Latest activity

AlanF · 2026-06-26T13:28:36-0400

We have been on a bird holiday in Norfolk, and guess what we saw: Norfolk Hawkers by the score in the Holkham National Nature Trust. The first shot is by wife with the R7+ RF 100-400mm, at about 2.1m distance. The second is by me, using her camera at 1.2m distance, and the third from my RF 200-800mm on the R5ii.

3R3A0135-DxO_Norfolk_Hawker_Dragonfly_2.2m.jpg

3R3A0142-DxO_Norfolk_Hawker_Dragonfly_vg_eyes_1.3m crop_portrait.jpg

Norfolk_Hawker_Dragonfly_face+body_up.jpg

Del Paso · 2026-06-26T12:57:18-0400

The 20-50 must be indeed very good, getting so much "highly qualified" internet user criticism...
"Horrible distorsion, ridiculous mount (?), excessive price (20-70 under $1000 would be acceptable), why no f/2,8, no 85mm, never such a crappy lens with software correction"(forgetting Sony does that too) and so on.
Buy it, use it, you'll love it, like most (all?) serious reviewers.
Edit: I forgot all the sooo wonderful Tamrons, Sigmas, Sonies showing Canon the way...

neuroanatomist · 2026-06-26T12:11:29-0400

ctk said:
They're "selling" because they're bundled in. Crop shooters historically don't buy much beyond whatever their cameras come with.

Obviously. But your claim was that there is no business case for such lenses. If you meant no business case for OEM crop lenses other than those bundled in kits, you could have said that.

There is clearly a business case for APS-C kit lenses. As for the additional lenses, there aren't many anyway. For RF-S, the 18-45, 55-210 and 18-150 are kit lenses. The 10-18, 14-30 PZ and 3.9mm dual fisheye are the others, and the last of those is a very niche lens. That's consistent with the overall idea that there's not much of a business case for a wide selection of OEM crop lenses, but I highly doubt that Canon would design and sell a lens for which there was no business case.

They've been doing this whole camera- and lens-selling thing for a while, and they're pretty good at it.

ctk · 2026-06-26T11:52:14-0400

neuroanatomist said:
I’d bet good money that in terms of unit sales, Canon’s best-selling lenses are the lenses included in 1- or 2-lens kits with entry-level APS-C cameras. Seems like a very good business case for OEM crop lenses.

They're "selling" because they're bundled in. Crop shooters historically don't buy much beyond whatever their cameras come with.

candyman · 2026-06-26T11:49:56-0400

Del Paso said:
I got mine from the Dutch company KameraExpress in Germany. Till now, they have been very reliable. Unlike all French retailers, they accepted an order before the lens became officially available. So, I got it a soon as they had it from Canon.
2 years International Canon warranty, + additional 3 years from KameraExpress (no idea how good this non-Canon warranty is).

I have a pre-order with Kamera-Express (Netherlands)
But unfortunately, I'm not at the front of the queue. :-(

Ozarker · 2026-06-26T11:05:03-0400

neuroanatomist said:
So Canon shouldn’t make a 70-200mm f/2 because with a 1.4x TC that’s a 98-280mm f/2.8 and that’s ’a threat’ to the 100-300mm f/2.8.

Shhhhh. Don’t tell Canon that a 400mm f/2.8 with a 1.4x TC is a 560mm f/4. If they ever figure that out, they’ll understand the threat that poses to a 600mm f/4, and they’ll never make such a lens.

Or maybe that ‘threat’ is why, while Canon made 7 versions of a 400/2.8, they’ve only made 5 versions of a 600/4.

Forum dwellers thinking they understand the camera market better than manufacturers is a never-ending source of amusement.

Wait for the AI revolution to make everyone even more "expert". People will be drawn in deeper.

Del Paso · 2026-06-26T11:01:46-0400

candyman said:
That's what I expected when I ordered the new rear lens caps. I ordered one extra for my pre-ordered 20-50.
I am still waiting for the lens. Today they informed me that they can't say when it will arrive. Maybe I cancel it and order it from Germany. It says 4-10 business days.

I got mine from the Dutch company KameraExpress in Germany. Till now, they have been very reliable. Unlike all French retailers, they accepted an order before the lens became officially available. So, I got it a soon as they had it from Canon.
2 years International Canon warranty, + additional 3 years from KameraExpress (no idea how good this non-Canon warranty is).

Ozarker · 2026-06-26T10:59:24-0400

neuroanatomist said:
It's a seriously fun lens!

https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/threads/rf-10-20mm-f-4l-is-stm.42960/page-2

Thank you, Neuro.

Ozarker · 2026-06-26T10:58:33-0400

Ozarker said:
Hey buddy. Thanks for this great post. I think this one goes on my list. I don't know how I missed this. I was linked here today by Neuro.

I'm losing it, I think. I DID see this post last year. Dang.

Ozarker · 2026-06-26T10:57:02-0400

Hey buddy. Thanks for this great post. I think this one goes on my list. I don't know how I missed this. I was linked here today by Neuro.

chrysoberyl · 2026-06-26T10:06:36-0400

I certainly do not critcize Canon for its strategy, but I am very glad I have some vintage glass. The RF 85mm 1.2 is my most-used glass and after that a Zeiss 18mm 2.8. I would love to buy an Otus 16mm or 18mm.

I have two Chinese RF offerings but stopped using them after a bit. There is just something off about the images and the lack of EXIF data is most irritating.

LSXPhotog · 2026-06-26T09:44:31-0400

MontereyBay said:
Canon surprised me. One can play back user LUTs in playback now. I was anticipating Canon blocking this somehow with their own built in LUT.
Canon has officially addressed user backlash by enabling View Assist in Media Playback mode. Crucially, the update allows you to apply your own custom user LUTs directly in-camera during playback, completely dispelling rumors that Canon would restrict the feature to only built-in LUTs.

1.) Adds [Ease In / Ease Out] to [Digital Zoom Speed]. When set to On, this setting smooths the transitions at the start and end of digital zoom operations.

Unfortunately, I didn't think anybody is using digital zoom in a Cinema camera. What we really needed was a way to "ease" the zoom rocker when using the physical zoom and servo on the 24-105/70-200. Right now, that servo motor comes to an abrupt stop when using the rocker around the shutter button and the top handles can only support one speed: on/off.

5.) View Assist can now be applied and adjusted during playback.

This is one of those things that made no sense at all. Canon rolled out a firmware update years ago to allow for View Assist to be applied to playback in nearly all their Cinema cameras....they release a new Cinema camera and leave it out. 6 months of filming without view assist on the built-in monitor...why, Canon?

9.) Fixes an issue that may cause certain CFexpress cards to be unable to format in the camera.

I wonder if this directly addresses the issue where you can't format a card if you have a monitor plugged in. Because I think everyone I work with has run into that problem and you have to unplug everything from the camera to format.

MontereyBay · 2026-06-26T08:12:23-0400

Canon surprised me. One can play back user LUTs in playback now. I was anticipating Canon blocking this somehow with their own built in LUT.
Canon has officially addressed user backlash by enabling View Assist in Media Playback mode. Crucially, the update allows you to apply your own custom user LUTs directly in-camera during playback, completely dispelling rumors that Canon would restrict the feature to only built-in LUTs.

Del Paso · 2026-06-26T06:52:41-0400

neuroanatomist said:
Post your images from Canon's first (non-cinema) ILC lens to feature an internal power zoom.

Canon's RF 20-50mm f/4 L IS USM PZ delivers a very useful focal range (for me, at least). Personally, I don't shoot video with ILCs, but rather with a camcorder (Canon HF G60) or the PowerShot V1, so I'm already used to having a power zoom for that use case.

When the 20-50/4L was announced, I had concerns about the implementation of a power zoom for general photography, but those concerns turned out to be mostly unfounded (which makes sense, given the L designation of the lens). Of the two modes, PZ and what I'll call EMZ (electronic manual zoom, analogous to electronic manual focus aka focus-by-wire), I expect I'll leave it on EMZ unless and until I decide to shoot video with a MILC (for which I'd get the C50, at this point).

What I mean by 'mostly' is that that the motorized zoom has a maximum speed that noticeably lags behind the speed at which I typically rotate a zoom ring. Peak zooming speed with EMZ takes about 0.5 seconds to go from 20mm to 50mm. The EMZ zoom throw is short, only about 60° rotation, and I can rotate through the range in less than 0.25 s, meaning with a rapid rotation of the zoom ring, it takes a bit of time for the zoom to catch up. It's something I'll get used to, but I'm not a fan of that lag.

I was hoping for the lens to be a bit smaller, it's only a bit shorter than the RF 24-105/4L. Though the 20-50/4L does not extend with zooming, that's of less concern to me than the amount of space a lens takes up in a camera bag. One big difference is the weight – at only 425 g, the 20-50/4 is easy to carry along and much lighter than the 24-105/4L that weighs in at 700 g. The 20-50/4 is also significantly skinnier – holding one in each hand, the PZ lens feels smaller and much lighter.

Choice is a good thing, but I now have several choices for a zoom lens covering the standard range for local or travel use.

View attachment 230316

Horses for courses, though...my primary use case for the 20-50/4 will be as an urban travel walkaround lens on the R8, where starting at 20mm instead of 24mm means less swapping to a UWA zoom, and the light weight will be an advantage.

An extra 4mm on the wide end may not sound like much, but it makes a difference especially when there is limited room to back up. For the same reason, Canon has both a 24/1.4L VCM and a 20/1.4L VCM.

View attachment 230317

As expected, the lens requires distortion correction at the wide end (RAW images from DxO below). The image fills the frame between 23-24mm, with some residual optical vignetting that is mostly gone by 28mm. Wide open vignetting is not bad, though that's expected for an f/4 lens.

View attachment 230318

Overall, I'm very happy with the size and functionality of the RF 20-50/4L, and looking forward to putting it to use on upcoming trips. It's a good size on the R8.

View attachment 230319

Since there are a few forum members now with this lens, I'm looking forward to seeing examples from others. Bring 'em on!

I would post if I could, but I am already packing for my Iceland vacation and won't be using the 20-50, but the much wider 15-35!

My test pictures are too ugly to post, since I was mostly checking corner sharpness (which was very satisfactory).

candyman · 2026-06-26T06:24:04-0400

Del Paso said:
GRRRRR!!!!!
I just saw that Big Bad Ugly Canon sent mine with the old version rear lens cap!

That's what I expected when I ordered the new rear lens caps. I ordered one extra for my pre-ordered 20-50.
I am still waiting for the lens. Today they informed me that they can't say when it will arrive. Maybe I cancel it and order it from Germany. It says 4-10 business days.

@zajicekpavel · 2026-06-26T04:55:20-0400

Del Paso · 2026-06-26T04:41:12-0400

GRRRRR!!!!!
I just saw that Big Bad Ugly Canon sent mine with the old version rear lens cap!

neuroanatomist · 2026-06-25T22:46:40-0400

Post your images from Canon's first full frame, non-cinema ILC lens to feature an internal power zoom.

Canon's RF 20-50mm f/4 L IS USM PZ delivers a very useful focal range (for me, at least). Personally, I don't shoot video with ILCs, but rather with a camcorder (Canon HF G60) or the PowerShot V1, so I'm already used to having a power zoom for that use case.

When the 20-50/4L was announced, I had concerns about the implementation of a power zoom for general photography, but those concerns turned out to be mostly unfounded (which makes sense, given the L designation of the lens). Of the two modes, PZ and what I'll call EMZ (electronic manual zoom, analogous to electronic manual focus aka focus-by-wire), I expect I'll leave it on EMZ unless and until I decide to shoot video with a MILC (for which I'd get the C50, at this point).

What I mean by 'mostly' is that that the motorized zoom has a maximum speed that noticeably lags behind the speed at which I typically rotate a zoom ring. Peak zooming speed with EMZ takes about 0.5 seconds to go from 20mm to 50mm. The EMZ zoom throw is short, only about 60° rotation, and I can rotate through the range in less than 0.25 s, meaning with a rapid rotation of the zoom ring, it takes a bit of time for the zoom to catch up. It's something I'll get used to, but I'm not a fan of that lag.

I was hoping for the lens to be a bit smaller, it's only a bit shorter than the RF 24-105/4L. Though the 20-50/4L does not extend with zooming, that's of less concern to me than the amount of space a lens takes up in a camera bag. One big difference is the weight – at only 425 g, the 20-50/4 is easy to carry along and much lighter than the 24-105/4L that weighs in at 700 g. The 20-50/4 is also significantly skinnier – holding one in each hand, the PZ lens feels smaller and much lighter.

Choice is a good thing, but I now have several choices for a zoom lens covering the standard range for local or travel use.

Horses for courses, though...my primary use case for the 20-50/4 will be as an urban travel walkaround lens on the R8, where starting at 20mm instead of 24mm means less swapping to a UWA zoom, and the light weight will be an advantage.

An extra 4mm on the wide end may not sound like much, but it makes a difference especially when there is limited room to back up. For the same reason, Canon has both a 24/1.4L VCM and a 20/1.4L VCM.

As expected, the lens requires distortion correction at the wide end (RAW images from DxO below). The image fills the frame between 23-24mm, with some residual optical vignetting that is mostly gone by 28mm. Wide open vignetting is not bad, though that's expected for an f/4 lens.

Overall, I'm very happy with the size and functionality of the RF 20-50/4L, and looking forward to putting it to use on upcoming trips. It's a good size on the R8.

Since there are a few forum members now with this lens, I'm looking forward to seeing examples from others. Bring 'em on!

Tom R5R7 · 2026-06-25T17:03:34-0400

MISTAKENIDENTITY said:
While it may look one way to customers, the reality is customers are surprisingly ignorant. (No offense intended to any readers) Most who shop at Target and buy an R100 don't really understand the difference between APS-C and Full Frame. So, it actually ends up being a point of frustration for many when they put an APS-C lens on a Full Frame camera and whoopsie... the Full Frame camera isn't working as expected!! That's why they didn't allow that on EF mount. It's never been about manipulating the market but rather protecting people's feelings. While customers naturally want specific lenses for APS-C, the actual unavoidable truth is that those lenses kind of suck because they can never cover a Full Frame sensor! There's no upgrade path path for an APS-C only lens. On the other hand, if customers buy an APS-C camera and a full frame lens... there is a clear upgrade path! That is the kindness of Canon at work.

The reason that the lens mount for EF-S (APS-C) lenses was not compatible with full frame bodies is that the EF-S lenses, especially the wider angle lenses, had a rearward lens element(s) that protruded into the mirror box. The mirror design in the crop camera bodies, starting with (I think) the 20D or maybe 30D had a design where the mirror would move rearward away from the rear of the lens as it flipped up to take the photograph. Full frame bodies had no such mechanism - a full frame mirror was larger and did not have an articulating mechanism to back the mirror out of the way of the extended protrusion of the EF-S lens.

I had a 10D - the EF-S lenses did not exist yet with that design but I had pretty good results with the Canon 17-40 f/4L lens. It gave great performance and also fit on full frame bodies.

The purpose of the rearward protruding lens elements was to improve optical performance at the very short (ultra-wide on full frame) focal lengths that were needed on the crop sensor. The original crop bodies were basically full frame designed bodies and lenses with cropped sensors, so the distance from the lens to the sensor was fairly long. Shortening that distance, even a few mm, helped optical performance without resorting to very expensive designs. And at the time, the full frame 17-40 was considerably more expensive than most any crop designed lenses that followed.

neuroanatomist · 2026-06-25T16:22:25-0400

Ouch. That level of damage might be worth an insurance claim.

neuroanatomist · 2026-06-25T16:17:25-0400

ctk said:
Theres just no business case for 1st party crop glass.

I’d bet good money that in terms of unit sales, Canon’s best-selling lenses are the lenses included in 1- or 2-lens kits with entry-level APS-C cameras. Seems like a very good business case for OEM crop lenses.

ctk · 2026-06-25T16:06:30-0400

ScreensMatter said:
I don't care about digital sensor sizes. But I am a true believer of 6x6 negative film . What else has there really been to recommend on the low end for a new mirrorless camera? Around the same price class there has been the A6100, Z50, R50, E-M10 Mark IV and G-97. None of them are bad cameras, most of them use old tech. All the systems have enough lenses to get you by. I don't really know what to say about the current stat of all the systems except RF, they seem a bit on life support.

IMO theres not much point buying a brand new camera in any segment unless you want the latest and greatest or need serious warranty/service coverage. Someone looking for a lower priced camera should absolutely go used.

Plus even with the arbitrary "new mirrorless" limitation there's nothing any of those cameras can't do thats within the realm of what most low budget photographers need. Used cameras are the new entry level camera.

ctk · 2026-06-25T16:00:26-0400

Tom R5R7 said:
This is really a big deal, providing it's optically sound. The lens that Canon should have made right off the bat really, but they seem to have no interest in providing reasonably high-end solutions for APS-C shooters. My friend has an R7 to replace one of her crop Nikon DSLR bodies that failed (after some 250,000 actuations), since Nikon doesn't even have anything close to the R7. I gave her my 18-150 to try, but she gave it back because it felt flimsy. She opted, instead, to get an adapter and use the EF-S 18-135 USM, which optically is pretty good and has the advantage of feeling quite sturdy. The USM is the last rendition of that focal length range, and is optically better than the first version.

Theres just no business case for 1st party crop glass. We kind of saw this in the DSLR days. 3rd party brands were able to undercut 1st party brands on price by like 2/3rds. Partially prob due to accepting much lower margins, but also sheerly by economies of scale. Much easier to design and sell a low price low margin lens for 3-4 systems instead of 1. This is the path forward for crop systems.

obl918 · 2026-06-25T15:10:23-0400

The only thing I can think of is that someone intentionally hit my lens with a laser pointer at one of the recent public events I shot. I had the camera cap-off for almost a whole ren fair, and again walking the street for Fiesta De Mayo. Plausible that someone did this while I was seated and composing shots. If this were a festering problem on the sensor I wouldn't be the only one crying over it, and I know for a fact the sensor was fine the last time I was doing night sky photos.

Latest activity

Latest activity

Filter

Forum statistics

Gallery statistics