Mississippi Map Turtle, taken with my Canon R8 and RF 600mm f11

Mistral75 said:

The same lens (same optical formula, same MTF curves) is also sold under the Cheecar brand, in addition to Pergear, 7Artisans, and now Brightin Star.

Click to expand...

Mistral75 said:

The same lens (same optical formula, same MTF curves) is also sold under the Cheecar brand, in addition to Pergear, 7Artisans, and now Brightin Star.

Click to expand...

I don’t understand the marketing under so many different names. You would think it would lower the appeal.

Spotted a bird fly into a tree and instinctively swung up the R5ii + RF 100-500, which was set up for BIF at 1/3200, f/9 and auto iso. It was dark and went to iso 20k. The setting was fortunate as I couldn't see that it was a juvenile Blackbird flying in to eat a berry, and I was able to catch the action. Cropped as usual without reduction.

Dragon said:

In my experience, they are pretty similar. Photolab has a few more handles to tweak for optimization, but if you are working in LR, you need to transfer a fat TIFF or DNG back for the result. Since LR now will do NR without generating an extra file, it does save space. I have found that LR NR followed by processing in Topaz with additional NR and sharpening typically produces the most favorable result. The exception is Photolab seems to do a bit better job with small sensor cameras, but Topaz is still beneficial as a secondary process, particularly for sharpening. With wide lenses that don't fill the image circle and need corner stretching, Photolab often will give you a larger image, particularly if you break away from the default aspect ratio. Note that processing in Topaz when you are primarily in LR also results in a large secondary file (I use TIFF) . All three tools are dismally slow without a good GPU (preferably Nvidia). Curious to see if Neuro has had similar experience.

Click to expand...

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.

Canon Rumors said:

I'm happy to learn about this stuff. I can't dive deep into everything. For me, Brightin Star are just nice people. These don't sell like hotcakes, there really isn't a revenue stream. I tend to promote the nice ones.

I might dive a bit deeper down the road. I have enjoyed their 50 f/1 and 9mm 5.6. not claiming optical excellence!

Click to expand...

The same lens (same optical formula, same MTF curves) is also sold under the Cheecar brand, in addition to Pergear, 7Artisans, and now Brightin Star.

Malm said:

Bower is also sold as Rokinon (US) or Samyang (EU). We call them the 'Samyang lottery' due to their poor quality control. Many lenses are decentred, but the 'good' ones are well suitable!

Click to expand...

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).

foda said:

How does that compare to Lightroom's Denoise?

Click to expand...

In my experience, they are pretty similar. Photolab has a few more handles to tweak for optimization, but if you are working in LR, you need to transfer a fat TIFF or DNG back for the result. Since LR now will do NR without generating an extra file, it does save space. I have found that LR NR followed by processing in Topaz with additional NR and sharpening typically produces the most favorable result. The exception is Photolab seems to do a bit better job with small sensor cameras, but Topaz is still beneficial as a secondary process, particularly for sharpening. With wide lenses that don't fill the image circle and need corner stretching, Photolab often will give you a larger image, particularly if you break away from the default aspect ratio. Note that processing in Topaz when you are primarily in LR also results in a large secondary file (I use TIFF) . All three tools are dismally slow without a good GPU (preferably Nvidia). Curious to see if Neuro has had similar experience.

Steve_FR said:

I’m a video shooter (but not content creator) I prefer a constant aperture for video…so generally I find myself using the smaller end of the aperture on the long end.. and thus getting the short end of the stick when varying zoom - to keep exposure from changing during zooming

Click to expand...

Are you letting the camera determine the exposure when you zoom or are you maintaining the same ISO, shutter speed and aperture? When shooting wide angle in my living room, the automatic exposure is dominated by the room lights and white walls and ceiling. When I zoom in on a bunch of black lenses, the camera changes the exposure because what it thinks is 18% gray differs between the two scenes. The lenses in the wide angle shot are darker than in the close up shot. It has nothing to do with the fact that the lens has different apertures at different focal length because the camera tells the lens what aperture to use. This is different than in the dark ages of the 1970s when the user told the camera the film ISO (then known as ASA) and manually set the aperture and shutter speed. I do not miss those days!

My guess is that professionals in big budget productions manually set the ISO, shutter speed and aperture after manually measuring the light level and determining the contrast of the scene.

Rceres said:

I can understand preferring the RF 85mm f/1.4L VCM if the RF 85mm f/1.2L feels too big, heavy, or awkward. That would make sense.
But I don’t quite follow the jump from “the RF 85mm f/1.2L is too big” to “a 50-150mm f/2 or 100-400mm zoom would be great.” The RF 85mm f/1.2L is about 103 mm wide, 117 mm long, and 1195 g. The Sony 50-150mm f/2 GM and 100-400mm GM are similar in diameter, roughly twice as long, and heavier. Those are not exactly small, discreet, easy-handling lenses either.
To me, the more interesting question is what Canon could do with a redesigned stills-first RF 85mm f/1.2L II. The current lens is optically legendary, but compared with newer RF designs it feels bulky. The RF 135mm f/1.8L shows how good Canon can be when optical performance, autofocus confidence, and handling all come together.
Imagine a new RF 85mm f/1.2L II with a slimmer barrel, a more modern internal focusing design, faster AF, the same or better rendering, and maybe even IS. Canon’s recent lenses suggest there is still room to improve both handling and usability without giving up what made the original special.
I get that zooms are popular, and Canon should absolutely keep building them. But some of us are still waiting (and hoping!)for Canon’s next generation of stills-first halo primes.

Click to expand...

Two totally different beast for different assignments in my books.
I would never take a 50-150 to cover a parade or a protest, but I would take it to tennis, or a hockey game.
The 100-400 would be good at MLS soccer and CFL football games.

The 85 1.4 will come almost everywhere with me. I could have used one last night on assignment in a small dimly lit Italian restaurant. I used the 50 1.2, but the 85 would have been nicer. Ironically, I use to say I would never own the 50 1.2 because I really disliked the EF version, but there was no RF 50 1.4 so I got the 1.2 and now I love it.

I do wish for a 28 f2 that would fit in a pocket, but I know it is never coming from Canon, maybe sigma one day .

Kiton said:

a 50-150 AND a 100-400 like Sony's would be great

Click to expand...

I really don't get why so many people want Canon to copy Sony. Don´t get me wrong, some of their newer offerings are great, but yet there is a lot of potential to do things differently. Furthermore, looking at Canons line-up some lenses just don't need copying.

As for the 50-150mm, there are a lot of people, me included, who are hoping for a 70-xxx which is a lot lighter. Sonys lens weighs 1.34 kg which depending on your use case is just too heavy. For sports photographers, the weight is nothing and the zoom range super useful. Wedding photographers can work the weight, too. But for street, portrait, family events, indoor plays it is too big and heavy imo. I'd much rather have a sub 1kg zoom and therefore other specs than Sonys lens. The biggest problem with the 28-70mm F2 is... bulk and weight... just like for with the 85mm F1.2. So, design them differently.

Sonys 100-400mm honestly comes at a weird time. 10 years ago it would have been the killer lens because most lenses in that area were 100-400mm but now there are so many offerings across camera manufacturers with more intriguing options. Of course, 100-400mm perfectly accompanies the 400-800mm, but 150-600mm or 100-500mm is just much more useful. Even though they are not internal zooming lenses. So again, no need to copy.

I do agree though that it would be nice if Canon started offering big whites somewhere between the 200-800mm and the filthy expensive big whites, but hopefully with a more useful and more intriguing focal range.

Kiton said:

.....We don't think Canon is going to make some pointless prime like an RF 85mm f/1L. Sure, it'd be the only one out there, but that's just chasing numbers and serves no real purpose........

I bought a 85 1.2 and returned it after a week! Nice glass but just too big, heavy and awkward.
I ordered the 1.4 version instead.

a 50-150 AND a 100-400 like Sony's would be great

Click to expand...

I can understand preferring the RF 85mm f/1.4L VCM if the RF 85mm f/1.2L feels too big, heavy, or awkward. That would make sense.
But I don’t quite follow the jump from “the RF 85mm f/1.2L is too big” to “a 50-150mm f/2 or 100-400mm zoom would be great.” The RF 85mm f/1.2L is about 103 mm wide, 117 mm long, and 1195 g. The Sony 50-150mm f/2 GM and 100-400mm GM are similar in diameter, roughly twice as long, and heavier. Those are not exactly small, discreet, easy-handling lenses either.
To me, the more interesting question is what Canon could do with a redesigned stills-first RF 85mm f/1.2L II. The current lens is optically legendary, but compared with newer RF designs it feels bulky. The RF 135mm f/1.8L shows how good Canon can be when optical performance, autofocus confidence, and handling all come together.
Imagine a new RF 85mm f/1.2L II with a slimmer barrel, a more modern internal focusing design, faster AF, the same or better rendering, and maybe even IS. Canon’s recent lenses suggest there is still room to improve both handling and usability without giving up what made the original special.
I get that zooms are popular, and Canon should absolutely keep building them. But some of us are still waiting (and hoping!)for Canon’s next generation of stills-first halo primes.

Malm said:

Bower is also sold as Rokinon (US) or Samyang (EU). We call them the 'Samyang lottery' due to their poor quality control. Many lenses are decentred, but the 'good' ones are well suitable! Therefore I only use their premium line, called Rokinon SP and Samyang XP which has a better quality control. So I can only compare the Brightin 14/2.8 against the Samyang XP 14/2.4 and I use them only for astro photography (mostly polar light): The Samyang is more heavy, more expensive, has slightly less coma and less vignette (and is slightly faster). The Pergear/7Artisan/Brightin 14/2.8 is lighter, cheaper (!), has slightly more coma (but I would still call it low), and a strong vignette. I tested several Pergear and 7Artisan 14/2.8 lenses and they have a similar quality control as the Samyang XP serie. That means most lenses are well centered. The Brightin Star/7Artisan/Pergear 14/2.8 seems to have problems with flares from strong light sources.

Click to expand...

I probably got a bit lucky with my Bower. It's not a perfect lens by any stretch but it is good and consistent. Yes, I recall it also being sold as Rokinon and Samyang. Same exact lens basically. Glad I got a decent one - I had really poor luck with a Sigma 20 mm f/1.8 many years ago, maybe around 2004 or so. That Siggy was severely decentered. Center and one side in focus, other side way out. If you nailed focus on the one side, the rest was way out. A trip to Sigma for repair netted NO change.

TDP`s page shows that the RF 20-50mm will be another very good lens, optically speaking.
Good news for all of us who ordered it !
I can't wait to get mine!

The first time a Scarce Chaser reported at our local nature reserve. Stopped for only enough time for a single shot from my R5ii + RF 200-800mm.

Tom R5R7 said:

I'm still chugging along with my Bower EF mount 14/2.8 which has 14 elements in 12 groups. A different optical design, of course, given that the lens is designed for EF. As often as I use it, which is almost never, I'm fine with what I have.

It'll be interesting to see what this Brightin Star/7Artisan/Pergear lens is like compared to the EF 14/2.8. Price and feature-wise, they're in the same ballpark.

Click to expand...

Bower is also sold as Rokinon (US) or Samyang (EU). We call them the 'Samyang lottery' due to their poor quality control. Many lenses are decentred, but the 'good' ones are well suitable! Therefore I only use their premium line, called Rokinon SP and Samyang XP which has a better quality control. So I can only compare the Brightin 14/2.8 against the Samyang XP 14/2.4 and I use them only for astro photography (mostly polar light): The Samyang is more heavy, more expensive, has slightly less coma and less vignette (and is slightly faster). The Pergear/7Artisan/Brightin 14/2.8 is lighter, cheaper (!), has slightly more coma (but I would still call it low), and a strong vignette. I tested several Pergear and 7Artisan 14/2.8 lenses and they have a similar quality control as the Samyang XP serie. That means most lenses are well centered. The Brightin Star/7Artisan/Pergear 14/2.8 seems to have problems with flares from strong light sources.

benperrin said:

Yep or the R5C which doesn't have IBIS. I would prefer a lens like this with IS.

Click to expand...

Perhaps a “world’s first” could be an f/2 zoom with OIS - correct me if I am wrong, but I don’t believe anyone has done an f/2 with optical IS yet? So maybe something like 24-70mm f/2.0L IS. That adds some weight gain, though.

neuroanatomist said:

How well do video shooters / content creators like zoom lenses that change aperture as you zoom?

Click to expand...

I’m a video shooter (but not content creator) I prefer a constant aperture for video…so generally I find myself using the smaller end of the aperture on the long end.. and thus getting the short end of the stick when varying zoom - to keep exposure from changing during zooming.

Bicknel's thrush
They are on of the most difficult land birds to find in USA
Canada Jay, Savanah Sparrow, Song Sparrow, Mourning warbler, Junco black throated green warbler

Not in order you have to guess LOL

I'm still chugging along with my Bower EF mount 14/2.8 which has 14 elements in 12 groups. A different optical design, of course, given that the lens is designed for EF. As often as I use it, which is almost never, I'm fine with what I have.

It'll be interesting to see what this Brightin Star/7Artisan/Pergear lens is like compared to the EF 14/2.8. Price and feature-wise, they're in the same ballpark.

maybe Canon finally has some epic RF-S lenses in the pipeline

Click to expand...

Haha! Thanks for the laugh. That's pretty funny.

candyman said:

You can always add the 10-20 Works well in densely built cities and also for landscapes with interesting subjects in the foreground. Takes some of the photos I would normally use the TS-E 24mm for.

Click to expand...

Well, I never visit a city without the 24 TS-E. I hate converging lines, and I am not so fond of cropping 10mm shots. I also have no real use for wider than 15mm. It could change after I get my RF 20-50mm, needing a bit wider than 20mm. Selling the 15-35 ? No! Too good!
Isn't it nice to have such "problems"?
And I'm "patiently" waiting for the rumoured 14mm TS-E.

Sorry, but that isn't a new lens! That is just a known lens with a different label!
I saw it first as a Pergear 14/2.8 lens, afterwards as 7Artisan 14/2.8 (with a different desgin of the lens barrel) and now as Brightin Star 14/2.8. The optical construction - 13 elemenst in 9 groups - and the special glass elements are always the same. I have the Pergear 14/2.8 and the 7Artisan 14/2.8 (for astro photography) and don't see any difference. The optical quality is good (low coma for astro!), but the vignette is a little bit high. There is a more in-depth review of the Pergear 14/2.8 by phillipreeve.
It would be interesting to understand the structure behind these 'different' brands! Is it just one company which is just moving the lenses around from A to B to C or what??