ISv said:

What is the time difference between #1 and #2? I just wonder how it separated the fish from the algae.

Click to expand...

Three seconds!

ISv said:

The difference in the plumage between the firs two and the last two photos is the age probably:

Click to expand...

Or different populations: one staying and one migrating, here are more cormorants in the winter.

ISv said:

Edited: where in Germany did you take that shots #1 and 2?

Click to expand...

I have taken all three pictures in the west of Germany close to the Netherlands.
Only a few 100 meters and two hours between both animals .

justaCanonuser said:

Ah, thank you, I always thought it had manual focusing. Maybe this was because during my studies many years ago I used plenty of optical microscopes - so the focusing screw (which is in fact a distances screw) of such microscopes is replaced by the body movement of the photographer shift of the tripod. I guess the fast fps cameras of today bring new life into handheld shooting with such a lens.

Click to expand...

To be fair, you can use the MP-E as if it had manual focus, if you change the magnification without movivg the camera the focal plane will move, and eg focus stacks can be obtained that way (but it has its drawbacks around the edges of the frame).

Michael Clark said:

The MP-E 65mm has no focus system whatsoever. For any given magnification, there is only a single focus distance: MFD is THE focus distance. Period.

Subject is brought into focus by moving the entire camera and lens towards or away from the subject, or by changing the magnification.

Click to expand...

Ah, thank you, I always thought it had manual focusing. Maybe this was because during my studies many years ago I used plenty of optical microscopes - so the focusing screw (which is in fact a distances screw) of such microscopes is replaced by the body movement of the photographer shift of the tripod. I guess the fast fps cameras of today bring new life into handheld shooting with such a lens.

adrian_bacon said:

I wouldn't be surprised in the least if the resolution is 7680x5120, which puts it right at 39MP, and the perfect resolution to provide a 2x oversample of UHD video for the video shooters, effectively doing for 4K what canon did for HD with the C100 having a native 4K sensor downsampled to straight Full HD resolution. If that's that case, then we should expect to see this sensor pop up in multiple video related products, as Canon does like to reuse tech.

Click to expand...

R7V and R7-2?

Great news! I feel not only on my backside illuminated that my R7 will be upgraded soon

Canon Rumors said:

I generally shoot cRAW, so we'll see if it still has an effect.

Click to expand...

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.

I upgraded to PureRaw 6 (from 5). I really see the advantage of introduces High-Fidelity Compression to create DNG files up to four times smaller.
Use of less storage. I did not check yet if this improved the processing speed as well.

fox40phil said:

It better has a silent mechanical shutter this time!.... 7D-like shutter sound of the R7 is annoying!

Click to expand...

Never had the first 7D, but my 7DII is better damped than the R7. Both when it comes to sound and vibration. Which is a bit scary considering the 7DII has a mirror flapping up and down all the time :-/
Yes, we need a better damped shutter - or an electronic shutter so good the mechanical shutter doesn't matter.

Michael Clark said:

In addition to the AF advantages of MILCs, I'd suspect IBIS may make a significant contribution as well. The only real shortcoming I see with the EF 135mm f/2 L is that it does not have IS. IBIS can make a real difference with a non-stabilized telephoto lens in many shooting scenarios.

Too many folks seem to think there is absolutely no way when they are using a non-stabilized 135mm f/2 lens wide open at 1/30 handheld that the resulting images will show the effects of any camera motion when pixel peeping, so if there is any blur in the subject it's because the lens has to be "soft" since their technique is unquestionably perfect!

When using the EF 135mm f/2 L handheld I've had images that weren't as sharp as they could have been due to my poor shooting technique. It's not because the lens is 'soft'. It's because I wasn't holding the camera stable enough. If the camera is moving enough to show motion blur during the exposure that's on me, not the lens. Most of what I shoot with the 135/2 is pre-focused and held using back button AF until the decisive moment presents itself, so AF speed is rarely a factor in the way I use it most of the time. YMMV.

Click to expand...

The Canon's MILC IBIS is notorious for adding edge wobbles and image distortions on wide angle lenses. It's is a sysyem that is often cites as more effective at wider focal lengths than longer. Optical Image Stabilisation is the preferred technology for longer focal lengths and yes it's a pity Canon never released a mkII of the EF 135L with just this one improvement.

I personally do not shoot my 135L any slower than 1/150th second unless the camera is on a tripod. I dont know the IBIS stabliisation figures for longer focal lengths but I don't think it's that good or particularly trustworthy (unless shot in a short burst). Now saying this, i'm sure there will be load of people posting comments and images shot in really slow shutter speed conditions!

Display settings when using the RF-S7.8mm F4 STM DUAL have been improved. Additionally, two new aspect ratio options, [3:2 (aspect ratio)] and [1:1 (aspect ratio)], have been added.

Click to expand...

This is a big improvement. Once they added the 3:2 and 1:1 crops to EOS VR Utility, it was really annoying to be having to use the 16:9 or 8:9 guides on the camera to just guess at what your shot's framing was going to be.

It better has a silent mechanical shutter this time!.... 7D-like shutter sound of the R7 is annoying!

candyman said:

Maybe nitpicking a bit, but B&W is Bowers & Wilkins = great speakers. B+W are the Schneider-Kreuznach filters

Click to expand...

Thanks! You're right!

Mountain Dave said:

I will chime in on wall charts.

I'm the first to admit, I'm cursed with an eye for detail. I shoot a lot of small birds and wildflowers which make a sharp lens very important. However, more importantly, the AF has to be very precise, not just on wall charts, but in the field. Otherwise, sharpness is worthless.

Having said this, I'm not a pixel peeper. When I download new images, I want one or more to stop me in my tracks for its subjective qualities. A soft lens can ruin an image, but sharpness alone doesn't make a compelling image.

I called the 135 2L my "magic" lens for the compelling images it has a knack for. It is an old lens and the AF is not as good as newer ones, so my keep rate wasn't particularly good. Mounted on a R5 or newer, the AF greatly improved, more so than the rest of my EF lenses (about 15.) When the R5 and R6 were launched, Canon's Rudy specifically mentioned they would give new life to the 135. I guess Canon saw what I did.

I read or watched every review of the Sigma 135 1.8 I could find. A lot of reviewers give glowing reviews to everything. They are worthless. The honest reviews found some AF issues, though it was better than some other Sigma offerings. They also found some funky colors. Overall, the images I saw didn't move me.

Some people have referred to 135 2L lovers as a cult. Count me in. When I think about my most memorable images, or my large prints on the wall, it is overrepresented. When I ordered the RF 1.8 version, I was worried it wouldn't have the same magic. I'm happy to report it is also overrepresented on my wall.

In short, if a lens is soft on a wall chart, I'm out. However, most modern lenses do very well on these tests. Wall charts won't tell me how AF performs in the field or anything subjective at all.

Click to expand...

I very much agree, I've been a fan of the EF 135mm f2.0 for well over 15 years. my copy is beaten to heck and well used. It still puts in great shots and I've not seen optical sharpness issues with it on my R6ii or R5.
However....it's a very old lens and it's AF sometimes can be less consistent that newer designs. Its remarkable that Canon go so much right with this lens, when relatively newer lenses (like the ef 50mm f1.2L) had far worse AF in low light.
One of the more memorable uses of this lens was back from my "available light" Wedding photographer days and I had a wedding contract to cover a ceremony in Canterbury Cathedal in the crypt, lit only by candle light. No flashes allowed and the ambience was amazing. This was the youngest of two sisters and her older sister was married at the same venue two years previously and the other photographer used f2.8 zooms (with flashes on a crop camera) and couldn't get a usable shot because it was too dark and was using Nikon at the time. These days, it would be so much easier in these shooting conditions because the MIRC have better high iso abilities (both Canon and Nikon) and great AF as low as -2ev or better in many cameras. Back then, on Canon full frame, only the single central AF point (in one shot only) or the central 5 points (depending on which model) were usable at these light levels.

To be fair, this lens struggled in this context more than my ef 35mm f1.4 and ef 85mm f1.2, but that's the reality of combined darker aperture and the need to shoot at a higher shutter speed due tot he focal length. A 35mm f1.4 fains a whole stop AND it can get sharp images at 1/30th sec, where as the EF 135mm f2.0 looses a stop and needs to shoot at 1/125-150th to reduce hand wobble or camera shake. Tricks like bracing against a wall / pillar / column help a lot too.
Generally with weddings 1/50th is the slowest you can shoot because the subjects need to be clear, defined and without movement (unless it's clearly a creative shot).
The RF cameras (as we all know) have a far superior Af system than their older DSLR cousins. Continuous, reliable and accurrate tracking across the whole frame is something that we are all enjoying and it's easy to forget the AF deficiencies of the past and that this lens was originally designed to operate with. This lens was designed for film cameras way before digital was anything more that prototype and early concepts, it was launched as an enirely new design around 1997 with a new optical formula, improved over it's famous FD counterpart. Other memorable lenses launched the same year: EF 180mm f3.5 Macro and EF 400mm f2.8 LIS II....it was quite a year for Canon lens design, maybe one of Canon's finest. Here we are 20 years later seeing that some of these lenses from this particular generation are still very relevent. This was a year that legends were born.

One of the sweet things that I love about the ef 135L is it's tiny size and weight. It's truely a discrete telephoto lens. Often it frames similar to a 70-200 @ 200mm with tight close headshots. This is due to the zoom having more focal length breathing at MFD and that many 70-200's are actually quite short of the magic 200mm declaration on the barrel. I've had an older Sigma 70-200 EX DG that was really a 85-185mm (excluding focal breathing).
often, I found at weddings I could take a step closer and I'd get the same frame filling I would from my EF 70-200mm LIS II, but with a far les obtrusive lens that was lighter and way less heavier. Sure, no IS and the AF isn't quite so good, but I usually prefered the images from the 135/f2L.

The new RF is a stuning lens in every way except in the areas that made it's predessor so versatile. The new lens is one of Canon's sharpest primes...seriously it blows away every prime under 200mm by some margin....but you can't fit teleconverters to it. Duhhh.
It's gained 1/3 of a stop of brightness, a truely superior Af system and a new IS system. It's now got more focal breathing than before but can focus closer...all this adds up to a lens that is almost as heavy and the similar bag size as the RF70-200mm f2.8 LIS, which says a lot about the zoom lens!
For me, if I was still shooting weddings in the UK and I needed a newer set of lenses (warrenty and service life are a big factor here), I woudn't choose the EF 135L, I would definatly get the RF 70-200/2.8 and pick up a mint used EF 135L for my bag and review it's use over the season.
But it leaves the RF 135L out in the cold as a worthy sucessor. It superior in every lab tests except it's use case scenario that the EF 135L excelled in. To be honest, this could all change if Canon drops a RF 135mm f2 VCM lens on us, that basically takes the old EF lens and gives us a new lens that gives us an improvement of the features that made this then great. But if you already have a RF 70-200/2.8 then you probably won't ever see much use for the current RF135L or potentially a newer, smaller, lighter VCM option. This is because Canon did a packaging miracle with the RF70-200/2.8 LIS and made it so small and light. This is hard for me to write because the RF135mm f1.8 LIS is a superlative lens, one of Canon's finest...it's just lost 80% of it's photographer's appeal compared to the EF version.

My conclusion, there are a few EF primes that adapt well and are still relevent in the Canon Mirrorless ecosystem. The EF 85mm f1.4 LIS , the EF 35mm f1.4 II L and the EF 135mm f2.0 L are the three that stand out and still stand out as exceptional. Sure we could add the EF 200mm f2.0 LIS to this list, but that's one of the great whites and that's a slightly different topic. While the new RF 85mm 1.4 L VCM and RF 35mm f1.4 L VCM lenses are excellent, if you already have the previous EF version's there's not much to gain from the side grade cost. The Rf 135L is a vast improvement in every metric that is unfortunatly not very helpful to the photographer and their shooting needs and this leaves the EF version a curious better option for many.

Del Paso said:

...... high quality filters, like B&W, .............

Click to expand...

Maybe nitpicking a bit, but B&W is Bowers & Wilkins = great speakers. B+W are the Schneider-Kreuznach filters

Del Paso said:

It works! I can confirm, but I'd recommend covering every possible lens part with blue tape, and to use the finest possible bandsaw metal blade.

Click to expand...

In order to prevent filters from getting stuck, I often use a dry lubricant, like teflon, applied with a very fine paintbrush. And buy high quality filters, like B&W, whose threads are well machined and deburred.

Michael Clark said:

There's always the Adam Savage bandsaw method.

View attachment 228406

View attachment 228407

Click to expand...

It works! I can confirm, but I'd recommend covering every possible lens part with blue tape, and to use the finest possible bandsaw metal blade.

Ron888 said:

It's biggest flaw is lack of sharpness for white birds when used towards the long end.I have no idea why only white birds!Everything else looks fine

Click to expand...

Oversaturation, even in only one of the three color channels, can often make details look "blurry".

Here's an example from a totally different shooting scenario.

Essentially what a straight out of camera JPEG using Auto White Balance would have looked like with this image taken using an EOS 5D Mark III, EF 50mm f/1.4 at ISO5000, f/2.2, 1/50.


The red (magenta) and blue LEDs illuminating the stage were on and at or near full intensity, while the green ones were much dimmer or off (I remember them being totally off, but this was over a decade ago and my memory might not be is not as good as it once was). There was also a chandelier with dim incandescent bulbs overhead, dim incandescent lighting in the audience areas, and both incandescent and sodium vapor lights spilling in from the street through the large window on one side of the band. These other ambient light sources provided what little green there was in the scene.

100% crop of the singer's face.

Here's the histogram for the entire image with the curser centered on the bright area under his right (camera left) eye. It's pretty obvious the red channel was oversaturated and the blue channel to a lesser degree.


The same image after extensive white balance adjustment and HSL treatment.


It's not great, but it looks a lot better than where we started. Just getting the blown red/magenta under control goes a long way to showing that poor focus wasn't the main problem with the image. The loss of details caused by oversaturation in the red channel made everything look blurrier that it actually was!

100% crop and histogram of another "SOOC" image exposed 1 1/3 stops darker under the exact same light with ISO5000, f/2.8, 1/80.



Although the histogram still shows full saturation in the red and blue channels on the same spot of the face, it's pretty clear they are not nearly as blown out (especially red) as the other shot and there was enough headroom in the raw file to recover the detail. We were even able to push exposure up 1 stop while holding back the highlights when developing the raw file to gain back the lost brightness. Notice the more even skin tones in the face and hands of the leader.


Still a little blurry, mostly due to the prehistoric NR available circa 2013 or so, but not nearly as blurry as what appeared to be the case when the red channel was blown completely out.

AJ said:

I've had filters stuck many a times. Here is my technique of dealing with it. Find another cylindrical object with a similar diameter (another lens, a beer can, etc). Tape this object to the filter with electrical tape or duct tape. Then, twist. You can apply much more torque this way compared to trying to twist the filter on its own.

Click to expand...

There's always the Adam Savage bandsaw method.

Using a very complicated yet powerful algorithm called "average", I can state that an intermediate lens between the RF 85mm F/1.2 and the RF 135mm F/1.8 could be a RF 110mm F/1.6.
Or F/1.5.

This apparently weird focal length and aperture would make sense IMO, considering that
1) it could weight less than a 100mm F/1.4, and that
2) Canon RF lenses ofter offer something different from old EF lenses and from other brands' ones.

But any "RF 100-105mm F/1.something" would be interesting.

Mountain Dave said:

I will chime in on wall charts.

I'm the first to admit, I'm cursed with an eye for detail. I shoot a lot of small birds and wildflowers which make a sharp lens very important. However, more importantly, the AF has to be very precise, not just on wall charts, but in the field. Otherwise, sharpness is worthless.

Having said this, I'm not a pixel peeper. When I download new images, I want one or more to stop me in my tracks for its subjective qualities. A soft lens can ruin an image, but sharpness alone doesn't make a compelling image.

I called the 135 2L my "magic" lens for the compelling images it has a knack for. It is an old lens and the AF is not as good as newer ones, so my keep rate wasn't particularly good. Mounted on a R5 or newer, the AF greatly improved, more so than the rest of my EF lenses (about 15.) When the R5 and R6 were launched, Canon's Rudy specifically mentioned they would give new life to the 135. I guess Canon saw what I did.

I read or watched every review of the Sigma 135 1.8 I could find. A lot of reviewers give glowing reviews to everything. They are worthless. The honest reviews found some AF issues, though it was better than some other Sigma offerings. They also found some funky colors. Overall, the images I saw didn't move me.

Some people have referred to 135 2L lovers as a cult. Count me in. When I think about my most memorable images, or my large prints on the wall, it is overrepresented. When I ordered the RF 1.8 version, I was worried it wouldn't have the same magic. I'm happy to report it is also overrepresented on my wall.

In short, if a lens is soft on a wall chart, I'm out. However, most modern lenses do very well on these tests. Wall charts won't tell me how AF performs in the field or anything subjective at all.

Click to expand...

In addition to the AF advantages of MILCs, I'd suspect IBIS may make a significant contribution as well. The only real shortcoming I see with the EF 135mm f/2 L is that it does not have IS. IBIS can make a real difference with a non-stabilized telephoto lens in many shooting scenarios.

Too many folks seem to think there is absolutely no way when they are using a non-stabilized 135mm f/2 lens wide open at 1/30 handheld that the resulting images will show the effects of any camera motion when pixel peeping, so if there is any blur in the subject it's because the lens has to be "soft" since their technique is unquestionably perfect!

When using the EF 135mm f/2 L handheld I've had images that weren't as sharp as they could have been due to my poor shooting technique. It's not because the lens is 'soft'. It's because I wasn't holding the camera stable enough. If the camera is moving enough to show motion blur during the exposure that's on me, not the lens. Most of what I shoot with the 135/2 is pre-focused and held using back button AF until the decisive moment presents itself, so AF speed is rarely a factor in the way I use it most of the time. YMMV.

I wouldn't be surprised in the least if the resolution is 7680x5120, which puts it right at 39MP, and the perfect resolution to provide a 2x oversample of UHD video for the video shooters, effectively doing for 4K what canon did for HD with the C100 having a native 4K sensor downsampled to straight Full HD resolution. If that's that case, then we should expect to see this sensor pop up in multiple video related products, as Canon does like to reuse tech.

I'm happy to see the Sigma 150-600 C gets some love.I bought one last year after briefly trying a Tamron 150-600(mk1).The Sigma does everything well and doesnt have the funky colors of the Tamron.
It's biggest flaw is lack of sharpness for white birds when used towards the long end.I have no idea why only white birds!Everything else looks fine

I will chime in on wall charts.

I'm the first to admit, I'm cursed with an eye for detail. I shoot a lot of small birds and wildflowers which make a sharp lens very important. However, more importantly, the AF has to be very precise, not just on wall charts, but in the field. Otherwise, sharpness is worthless.

Having said this, I'm not a pixel peeper. When I download new images, I want one or more to stop me in my tracks for its subjective qualities. A soft lens can ruin an image, but sharpness alone doesn't make a compelling image.

I called the 135 2L my "magic" lens for the compelling images it has a knack for. It is an old lens and the AF is not as good as newer ones, so my keep rate wasn't particularly good. Mounted on a R5 or newer, the AF greatly improved, more so than the rest of my EF lenses (about 15.) When the R5 and R6 were launched, Canon's Rudy specifically mentioned they would give new life to the 135. I guess Canon saw what I did.

I read or watched every review of the Sigma 135 1.8 I could find. A lot of reviewers give glowing reviews to everything. They are worthless. The honest reviews found some AF issues, though it was better than some other Sigma offerings. They also found some funky colors. Overall, the images I saw didn't move me.

Some people have referred to 135 2L lovers as a cult. Count me in. When I think about my most memorable images, or my large prints on the wall, it is overrepresented. When I ordered the RF 1.8 version, I was worried it wouldn't have the same magic. I'm happy to report it is also overrepresented on my wall.

In short, if a lens is soft on a wall chart, I'm out. However, most modern lenses do very well on these tests. Wall charts won't tell me how AF performs in the field or anything subjective at all.

Nemorino said:

Great Cormorant with snack
R5m2 + RF 200-800 + 1.4TC
View attachment 228391
View attachment 228390

And a portrait of (probably) the subspecies Phalacrocorax carbo sinensis
R5m2 + RF 200-800
original width
View attachment 228392

and a QHD crop (3840x2160)
View attachment 228393

Click to expand...

What is the time difference between #1 and #2? I just wonder how it separated the fish from the algae.
Because the photos are from Germany - yes, for me 99.99% it's P.c. sinensis. The difference in the plumage between the firs two and the last two photos is the age probably: they get breeding plumage (in the right season!) at minimum 2 years old. Another, low probability, is that the bird in the first two photos still is not converting from non-breeding to breeding plumage. The last shot is great with the detail and the background!
Edited: where in Germany did you take that shots #1 and 2?!!

It's the Spring

Nemorino said:

More likely a kind of...
...an orgy.

Click to expand...

It's the Spring...