Keithf2.8is said:

A 20-70/2.8 would be nice for capturing trail running events without having to bring the RF 15-35/2.8. We're only talking 5mm here, but those 5mm can make or break an image in the forest. In fact, Canon might as well make a 15-70/2.8 and use the resources of manufacturing the 15-35/2.8 for something else. And if a 15-70/2.8 cost $4000-4500 it would still be cheaper than the 15-35 and 24-70 currently available.

Click to expand...

But it would be certainly be hard to develop such a lens in the expected optical quality. Extreme zoom ranges come at a cost, not only in $$$!

This is an abandoned truck I photographed over a decade ago. Since then, it’s been further vandalized and the hood has been removed. What I find fascinating is how it’s literally becoming part of the earth.
I decided to edit it again with today's tools, as it was a very rough shot before.

Thanks for this. I own a C50 and have no regrets about buying it. I find the image noticeably better than the R5c--perhaps mostly because of Clog2. I actually really love the images I've been getting. I find its low-light performance to be significantly better than the R5c, even though various tests online (like CineD) show little to no difference. Shooting inlow light at ISO's below base really helps with shadows.

But the lack of EVF was almost a deal breaker, but I own a Kinefinity EVF so I made the plunge.

The screen is simply ridiculous and nearly useless and I would be unable to use this camera without my external EVF.

The AF is amazing in many ways, and has changed how I film birds, but also frustrating for one main reason: if shooting in continuous AF there is no temporary override that allows MF without the AF frames jumping all over the place in situations where there are multiple possible targets (like shooting birds). maybe a firmware upgrade can fix.

The other huge frustration: Canon seems to have made it difficult for 3rd party monitor companies to have proper wired control of the camera (similarly to the challenges with monitor-based control of the R5c.) Portkeys is developing wi-fi based control, but that is inferior to wired and it can't use the C50's full range of AF features like AF tracking. So it's a hampered camera for now in that regard.

With a real EVF/screen and proper communication protocols with external monitors this camera would be almost perfect for my needs.

Most interesting rumour indeed. Is it too much to hope for a 20-105 F4L? 24-105 F4L is a convenient lens to carry for a one-lens travel/hiking kit, but for visiting cathedrals and museums, it is often not quite wide enough. I find that I have to decide between it and the 14-35 F4 if I only want to have one lens to reduce carrying load. A 20-105 F4L would meet my needs nicely, assuming IQ is equal to or better than the 24-105 F4L.

Beautiful pictures, ISv.

ISv and shire guy,

I really like your series. Well done, guys.

AJ said:

I was gonna suggest an angle grinder

Click to expand...

But a very big one with a 230mm disk, filter mounts are extremely hard. And they can be dangerous if they are only wounded!

Well, something 'wider' than 24-70/2.8 sounds interesting, but I'm even more interested in the image quality. And the price might also play a role.

liv_img said:

Lots of wideangles lenses these last years.

Canon was always been the leading brand in the telephoto lens range, but in the RF system, it seems to have forgotten about long focal lengths: 400mm f/2.8 and 600mm f/4 recycled from older EF lenses, 800mm f/5.6 and 1200mm f/8 recycled from those same 400mm and 600mm lenses, cheap telephotos like 600mm f/11 and 800mm f/11... There's no sign of the 500mm f/4, the most widely used lens in wildlife photography. Or 400/4DO or 200-400+1.4x/4. Nor are there any of the 150mm or 180-600mm F5.6 zooms that all other brands like Nikon, Sony, Sigma, etc., offer.

Love the brand I used all my life, but feeling a bit dissapointed about that.

Click to expand...

There was recently some rumour into that direction: An affordable zoom lens up to 600mm and affordable (<< 10.000 $) and 'not-too-slow' 400, 600 and 800 mm lenses like those of the competitors. And yes, Canon is a little bit slow with filling all the gaps with RF lenses (as 3rd party are mostly banned).

candyman said:

Well, I shoot cRAW as well.
The CRAW file is 34 mb. The DNG uncompressed is 163 mb. The compressed DNG file is 31 mb !
Albeit, with one test. Don't have the time now to do more tests.

Click to expand...

I have processed 11100 CRAW files from my EOS R7 with PureRaw 6 and DeepPRIME XD3, exporting as compressed DNG! Results:

• CRAW: 197.72GB (17.8MB/file on average)
• Compressed DNG output: 190.63GB (17.2MB/file on average)
• For comparison, out-of-camera JPEG cumulative size: 108.16GB (AdobeRGB, non-HDR; 9.7MB/file on average)

So my numbers are very similar to your findings, in that the compressed DNG output is slightly smaller than the CRAW file on average. My settings were "luminance" 40%, "force details" 5%. Just for reference, processing took around 21 hours.

Hope this helps!

Eastern Whipbird



Masked Lapwing



Pied Oystercatcher



Far Eastern Curlew (large crop @ 800mm)

I was lucky today to see +/_ where this female Ascalapha odorata (aka Black witch moth) landed and even more lucky to find it!

After the rains... Clitocybe (Lepista) tarda and Inonotus sp. (probably I. hispidus).

Yesterday afternoon the rain finally stopped (the Parakeet photo) . No rain today but it starts tomorrow night again.
Some Pacific Golden Plovers are in breeding plumage already! And Common myna: nothing else to shoot!

antonn said:

R1+RF600/4, Strix aluco. Extreme low light, handheld shooting, ISO 20k, 1/15
View attachment 228436 View attachment 228437 View attachment 228438

Click to expand...

Great shots, especially under that circumstances!

I was gonna suggest an angle grinder

josephandrews222 said:

"The EOS M6 Mark II (oh man, remember those days?) had a genius implementation of an optional EVF attachment."

I do remember those days, especially when traveling with two of them.

Click to expand...

Same here. Actually I shot with M6ii just yesterday, for old times sake. What a great camera it is!

luxdominatus said:

The RF28-70 F2.0L is so damn heavy on my R5 that I can't use it for too long. I can make great use of it in the studio, but the kit RF24-105 F4.0L ends up back ony camera the most.

Click to expand...

neuroanatomist said:

For me, it’s a balance thing plus having room for my whole hand on the grip. When using the 28-70/2, or a similarly heavy lens like the 85/1.2L DS, on my R8 (on the rare occasions when I do so), my hand hurts after a short time. But I can shoot comfortably for hours with those lenses on my R1 (the E1 hand strap helps, too).

Click to expand...

To be honest, I have no issues with the weight of the 28-70mm f/2, but there was a learning curve on how to properly hold the lens, when I bought it, that took a few assignments to get the hang of.
Since then, I have nothing to complain.
Before that, my left index finger was completely crushed, even sore on the day after an assignment.

I do not own battery grips, I usually use the lens on the R6, with my Peak Design Slide Lite, crossbody to the left. I'm mostly a skinny guy.

The most important adjustment I had to make to my left hand was dropping a little on the readiness to operate the zoom ring.
I was used to holding the 24-70 by the zoom ring, with my thumb and index fingers, to be able to turn it at any time, and that was a mistake with the 28-70.
For the 28-70, I do not hold the lens with two fingers on the zoom ring, just my left thumb, and I rarely zoom while looking through the viewfinder. I hold the weight almost entirely with my left hand, well open, and my index finger rests on the control ring, sometimes even touches the lens hood, which should give you an idea on how spread my fingers are. The lens really sits on the palm of my left hand, it's not suspended by the fingers, and I can remove my right hand from the camera at any time, without losing my composition. I'm grabbing the entire lens.

To me, that was the trick. Since then, I'm good using it for hours. On the day after a wedding, it's the legs that are tired, not my upper body.

liv_img said:

Lots of wideangles lenses these last years.

Canon was always been the leading brand in the telephoto lens range, but in the RF system, it seems to have forgotten about long focal lengths: 400mm f/2.8 and 600mm f/4 recycled from older EF lenses, 800mm f/5.6 and 1200mm f/8 recycled from those same 400mm and 600mm lenses, cheap telephotos like 600mm f/11 and 800mm f/11... There's no sign of the 500mm f/4, the most widely used lens in wildlife photography. Or 400/4DO or 200-400+1.4x/4. Nor are there any of the 150mm or 180-600mm F5.6 zooms that all other brands like Nikon, Sony, Sigma, etc., offer.

Love the brand I used all my life, but feeling a bit dissapointed about that.

Click to expand...

Is your contention they should reproduce the EF lineup? Because already the RF long focal length options are better than the old days. The 500 was a compromise, the 400 DO and 200-400 were a niche within a niche.

neuroanatomist said:

The 500/4 II was widely used because it was light enough for most people to handhold, while the 600/4 II was not (though personally I have one, and can handhold it just fine). The 600/4 III and RF 600/4 are actually slightly lighter than the 500/4 II. I doubt we’ll ever see an RF 500/4.

Click to expand...

The reason it was my go-to long lens for about a decade was even simpler: it was substantially cheaper than the 600 f/4, which I craved but couldn't stretch to. That latter lens was always the gold standard, from what I could tell.

luxdominatus said:

The RF28-70 F2.0L is so damn heavy on my R5 that I can't use it for too long. I can make great use of it in the studio, but the kit RF24-105 F4.0L ends up back ony camera the most.

Click to expand...

For me, it’s a balance thing plus having room for my whole hand on the grip. When using the 28-70/2, or a similarly heavy lens like the 85/1.2L DS, on my R8 (on the rare occasions when I do so), my hand hurts after a short time. But I can shoot comfortably for hours with those lenses on my R1 (the E1 hand strap helps, too).

Tirmite said:

I got the 28-70mm 2.0 when I first jumped into Canon mirrorless. It's a fantastic lens for indoor events or just as a "normal" lens to leave on a body and maybe have in the car as an always-with-me camera. But the weight of that monster gets old fast. A 20-70mm or 20-85mm would be a great lens and exotic but not too heavy.
I really, really, really wish Canon would copy Sony and make a 50-150mm f2.0. I've rented one just to evaluate it and it's an incredible lens that covers such a useful range. Excellent for indoor events. Also one that you can just leave on the camera all the time. I've decided to get one and if Canon ever makes their own, maybe I'll switch, but it's just too handy to do without in the meantime.
That lens along with a 15-35mm and a 300mm 2.8 are all anyone needs for events, concerts, sports, weddings, and portraits. It's not much heavier than a 70-200mm 2.8. The f2.0 speed and shallow DOF are worth the cost. Come on, Canon! Do your own version and add some one-upmanship like making yours compatible with teleconverters. I bet they probably won't because then you could have a 50-150mm 2.0 and a 70-280mm 2.8 with the 1.4x converter and that would cannibalize sales of Canon's $10,000 100-300mm. So that's why I'll be buying the Sony for now and bringing an older a7r body out of retirement.

Click to expand...

The RF28-70 F2.0L is so damn heavy on my R5 that I can't use it for too long. I can make great use of it in the studio, but the kit RF24-105 F4.0L ends up back ony camera the most.

antonn said:

R1 + RF600/4, Accipiter nisus builds a nest)
View attachment 228434

View attachment 228435

Click to expand...

Very nice shots! To me, it's one of the few times that out of focus branches enhance the images.

Del Paso said:

No need to buy one, a fine metal file is all you need. But, since I own a bandsaw...

Click to expand...

AJ and Del Paso,

Thank for the bandsaw substitute suggestions.
A metal file sounds about my speed.

becceric said:

Those images made my eyes open WIDE!
But I'm not buying a bandsaw.

Click to expand...

No need to buy one, a fine metal file is all you need. But, since I own a bandsaw...