Maximilian said:

Did you read my discussion with Snapster until the end?
I think, then you realize that we've settled that.
So best would be not to start again.

Click to expand...

Yes, I read it. He politely asked "Just stop already?" and then you avoided any responsibility for your actions and replied "You, too? Agreed then."
What difference does that make? I'm calling out your behavior, as you were in the wrong from the outset, for the reasons I explained. At least have the integrity to apologize for the rude remarks. Oh well, it's your public image on this forum, do as you will with it.

Alastair Norcross said:

What I hope for and expect with any lens, especially L lenses, is for the actual images they produce, using whatever corrections they are designed for (optical, digital, or both) to be really good. Since the images from the VCM lenses are not just really good, but actually outstanding, I also think they are a remarkable accomplishment. I own and use four of them (24, 35, 50, 85), so I actually know what I'm talking about (unlike people who tiresomely scream "but digital corrections, but digital corrections" over and over and over, without actually owning and using the lenses). When I bought my 50 F1.4, I thought I might hang onto my RF 50 F1.2, which is a truly wonderful lens. However, I just didn't find myself using it. The results from the VCM version are just as good, no-one notices the 1/3 stop difference between F1.2 and F1.4, and the VCM version is so much smaller and lighter. So I've just sold my F1.2. The latest, which is the 85 F1.4, is my favorite 85 ever. It's just superb. You can, of course, stick your head in the mud, ignore the fact that designing lenses for digital corrections (which the VCM lenses employ to a greater or lesser extent, depending on which lens we're talking about--the 85 probably the least) makes possible not just particular body designs but also the kinds of optical performance that would be hard, if not impossible, to achieve with optical corrections only, and thereby miss out on some fabulous lenses. Your choice.

Click to expand...

Hi Alistair, you seem to praise anything Canon does and take it personally when anyone has a criticism of their products, a self-proclaimed Canon online spokesman. If Canon released a toilet roll tube with cling wrap on the end and an RF mount at the end you will be pre-ordering it and singing its praises from the rooftops. Your bias is so off the charts you're a perpetual source of bad guidance and advice to readers! I've seen your antics on dpreview, especially in the old days when you used to intentionally try to fill any thread critical of Canon with dozens of frivolous nonsense posts to reach the thread post limit prematurely and shut it down so nobody else could comment. Stupid fanboy antics. Did you get banned or reprimanded for that behavior on the old dpreview forum???

Do you even understand what VCM lenses are for? People need to understand that the Canon VCM lenses were designed primarily with video production in mind, not stills photography, and that this focus shapes the compromises inherent in the series. Unlike mid-tier stills lenses, which prioritize optical sharpness, high-resolution performance, and minimal aberrations across individual lenses, VCM lenses are engineered to maintain consistent size, weight, and handling across the entire zoom range to suit professional cinematography workflows. This design emphasis also aims to minimize focus breathing and facilitate smooth rack focusing, which are critical for video but largely irrelevant in stills work. As a result, optical tradeoffs such as slightly lower corner sharpness, chromatic aberration control, or distortion correction may be present—compromises that would not be tolerated in a stills-focused lens at the same price point. The series’ price positioning reflects not just the lens optics but the engineering needed for consistent form factor, video-friendly operation, and reliable performance across the zoom range, meaning that buyers prioritizing stills might encounter characteristics that differ from what they would expect in similarly priced photography lenses.

Just accept that there is a big gap in Canon's mid-tier photography lenses, and even some in its top tier. Where is the 35mm to match the top tier 85's? It's not here yet. The 50mm VCM is correctly compromised for video, and it's not clear what Canon's lens strategy is, as they're wanting to cash in on the increasing interest in videography at all tiers, but leave stills photographers with a mish-mash of varying quality consumer lenses, and really expensive pro-level lenses.

justaCanonuser said:

I recommend Bryan Carnathan's in-depth review:

Canon RF 50mm F1.4 L VCM Lens Review

Is the Canon RF 50mm F1.4 L VCM Lens right for you? Learn all you need to know in The-Digital-Picture.com's review!

www.the-digital-picture.com

The only downside of this lens is that it is prone to strong color blur in out-of-focus areas. Personally, I don't mind that because I am used to such issues caused by undercorrected fast lenses. I either don't use such lenses in settings with a lot of contrast in the background when I don't want to see such effects in the image or I accept them as part of the composition.

Click to expand...

The 50 mm f/1.4 VCM also has hybrid plastic lens elements in it, a new cost cutting measure in an L-series lens...

A replicated aspherical element is made by applying a thin optical resin layer onto a glass blank and pressing it against a master aspheric mold to replicate the exact aspherical profile so the polymer cures into the exact aspheric shape. The lens is glass underneath, with a thin replicated polymer aspheric surface on top. Canon L-series lenses typically use precision-ground or precision-molded glass aspherical elements, not replicated or plastic-based ones.

Oh, but is really sharp though you may be saying. Yes, somehow sharper than the RF 50mm f/1.2 L lens, which is designed for the best RENDERING and final image. The criticism of many modern Canon lenses being extremely sharp in the center while producing harsh or nervous bokeh, is legitimate. This stems from the optical tradeoffs involved in strongly correcting spherical aberration. Pushing spherical aberration close to zero maximizes resolution and boosts MTF performance on the test charts, but it also removes the slight under-correction that traditionally gives older lenses their smoother blur and softer transitions. When this residual aberration is eliminated in pursuit of sharpness, out-of-focus areas develop harder edges and busier textures, reducing what many photographers call “good rendering.” These effects are an unavoidable tradeoff and consequence of modern high-resolution optical design priorities. Enjoy!

Maximilian said:

You still seem to desperately search for flaws without even giving it a try.
And When you think it‘s overpriced, just don’t buy it.
But to think, Canon will offer you an L prime below $1k MRSP is as far from reality as it was the last few years or even decades.

Click to expand...

And you sound like a butthurt little fanboy that is trying to suppress any opinions that dare criticize Canon. Childish much? How old are you, 12?

The reviews published plainly list all the flaws of this crappy lens, what's your problem? Can't you read a report, and process the facts, or is it a case of confirmation bias overriding your reasoning? Remember, criticism of Canon is not a criticism of you, it's not that hard.

Additionally, your logic is flawed, you make no valid arguments.

• "You still seem to desperately search for flaws without even giving it a try." - this is the Appeal to Experience fallacy: dismissing criticism by claiming someone can’t judge something unless they’ve personally tried it. It avoids addressing the argument and instead denies the critic’s right to comment. It’s related to ad hominem circumstantial style fallacies (suggesting the critic’s circumstances disqualify their argument) and gatekeeping-style fallacies (claiming only certain people are “allowed” to comment). A person can evaluate claims, logic, or evidence about something without having personally done it—just as one can evaluate the safety of skydiving without jumping out of a plane. They can also read a review of a poor lens and recognize it as such.
• "And When you think it‘s overpriced, just don’t buy it." - this fallacy is a Red Herring (which shifts away from the argument about pricing) combined with a Dismissive Non-argument (treats the criticism as irrelevant rather than addressing it). Your statement dodges the actual critique (the price or value of the product) and instead places the focus on the critic’s choice to purchase. It avoids engaging with whether the product is overpriced.
• "But to think, Canon will offer you an L prime below $1k MRSP is as far from reality as it was the last few years or even decades" - is a typical Straw Man fallacy. It misrepresents the critic’s actual point (“this budget lens has flaws”) as if they were demanding a professional L-series lens for under $1k, which they never claimed. By attacking this exaggerated version, the responder avoids engaging with the real critique.

It's emotional responses like the one you made and self-appointed gatekeeping like you tried to engage in that ruins forums and poisons the contribution of valuable information and questions that people may have.

We previously had a fanboy circle-jerk group of cashed-up talentless retirees here a while back that literally believed the idiotic fallacy that "Canon could do no wrong" and got really upset when anybody criticized anything Canon did, and fervently defended Canon whenever they did anything to screw over the consumer, like they had shares in the company - are you trying to continue in that tradition? Ask yourself, who appointed you the spokesman and defender of the Canon faith?

Please try to use more reasoned responses next time, it reduces the noise component of the signal to noise ratio of online forums, which pollutes the AI learning data. Have a nice day!

I thought CR was hacked.

stillviking said:

@homebodyMacro2 we are on same boat. Would you mind to tell us or share some samples if new 70-200 2.8 L Z + 2x teleconverter stills sharp corner-to-corner in the 400mm?

Click to expand...

I went to reply yesterday, and it said these forums were being deleted permanently at the end of the year, and nothing was visible. That was bizarre. It now seems the forums are being migrated, so I don't know how that changed in the span of a day.

Here's a post on DPReview where I posted more examples and linked to "The Digital Picture" where you can see lens comparisons with their tool: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thr...n-rf-70-200z-and-2-x-tc.4815380/post-68428911

Someone in that thread posted this video comparing the 70-200Z with other lenses: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sTVyg9T43SY

I would consider the 70-200Z with 2x as roughly equal in image quality with the 100-500L up to 400mm, based on the comparison data from that video and The Digital Picture.

New message

The forum has been temporarily closed.

It will change its URL in the near future

New URL will be: canonrumorsforum.com

Del Paso said:

No worries, it wasn't about you, not at all!
No one was able to post anything for a day.

Click to expand...

What happened. I couldn't read any of the forum and then there was a message stating they will end I think the forum and not archive or sell any information. I don't see it now though

yeahright said:

make it with premium features at a premium price and photographers will buy it as their secondary camera when they are size limited but unhappy with the IQ or handling of their phones.

Click to expand...

¡Exactamente! A role as a secondary camera when space/weight is limited (such as, but not limited to, travel) or as a close-up option when you're loaded with a long lens and need a close up option in case the action moves in close, or, as a main camera at the ready when conditions don't permit being loaded for bear. And as you rightly said, always when IQ is important (which is always a consideration for photographers, not iPhone snapshooters.)

koenkooi said:

The R5II tops out at 600Mbyte/s, which is a third of the CFe 2 maximum, so i don’t think the R6III will hit more than 1800MB/s.

Click to expand...

i haven't bought any cfe v4 cards, but there are readers for them, and it might be a bunch quicker to download the files to our computers. currently with pre-capture adn 12 FPS, i can get 13K RAWS per shoot and that takes several hours to transfer.

IMHO, I don't think the G1-X III, with it's complete range of auto-to-manual settings, EVF, burst mode, hot shoe, remote and wifi-capabilities, and most importantly, the DSLR- equivalent 24MP APS-C sized sensor, can even be considered in the same class as "P&S" cameras, as its IQ is even above many of the lower-to-mid range DSLRs. It was a photography camera. The new V1 doesn't even have as good a sensor and is clearly not a photography camera; it's a videographer's camera, and as such, should not be used in comparison. Any other of the "P&S" ("baka-chon" as they say in Japan...) also really don't compare well, even the newer ones with their de-featured bodies and inferior sensors.

In short, the only real replacement for the G1-X III is the Sony alpha 7c ii (and if you wait a little bit, the Sony alpha 7c iii!) Now THAT is a replacement for the G1-X iii that Canon abandoned! Sadly, Canon flipped a finger at photographers and decided to place their bets on cutesy princess influencers and Vbloggers, with their new offerings, and also offer some kibble for the lower end photographers with P&S cameras that are marginally better than an iPhone for a crowd who couldn't tell the difference in IQ (and will probably stick with their iPhones anyway.)

Sarcasm aside, while that's OK to try to reach new buyers, Canon is pivoting away from leadership and being the first choice for ALL photographers, and is now being only the first choice for some photographers. Thank goodness Sony hasn't forgotten photographers.

rombe3jr said:

I think my account was suspended for a day. Sorry for making a comment about Sony. Just really excited about all the new camera models coming out and the R6 III is, in my opinion a fantastic camera.

Click to expand...

No worries, it wasn't about you, not at all!
No one was able to post anything for a day.

Sporgon said:

Well not no one. This was taken with a 580 EX speedlite mounted on my G1Xiii, and bounced off the wall. So just one in fact - me !
View attachment 222846

Click to expand...

Exactly how I use mine.

For starters, how about moving out of the ancient fixed C1, C2, C3 that represented a bygone era when there weren't so many options to set on your SLR and understand that as you push out myriad setting options and features on a MILC we need at least C4, C5, & C6!!!!!!!

I think my account was suspended for a day. Sorry for making a comment about Sony. Just really excited about all the new camera models coming out and the R6 III is, in my opinion a fantastic camera.

BFG9000 said:

Tired of Canon's RF closed mount policy last week I bought a SONY A1 II along with a 50-150mm f/2 and a Sigma 28-45mm f/1.8 Art.

I'm not switching systems, but I'm not going to renounce to unique lenses like the Sigma 15mm f/1.4 fisheye, Sigma 35mm f/1.2, Sigma 28-45 f/1.8, Sigma 135mm f/1.4, SONY 50-150mm f/2, Sigma 200mm f/2, Sigma 300-600mm f/4, etc., or cheap and nice chinese lenses like what Viltrox offers to play with.

For me, adding a SONY camera to my arsenal is adding a powerful toolkit to get the job done and differentiate myself from other photographers even more.

I don't believe in brand loyalty. Being married to a brand is so stupid.

Click to expand...

I could not agree more..

@homebodyMacro2 we are on same boat. Would you mind to tell us or share some samples if new 70-200 2.8 L Z + 2x teleconverter stills sharp corner-to-corner in the 400mm?

Hi everyone. I am sorry for being critical here, but as a Canon lens specialist I found this summary to be very poorly researched and partially incorrect. Here are just some examples:

1. DC micro motor and micro motor are exactly the same AF motor types, whereas in this summary they are listed as two different concepts (which they are not).

2. Coreless motors have not been used as autofocus motors in Canon lenses. In their Canon EF Works III document, there is one page where coreless DC motors are mentioned. However, after more than 10 years of repairing canon cameras and lenses, I can confirm that coreless DC motors are used by Canon inside of their DSLR bodies to springload the shutter and mirror units, but not inside lenses.

3. The original arc form drive was not a large brushed DC motor as stated above. In fact, the very first arc form drive motor was a stepper motor with a stator shaped in a thin arc to fit inside the lens barrel.

There is a surprisingly detailed and highly accurate source showing all of Canon's autofocus motors here:


Cheers!