Latest activity

dolina · Feb 6, 2026

Canon Rumors said:
I use Delkin exclusively... get a 4.0 card reader (with a compatible port) for that benefit.

(full disclosure, I have never paid for a CFeB card)

The Delkin POWER (G4)?

Brown · Feb 6, 2026

There was nothing wrong with the EOS R

Aside from it being a gimped form of the 5D Mark IV.

eero · Feb 6, 2026

Canon Rumors said:
The time was coming, and it has arrived. The Canon EOS R5 has been officially discontinued, This may not be news to everyone, but I think it could help with some buying decisions over the next few months for some shooters. What can you say about the EOS R5? It was Canon's real arrival into […]

See full article...

I will buy ten of these for starters, just to make sure they last for the rest of my photography life. I have zero intention to upgrade into anything that has the irritating photo/video switch on the left. For a nature hybrid shooter, trying to switch from photo to video while supporting a long lens with your hand is impossible. I greatly appreciate R5's possibility of having it right next to the shutter button. Anything else is a no-go and bad design. I also have R6ii and it breaks my balls every time I have to use it. Maybe Canon will come back to their senses one day.

benperrin · Feb 6, 2026

Etnaphele said:
Do you also own the 24-70 F2.8 by chance? I suppose the 24mm end of it should give similar results for astro, so it could be my learning ground.

Unfortunately I only own the EF version. The 14mm 1.4 VCM will only be my 3rd RF lens. I haven't tried the EF version for astro.

neuroanatomist · Feb 6, 2026

DSB said:
Oh, I've given up on arguing anything with you about anything... It's a complete waste of time.

That makes sense…if you can’t win, quit the game. By no means admit your mistakes, that would require maturity beyond your capacity.

DSB · Feb 6, 2026

jeff89 said:
I got to see the $25,000 Sigma green lens mounted on a stand at Photokina in Cologne (Koln), Germany back in 2012. I don’t recall the focal length specs, but maybe f/2.8, my initial thought when seeing it firsthand was, it was totally worthless to me.

That's exactly where I played with it as well! I remember I was allowed to put my cf card into the camera and do some test shots.

It just seemed ridiculous to me. It was so big and so heavy and the electronic zoom was sooo slow... I couldn't see any point in that lens other than serving as a brand statement.

I'm pretty sure Zeiss had that space-craft looking 1700mm lens on display that year as well in Cologne. That one was even crazier.

[Edit: yep, here it is!]

DSB · Feb 6, 2026

neuroanatomist said:
I see...you've decided to stop arguing on merit and technical parameters (since you failed at that) and instead have descended to a personal attack. I get it, you made a point for which there was very little logical support, and when the point was refuted with technical arguments against it, you felt trapped. Puerile, but at least you're consistent in that way.

Oh, I've given up on arguing anything with you about anything... It's a complete waste of time.

You're literally just confirming my previous assesments about your charming characther.

BYEEE

roby17269 · Feb 6, 2026

jeff89 said:
I got to see the $25,000 Sigma green lens mounted on a stand at Photokina in Cologne (Koln), Germany back in 2012. I don’t recall the focal length specs, but maybe f/2.8, my initial thought when seeing it firsthand was, it was totally worthless to me.

The Sigmonster is a 200-500mm f/2.8 lens, sold with a dedicated 2x extender that turn it into a 400-1000 f/5.6.
Fun fact: that lens had a dedicated battery to power the AF motors

Ian K · Feb 6, 2026

I would love to have it in hand before end of second week in May, I've a long Alaska trip then.

werunhsv · Feb 6, 2026

Curious, is there a way to use a protective filter? I'm kind of rough on my gear

, I need all the protection I can get. I think there is a lens hood, which will help a bit, but does not work if you shoot at 7mm. Also, anyone use this for basketball, love to see some photos.

AJ · Feb 6, 2026

The 14/1.4 looks like a nice lens.

FWIW - for those looking to shoot astro at 14 mm f/1.4 there is another option. I use a 35/1.4 and stitch. In theory, a 2x2 grid shot at 35 mm has the same FOV as a 14 mm lens. In practice, you want overlap and the ability to crop uneven edges, so a 3x3 grid does the trick.

The upside of this technique is quadruple the pixels (or less noise and aberrations, when downsampled to a single frame equivalent). It is like shooting with a 70 mm sensor.

The downsides are more acquisition and processing effort, and parallax issues with foreground subjects. Also, if used for auroras, they can move fast so stitching is not ideal (but it can be and has been done).

scyrene · Feb 6, 2026

So this means the R5III is coming soon, right??

Ian K · Feb 6, 2026

I've pre-ordered and I'm 5th in the queue at Wex, so I stand a decent chance of getting one of the first batch.

Exploreshootshare · Feb 6, 2026

Old Man FL/FD said:
My current EF 16-35mm f/4 L I’m happy with.

I had the EF 16-35mm F4 L in 2019/ 2020 and took it to Ne Zealand. I got some great shots with it and the lens really is sharp edge to edge. I sold it during Covid with what would've been a large win-margin (about 280 €), but I had to send to Canon CPS beforehand and get it repaired. It turned out, it was a costly repair.

Anyway, after the trip I made up my mind: I wanted to ditch the adapter or keep only one lens with the adapter. That's why I sold it, otherwise I might still be shooting with it.

Old Man FL/FD said:
It seems Canon got serious about their WA/UWA primes and zooms and all’s good now in RF land.

Seems like it. The RF 14-35mm is a worthy spiritual successor to the 16-35mm. I love the extra 2mm and the great magnification. Canon made a really good lens even greater.

Del Paso · Feb 6, 2026

Old Man FL/FD said:
My experiences with early Canon EF WA/UWA zooms were disappointing, as many people agree.

My EF 17-40mm F/4 L let me down many times in corner performance, and this was on an APS-H (1.3x crop) 1D Mk II, where the entire image circle is not used.

I heard the original EF 16-35mm f/2.8 L was a ‘dog,’ so when the Mk II version came out, I was hoping for improvements. I got a ‘bad’ copy with decentered elements showing up in the left corner (again, on APS-H.) I made some home brew test charts to verify and a PowerShot G9 beat it! I sent it in to Canon USA service centers three times to get this fixed, with no change. I even asked somebody at LensRentals for his opinion. I eventually sold this lens to someone at work who had a 5D with full disclosure and ‘try before you buy.’

My current EF 16-35mm f/4 L I’m happy with.

It seems Canon got serious about their WA/UWA primes and zooms and all’s good now in RF land.

I believe the EF 16-35 f/4 and the EF 16-35 f/2,8 were the first really good Canon UWA lenses. Corners were sharp, and that's where the predecessors suffered most. But now, we almost have too many excellent choices!

neuroanatomist · Feb 6, 2026

RobbieHat said:
It looks even more amazing than I had hoped for and the ability to filter will be invaluable for UWA seascapes. Can’t wait to add it to my kit.

To be clear, the 14/1.4 does not take a front filter. It does have a rear gel slot. At some point, Fotodiox or someone else might make an adapter to take the salad plate sized filters like the 145mm ones I have for my TSE 17.

m4ndr4ke · Feb 6, 2026

Took it long enough

It's not that I was rooting for it to be discontinued, but I expected it to happen within a year after the release of the R5 Mark II. It lasted a little longer.

Solid camera.

I went with the R6, I don't regret my choice, and I don't see myself replacing it anytime soon but, if I imagined, back in the day, that I'd be keeping my R6 for so long, perhaps I would have gone with the R5, for the extra resolution.

I guess, in a way, I didn't expect these two cameras to be as competent as they became. I put it this way because I went through all the firmwares that added new features, so what I bought didn't completely match what I ended-up with, the product was significantly improved over time, it exceeded my expectations.

Again, solid camera/solid cameras.

RobbieHat · Feb 6, 2026

The Canon lens I have been waiting for and will cause a cascade of other purchases and sales as a result. It looks even more amazing than I had hoped for and the ability to filter will be invaluable for UWA seascapes. Can’t wait to add it to my kit.

P-visie · Feb 6, 2026

Old Man FL/FD said:
My experiences with early Canon EF WA/UWA zooms were disappointing, as many people agree.

My EF 17-40mm F/4 L let me down many times in corner performance, and this was on an APS-H (1.3x crop) 1D Mk II, where the entire image circle is not used.

I heard the original EF 16-35mm f/2.8 L was a ‘dog,’ so when the Mk II version came out, I was hoping for improvements. I got a ‘bad’ copy with decentered elements showing up in the left corner (again, on APS-H.) I made some home brew test charts to verify and a PowerShot G9 beat it! I sent it in to Canon USA service centers three times to get this fixed, with no change. I even asked somebody at LensRentals for his opinion. I eventually sold this lens to someone at work who had a 5D with full disclosure and ‘try before you buy.’

My current EF 16-35mm f/4 L I’m happy with.

It seems Canon got serious about their WA/UWA primes and zooms and all’s good now in RF land.

The first two versions of the EF 16-35mm f2.8 were not very good, the third version was very good, even on my 5DsR.
Lensrentals has done testing and comparisons: https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2016/10/canon-16-35mm-f2-8l-mark-iii-optical-bench-tests/
And https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2016/12/real-world-testing-of-the-new-canon-16-35mm-f2-8l-iii/

neuroanatomist · Feb 6, 2026

Del Paso said:
I'm using the B&W "T pro MRC nano" filters, which have a very thin mount.

I've stuck with the Master series, the 'new' version of the XS-Pro mount (as the Basic is the 'new' F-Pro mount). The T-Pro filters are slightly thinner (2.9mm vs. 3.4mm for typical filters, though mount of the 112mm filter for my 100-300/2.8 is 6mm thick), but I've never had any issues with vignetting with my XS-Pro filters. They're both brass, and the 'titanium' (silver by any other name) finish reminds me too much of Canon's saying that, "The front part of the zoom ring now sports a silver ring for a luxury touch," about the cheap and low IQ EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 USM III.

I do wonder why they went with a smooth edge on the T-Pro line. The XS-Pro filters were smooth-edged like the T-Pro, but the Master line has a fully knurled edge that makes it easier to remove a filter.

Old Man FL/FD · Feb 6, 2026

Del Paso said:
The EF version must have been so much better since it didn't need any software corrections. Believe me, I had one...
Seriously now: I find it interesting how much UWA and UWA zooms habe been improved in the last 10 years. If I think of the EF 17-40, the EF 2,8/20, even of the not so bad EF 2,8/14 II, progress can be qualified as huge!

My experiences with early Canon EF WA/UWA zooms were disappointing, as many people agree.

My EF 17-40mm F/4 L let me down many times in corner performance, and this was on an APS-H (1.3x crop) 1D Mk II, where the entire image circle is not used.

I heard the original EF 16-35mm f/2.8 L was a ‘dog,’ so when the Mk II version came out, I was hoping for improvements. I got a ‘bad’ copy with decentered elements showing up in the left corner (again, on APS-H.) I made some home brew test charts to verify and a PowerShot G9 beat it! I sent it in to Canon USA service centers three times to get this fixed, with no change. I even asked somebody at LensRentals for his opinion. I eventually sold this lens to someone at work who had a 5D with full disclosure and ‘try before you buy.’

My current EF 16-35mm f/4 L I’m happy with.

It seems Canon got serious about their WA/UWA primes and zooms and all’s good now in RF land.

Del Paso · Feb 6, 2026

Exploreshootshare said:
I use the same filter (CPL) and I have never had any issues unless I wasn't paying attention Looking to add a second one, but those filters have gotten really, really expansive.

But they still cost far less than a badly scratched front lens!
I use filters exclusively for protection.

Exploreshootshare · Feb 6, 2026

Del Paso said:
I'm using the B&W "T pro MRC nano" filters, which have a very thin mount. No issues whatsoever, even at 15mm! Loss of sharpness? Maybe under a microscope?

I use the same filter (CPL) and I have never had any issues unless I wasn't paying attention

Looking to add a second one, but those filters have gotten really, really expansive.

Exploreshootshare · Feb 6, 2026

benperrin said:
15-35 is a great lens. Perfect for landscape photography but I've also been able to use it for astro on a tracking mount. I went with 95mm because I was sick of having to buy multiple sets that do the same thing. Personally I think you'll love the 15-35. It's very versatile and has great performance.

The RF 15-35mm F2.8 is an absolutely great lens!!! The iq is outstanding and the lens is sharp across all focal lengths. I agree, it is perfect for landscapes, city travels and @35mm F2.8 fairly good for environmental portraits or group shots. I used it for nearly two years and only sold it because the RF 14-35mm is significantly lighter and I have more lenses with a 77mm filter thread. Other than that, I never would have sold the lens. Still, I´d image Canon might one day release a lighter mkii version...

Exploreshootshare · Feb 6, 2026

neuroanatomist said:
Agreed! I have bought Canon lenses almost exclusively, the one exception was a Rokinon (Samyang) 14/2.8 that I bought for occasional Astro use. I test all new lenses when I get them, that Roki 14/2.8 is the only one I’ve ever had to exchange for a proper copy.

I guess I had decentered Tamron lenses for APS-C in 2018... they were a pain so I sold them and returned them. With Canon lenses, I only had an issue with the RF 50mm F1.8. It was focus hunting all the time even with static objects. I returned it and a second copy - which now belongs to my father-in-law, works far better.

Latest activity

Latest activity

Attachments

Attachments

Filter

Forum statistics

Gallery statistics