Latest activity

InternalRevenue · Wednesday at 11:07 AM

Long overdue, I’m still confused why this wasn’t Tamron first RF mount lens first since it has no true direct competitor from Sigma (the 18-50 trades stabilization and focal range for compactness). I no longer have interest in this lens since I have an R7 and Sigma 17-40mm f/1.8, but this will be a very compelling option for R100, R50/V, and R10 owners, especially those interested in handheld video.

candyman · Wednesday at 11:06 AM

Del Paso said:
It is a mouth watering lens, according to all its happy owners.
My dilemma is named 100-500. Should I replace it, along with the 70-200 f/4, with the 70-200 Z + 2X?
It would be a huge weight and space advantage for mountain hikes, my standard lens being the 70-200 f/4, the 100-500 for longer distances being kept in the backpack.
On the other hand, the Z is almost as long and heavy as the 100-500, while the f/4 70-200 is sooo compact and light...
Buying the 70-200 Z and keeping the rest is no option, one lens will become fully superfluous and collect dust.
I am really at a loss what to do.

Ah, I see you suffer from G.A.S.

Since I am ok with my 100-400 II and 70-200 f/4 II, my G.A.S. is limited to 20-50 only

Del Paso · Wednesday at 11:01 AM

PinholeR5 said:
Using Exposure + DOF simulation will hurt low-light AF performance, won't it? I've switched to having Exposure + DOF simulation as the default setting on my cameras, but on occasion I'll switch it off in some low-light conditions (if I remember). I also often use the camera in burst mode and that helps get good images, but is tedious in post.

I've read somewhere about possibly setting it to Exposure only and have DOF only when pressing the DOF button (which I currently have assigned to other functions), so the idea would be to focus then press the DOF button and then the shutter while still holding the DOF button. I haven't tried it, but seems cumbersome to me.

I rarelly, if ever, have issues with both at the same time, so it is more of a settings management topic I guess.

Curious to learn how others have managed the focus shift vs low-light settings.

Not really an issue, since in low-light situations the aperture usually stays fully open.

Del Paso · Wednesday at 10:58 AM

danfaz said:
It's crazy how sharp and clear this lens is even with a 2X extender.
I just got one last night, will have to take it out this weekend to have some fun!

It is a mouth watering lens, according to all its happy owners.
My dilemma is named 100-500. Should I replace it, along with the 70-200 f/4, with the 70-200 Z + 2X?
It would be a huge weight and space advantage for mountain hikes, my standard lens being the 70-200 f/4, the 100-500 for longer distances being kept in the backpack.
On the other hand, the Z is almost as long and heavy as the 100-500, while the f/4 70-200 is sooo compact and light...
Buying the 70-200 Z and keeping the rest is no option, one lens will become fully superfluous and collect dust.
I am really at a loss what to do.

mb66energy · Wednesday at 10:52 AM

Nice addition to the endless sea of options but special in the standard zoom category!

Just learning to like the EF-s 15-85 for time lapses after understanding how to optimize focusing (manually, after each change of focal length is important!). It is a very sharp and contrasty lens and allows to use a variable ND filter adapter which is very convenient for video.
Maybe a good option if I need constant aperture by design for video zoom ops so I will reevaluate the need - the EF-S 15-85 goes from 3.5 to 5.6!

neuroanatomist · Wednesday at 10:50 AM

I did not get the email from Canon USA, but it's a legit issue and can be resolved by downloading the current version.

https://www.usa.canon.com/about-us/to-our-customers/cpa2026-005-vulnerability-remediation-for-eos-network-setting-tool

PinholeR5 · Wednesday at 10:47 AM

neuroanatomist said:
Not that I have noticed. The RF lens does exhibit mild focus shift, but only at magnifications over 1x and in any case, if your camera supports exposure + DoF simulation then focus shift is a non-issue because focusing is done with the lens already stopped down.

Del Paso said:
I am using DoF simulation, having heard of it a bit lately...
I works perfectly, focus is always where I want it to be.

Using Exposure + DOF simulation will hurt low-light AF performance, won't it? I've switched to having Exposure + DOF simulation as the default setting on my cameras, but on occasion I'll switch it off in some low-light conditions (if I remember). I also often use the camera in burst mode and that helps get good images, but is tedious in post.

I've read somewhere about possibly setting it to Exposure only and have DOF only when pressing the DOF button (which I currently have assigned to other functions), so the idea would be to focus then press the DOF button and then the shutter while still holding the DOF button. I haven't tried it, but seems cumbersome to me.

I rarelly, if ever, have issues with both at the same time, so it is more of a settings management topic I guess.

Curious to learn how others have managed the focus shift vs low-light settings.

rbwillnj · Wednesday at 10:47 AM

Did anyone else get this advisory from Canon about a Vulnerability in the Network Setting Tool? It looks legit but you always have to wonder if it's spam

Screenshot

Canon Advisory Screenshot 2026-06-24 104254.jpg

ISO64 · Wednesday at 9:38 AM

Where did you get the "schematic drawing" for last couple of lenses featured here? Previously, they looked real and made sense. Just look at this one: according to the illustration, all the lenses are positive, equally thick, equally spaced. Even my window panes show some variation. Is this AI slop?

Del Paso · Wednesday at 9:35 AM

neuroanatomist said:
Somehow? According to Canon, focus shift is part of the lens design...it's not going to 'somehow be resolved' for the lens itself. Two issues there...one, the person testing it doesn't know how to test for focus shift (hint: you don't take pictures of a flat subject), and two, as I pointed out above if the camera supports and is set to use DoF simulation, then AF is performed with the lens stopped down and focus shift doesn't happen. I suspect the latter is the 'resolution' that was reported (without that explanation or an understanding of it, seemingly).

I am using DoF simulation, having heard of it a bit lately...
I works perfectly, focus is always where I want it to be.

neuroanatomist · Wednesday at 9:13 AM

HMC11 said:
Based on forum members' testing shared in a thread from DPReview, it seems that the focus shift issue has somehow been resolved (https://www.dpreview.com/forums/threads/rf100mm-f2-8-l-macro-focus-shift-is-fixed-addressed.4771391/).

Somehow? According to Canon, focus shift is part of the lens design...it's not going to 'somehow be resolved' for the lens itself. Two issues there...one, the person testing it doesn't know how to test for focus shift (hint: you don't take pictures of a flat subject), and two, as I pointed out above if the camera supports and is set to use DoF simulation, then AF is performed with the lens stopped down and focus shift doesn't happen. I suspect the latter is the 'resolution' that was reported (without that explanation or an understanding of it, seemingly).

danfaz · Wednesday at 9:12 AM

It's crazy how sharp and clear this lens is even with a 2X extender.
I just got one last night, will have to take it out this weekend to have some fun!

ctk · Wednesday at 9:06 AM

JustGunner said:
Whenever there's weight saving, there's going to be some sort of compromise in design. The Sony lens is significantly lighter because it relies quite a bit on digital distortion correction, and while the Canon 28-70 F2 came out some 7yrs ago, it was less of a thing. That is why you literally have a lot more glasses in the Canon lens @F2.0 than the Sony counterpart.

Then there is the IS, even Sony doesn't dare to add the feature to their F2.0 lens, which shows you that it will almost be impossible to achieve a good balance between price + weight + performance of a 24-70 F2.0 IS lens.

I would be shocked and amazed if this thing had IS. I dont see too many R8/RP/R50 buyers grabbing this thing.

Tom R5R7 · Wednesday at 8:59 AM

This is really a big deal, providing it's optically sound. The lens that Canon should have made right off the bat really, but they seem to have no interest in providing reasonably high-end solutions for APS-C shooters. My friend has an R7 to replace one of her crop Nikon DSLR bodies that failed (after some 250,000 actuations), since Nikon doesn't even have anything close to the R7. I gave her my 18-150 to try, but she gave it back because it felt flimsy. She opted, instead, to get an adapter and use the EF-S 18-135 USM, which optically is pretty good and has the advantage of feeling quite sturdy. The USM is the last rendition of that focal length range, and is optically better than the first version.

Click · Wednesday at 8:48 AM

Great shots, ERHP. Well done, Sir!

koenkooi · Wednesday at 8:14 AM

Here's a 100% crop of the lens + 2x extender at MFD. I wasn't paying attention to the zoom, so it's not at 400mm :/

Del Paso · Wednesday at 8:09 AM

He He!
I'll pick up my 20-50 tomorrow morning at 10:00 GMT!

koenkooi · Wednesday at 8:03 AM

candyman said:
I hadn't thought it would come to this already, but three weeks ago I sold my M6II and M5 with the various lenses. And that's because I'm using the R8 more now. So it has taken over. It's indeed a very good camera and nicely compact.

My M6II has the MP-E65mm and is next to the focus stacking rail, it's hard to beat 32MP in APS-C for tiny subjects!

Steve Balcombe · Wednesday at 6:51 AM

The zoom range would have been very welcome, but it's come too late and I already have the excellent Sigma 18-50. That plus the (admittedly minor) inconvenience of rings which operate backwards for Canon users mean I won't be taking up Tamron's offer :-(

JustGunner · Wednesday at 6:36 AM

ThomasTH said:
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.

Whenever there's weight saving, there's going to be some sort of compromise in design. The Sony lens is significantly lighter because it relies quite a bit on digital distortion correction, and while the Canon 28-70 F2 came out some 7yrs ago, it was less of a thing. That is why you literally have a lot more glasses in the Canon lens @F2.0 than the Sony counterpart.

Then there is the IS, even Sony doesn't dare to add the feature to their F2.0 lens, which shows you that it will almost be impossible to achieve a good balance between price + weight + performance of a 24-70 F2.0 IS lens.

ChyckenPotPie · Wednesday at 5:19 AM

This is great news! About damn time.

@zajicekpavel · Wednesday at 5:18 AM

The English name for Polygonia c-album is the Comma or Comma butterfly.

The white C is clearly visible on the wing.

axtstern · Wednesday at 3:36 AM

17-70 1:2.8 Wow
Stabilized Wow
530 g versus 645 g (Canon EF-S 17-55)

Now I will spend a lot of time whenever going out: which lens to throw into the bag?
Sigma 18-50 1:2,8 (light)
Sigma 17-40 1:1.8 (bright)
Tamron 17-70 1:2.8 (reach)

candyman · Wednesday at 3:00 AM

koenkooi said:
Similar situation here, the 20-50 is meant for the R8 and will replace the 24-105L.

The R8 has overtaken the original M for joy of use and take-ability.

I hadn't thought it would come to this already, but three weeks ago I sold my M6II and M5 with the various lenses. And that's because I'm using the R8 more now. So it has taken over. It's indeed a very good camera and nicely compact.

koenkooi · Wednesday at 2:47 AM

candyman said:
That is my use case as well. Combined with the R8.
Often, I don't have the opportunity to return to the location very quickly, or to stay there longer. So, I try to get the most out of it. I notice that traveling with a combination of R5 II, TS-E, 24-105, and 14-35 has a bit more impact on endurance during a day of city walking. So, I try a lighter (smaller) combination. But naturally, I want to sacrifice as little quality and flexibility (focal length choices) as possible. However, if the subject is worthwhile, and the result of the smaller/lighter setup is inferior (and I don't think this will be dramatically), then I put it on the list to go back to. But first, it remains to be seen how satisfied I am with the 20-50. So, just a little more patience.

Similar situation here, the 20-50 is meant for the R8 and will replace the 24-105L.

The R8 has overtaken the original M for joy of use and take-ability.

Latest activity

Latest activity

Filter

Forum statistics

Gallery statistics