand...

I felt the same with my EF-S 24mm f/2.8. I don't think we will wait for too long, as far as I remember Cannon Rumors wrote last year about two (at the time of writing) upcoming RF-S power zoom (PZ) lenses (wide angle and normal) and one fast RF-S prime. One zoom lens is out and that is 14-30mm f/4-6.3, the other are probably coming this year.

scyrene said:

On the 2x extenders - I have both the RF and EF (somewhere!) but I can't mount the same lens in front of them so how would I compare, genuine question? Am I being dim?

Click to expand...

Maybe just not adventurous enough... You need to get an EF-RF mount adapter (preferably a 3rd party one) and modify it by widening the opening so the protrusion of an RF extender can fit. Then you can use an EF lens and either mount an RF extender behind the adapter or an EF extender in front of it. Or both. I used a Commlite adapter because it's the one that starts with the widest opening.



That's how I tested RF vs. EF and various combinations of them with the EF 600/4 II. In this case, since I'm planning to test two copies of the RF 2x, I'll just use the 100-300/2.8.

If rumored 2.5 millisecond readout speed for R7 II is true, then one of my problems with the R7 I is fixed

On the 2x extenders - I have both the RF and EF (somewhere!) but I can't mount the same lens in front of them so how would I compare, genuine question? Am I being dim?

Bob Howland said:

And that's your "core" kit. Do you also carry a lightweight tripod?

Click to expand...

Yes, I bring a Really Right Stuff TQC-14 with a BH-30 LR ballhead.

On and given outing during a trip, I typically take 2-3 of the lenses. The tripod is mainly for blue hour shooting.

(Thanks for the typo catch on the 100-400.)

mimbu said:

If you have infinite money then sure, buy all Canon/Sony/Nikon glass. Or buy all Leica glass. Whatever floats your boat. But the reality is that when viewing a processed & printed photograph from a normal viewing distance, 99.999% of the population (if not 100%) won't be able to tell if you spent $2.5k on Canon glass or $250 on Viltrox glass. If you pixel peep, you can tell. So what's more important, the print or the pixel peeping?

Click to expand...

This all circles back to the fact that the #1 most important part of photography is the skills of the person behind the equipment, not the brand on the front of it. The best rated lens or body matters not to the end product if the user doesn't know how to exploit the equipment to the max and have a good photographic eye, and in the case of sports, wildlife, and other action, have fast reflexes.

Personally, I don't care what brand other photographers use because that is either a personal decision or mandated, such as in the case with AP staff photographers who are supplied Sony by contract, or NASA astronauts who are given Nikon. Look at any pro sports photographer section and lots of Canon. All the photos made with these bodies and lenses that a released to the public are fantastic.

When I'm looking at someone else's photos I don't ask what equipment they used. What I'm curious about is focal length, exposure info, natural lighting condition, and technique if it's of a difficult subject.

Del Paso said:

Some people just need to vent their frustration or aggressiveness. A psychiatrist might help...

Click to expand...

The psychiatrist could call the police. Forcing someone to spend 13 years getting electroshock therapy before escaping by making a ladder from plastic spoons and cross dressing in a nurse's uniform. This is not from my personal experience. Honest. I would not lie.

AlanF said:

We once had a troll called dilbert. He loved dishing it out, and the more he was fed, the more he spewed out, never abashed.

Click to expand...

A blast from the past.

AlanF said:

We once had a troll called dilbert. He loved dishing it out, and the more he was fed, the more he spewed out, never abashed.

Click to expand...

Some people just need to vent their frustration or aggressiveness. A psychiatrist might help...

We once had a troll called dilbert. He loved dishing it out, and the more he was fed, the more he spewed out, never abashed.