Latest activity

Del Paso · Jun 18, 2026

neuroanatomist said:
Indeed. I had a Rokinon 14/2.8 for EF, which was a good copy that I got after returning the first one. That's only one of two lenses that I've returned for a better copy (the other being the RF 14/1.4L VCM).

I'm a bit shocked about your having to return an RF 14mm f/1,4 for, I presume, optical reasons.
Anyway, thanks for the warning, I won't buy mine just before my summer vacation as I intended to do.

Esplak · Jun 18, 2026

Tom R5R7 said:
I'd love to see a matched set of 24-70 f/2 and 70-180 f/2. Why stop at 180? Because it would still be compatible with 95 mm filters. Otherwise, 200 would be fine. I realize that you could use a rear filter gel setup but for the purposes of such a lens, being able to swap out filters and dial in a polarizing filter would be most useful.

probably it would be huge and heavy. 70-150 f2 would be suffice for most people and it will be manageable.

ThomasTH · Jun 18, 2026

Weight and size will be interesting. Before the Sony 28-70 f2 came out there were rumours for it to be a 24-70 f2 but they opted to make it a 28-70 f2 because of weight. But the Sony 28-70 f2 is lighter than the Canon version.
I'm really curious how heavy it will be. The rumours article says there will be significant weight savings.

shire_guy · Jun 18, 2026

From a quick trip down to Canberra

Scarlet Robin (male)

Scarlet Robin (female)

Golden Whistler

Probably a Buff-rumped Thornbill EDIT - More likely a Weebill

Noreaster · Jun 18, 2026

becceric said:
Great shots! I'd love to know the location! I'll step gingerly...

Silvio O. Conte NWR--Peanut Dam Road

Noreaster · Jun 18, 2026

ISv said:
Somehow I like better the second photo. It's interesting. The question here is was it result of panning or something else?!

I was riding in the car to go birding. Saw the fox on the side of the road so the driver pulled over, in a very dangerous spot (only gave me about 20 seconds). I reached over got out my big lens and took a pic as the fox was running past me. I did not have time to check camera settings and obviously the shutter speed was way too low. I got lucky that I tracked the kit well and the result is its face was ok but everything else a blur.

JustGunner · Jun 18, 2026

I don't see it happening. If they can churn out a 24-70 F2.0 IS, it will be 5k at least, and it will weigh more than the original 28-70, unless they use a lot of plastic elements and digital distortion corrections.

koenkooi · Jun 18, 2026

I didn't see a thread for this lens, so let's get one started!

AlanF · Jun 18, 2026

Dragon said:
8 seconds in LR for an R5 raw with an i9-13900k with 64 GB and an RTX 4070 TI. PL9 is also about 8 seconds, but the transfer from LR to PL is pretty slow. The computer I just built has an RTX 5080, so should be a bit faster. As I mentioned above, all these AI programs work best with Nvidia GPU because so much of AI is Cuda based. PL9 is sharper than LR because Photolab includes lens correction in the processing. Topaz studio is much better at sharpening than either LR or PL and the auto mask is now very good, but Topaz does require a lot of horsepower for some of the features. I use PL9 for certain images, but I prefer to work in LR for the file management features. LR has an excellent database.

I am still on the final Topaz AI as I didn't like the way it is has changed in recent years and also going on to a subscription model. Their sharpening is throwing up more artefacts as it adopts more AI. For an image that is fully or partly a wreck, the motion and very strong corrections can make it presentable. Trouble is, I see the artefacts, and can then see them in some images that are posted. For upscaling, generative upscaling in Photoshop is pretty faithful, but the Topaz used in PS adds more detail, and as in Topaz AI more so. The best is to have a good sharp image straight out of camera!

ThomasTH · Jun 18, 2026

For portraits, a shorter shutter speed is necessary anyway to avoid motion blur. I don't see much importance in IBIS for this type of photography.

Eric84 · Jun 18, 2026

I now see that the thead is in the Rumors section - Can a admin please move it to the gear-section for EOS R?

Eric84 · Jun 18, 2026

Photography only - hobbyusage - no paid assignments
What are Your thoughts about IBIS when you shoot only 1 person portraits and boudoir within the 35-85mm range?
Mostly homestudio shooting, with occasional "golden hour shots" in a park or a forest-backround.

Do you consider IBIS either wihin the camerabody or the lens crucial to get a sharp image?

Considering the RF 50mm F1.2L with the R8 or R6 mkII

Dragon · Jun 18, 2026

AlanF said:
Denoise in Photoshop takes a minute per image on my MacBook Air with M4 and 24 GB, which is dismally slow. PL9 is much faster, and speeds up on cropping RAW whereas PS Denoise speed does not increase - it clearly denoises the whole image and not just the cropped area. In my tests, PL9, and even old PL6, is slightly sharper. I wish PS was better as I need the Adobe suite for my work and it would save me buying DxO.

8 seconds in LR for an R5 raw with an i9-13900k with 64 GB and an RTX 4070 TI. PL9 is also about 8 seconds, but the transfer from LR to PL is pretty slow. The computer I just built has an RTX 5080, so should be a bit faster. As I mentioned above, all these AI programs work best with Nvidia GPU because so much of AI is Cuda based. PL9 is sharper than LR because Photolab includes lens correction in the processing. Topaz studio is much better at sharpening than either LR or PL and the auto mask is now very good, but Topaz does require a lot of horsepower for some of the features. I use PL9 for certain images, but I prefer to work in LR for the file management features. LR has an excellent database.

koenkooi · Jun 18, 2026

Exploreshootshare said:
My trio with the longest focal length would be
RF 14-35mm F4
RF 24-105mm F4 L
RF 100-500mm

I rarely take this combo as it is. I want something with a bigger aperture so I swap a lens or two out.

I currently do not own an extender, but I use to (for about a year the 1.4 and for a shorter period the 2x) giving me a max of 700mm or 1000mm.

The latest family trip was done with the 24-105L, 50VCM and 100-500L. Great combination, but I’m looking forward to the 20-50L.

Exploreshootshare · Jun 18, 2026

masterpix said:
Well, not sure about the exat terminology, but if you ask me, going traveling, covering the focal length from 24mm to 800mm allowing both landscape, portrait and birds is my "holy trio".

My trio with the longest focal length would be
RF 14-35mm F4
RF 24-105mm F4 L
RF 100-500mm

I rarely take this combo as it is. I want something with a bigger aperture so I swap a lens or two out.

I currently do not own an extender, but I use to (for about a year the 1.4 and for a shorter period the 2x) giving me a max of 700mm or 1000mm.

AlanF · Jun 18, 2026

Click said:
I love your gif. Well done, Alan.

I slowed it down as it shows how the bird uses its tongue to swallow the berry.

snapshot · Jun 17, 2026

neuroanatomist said:
It seems that you believe optical correction of geometric distortion is the gold standard. How does that belief hold up with the EF 17-40/4L?

I admit to being triggered by digital correction. I found the EF17-40 to be unusable when corner-corner sharpness was required on my full frame 5D4, even after distortion correction in DPP (which helped quite a bit). I think that was really an APS-H lens - so probably not the best example. On the otherhand, i have no EVIDENCE that digital correction produces inferior images.
a. digital correction was not really practicable when i was using full frame film and i took great pictures with my EF 28-70 f/2.8 L. I tend to believe, however, that film sharpness is no where near what we are experiencing today with digital.
b. digital correction in DPP on pictures taken with the same lens on my R5 didnt seem to help much
c. neuro would tell you that RF 24-70 F/2.8 is much sharper (probably with and without) digital correction than the EF 28-70 F/2.8 and he is probably right (but the cool filter adapter wont work)
d. i have been happy with my travel pictures taken with RF24-280 F/terrible that is heavily dependent on digital correction, easily as good as my Tamron 28-300 F/not great.
thus even through I am triggered, i just take pictures and live with the results which are great and always have been. it has never been easier to get great results in photography.

seems like the sony fans think that sony is canon's biggest problem. i tend to think competing with 25 years of thier own great photography tools is a much bigger problem for canon.

ISv · Jun 17, 2026

Just these from today. Again (very) close overfly by the Blue-billed White Tern but I got it when it retread to get on the same branch where it's partner was already.

ISv · Jun 17, 2026

Del Paso said:
You've convincingly demonstrated it's not the camera, but the photographer!

"The equipment that matters, is you"

!
Camera/lens combo matters but the same combo in different hands (same/similar conditions!) in so many times is giving pretty different results (by far not intended!)!