Any news regarding this lens?

Del Paso said:

This is also what I usually criticise, pictures of charts aren't very useful when shooting "real life". They are certainly relevant for macro and repro lenses where flat field lenses are needed, but far less useful for most other subjects. Ok, architecture...
What also bothers me is that chart pictures are always taken at moderate distance settings.
To put it short: I too am far more interested in reviews by photographers than reviewers.
My favourite and often repeated quote from Leica's former optical head-developer: "Cameras aren't made for chart photography".

Click to expand...

Even for macro, it's not all that relevant if your use case will venture outside the realm of flat objects such as coins.

Ruby crowned kinglets are scarce as hen's teeth around here in the winter

1ll said:

I did it. I jumped off the fence and bought the last TS-E 24mm f3.5 ii from Canon. It's great! I'm having a lot of fun exploring what the lens can do. I'm shooting city and landscape in Brooklyn, New York and I'm having a blast capturing tall buildings without the Keystone effect. Shooting city and landscape with no concern for the hyperfocal distance or focus bracketing is a big plus. This is great! Should have bought this sooner. I just ordered the TS-E 17mm f4. I'm using it with a Canon R1 and R5M2. Because the camera body has IBIS, I'm using the tilt-shift lens handheld without many issues. I have to remember to check the shot carefully. A few times I didn't hold the camera level enough and the result was a tall, wide building that looked a little like a trapezoid. I'll use a tripod, for the times when I really need greater accuracy.

Click to expand...

Good for you! There's no turning back now I couldn't imagine my photography work kit without a shift lens. I don't care much for tilt, but shift is a huge part of how I take photos.

I can echo DVaNu above:

"Happy and Peaceful Holidays to all!"...and add the following Canon-related holiday tale...

=====

...annually (since 1997), I have constructed family calendars using three different paper sizes (all in inches)--4x6, 8.5x11 and 13x19.

For 3 or 4 years now, I've printed the 4x6 versions with the Canon G620 (North America model number, I think), a six color printer that works with small-sized prints...and the Canon ink is cheap (Photo Glossy II paper, usually).

Prior to using the G620, I used a local big box store that prints spectacular 4x6s using a Fujifilm machine.

For years, a Canon LBP7660Cdn was utilized to print 8x10 images; the color printer (which we still own) works well and on quality color laser paper, the tweaked images that result look decent enough...until compared with 8x10s from the G620.

I always hesitated using the Canon Pixma Pro 100 to print 8x10s...because the ink (sourced from eight 13 ml cartridges) is, frankly, prohibitively expensive. So I generally reserve the Pro 100 for 13x19 prints.

The Canon G620 prints on standard letter-sized paper very very well (although the speed per page is nothing to write home about), and its ink is pennies on the dollar compared to the Pro 100's ink.

But the reason I'm writing is, sort of holiday (as in December) related.

In December of 2024, I had successful cataract removal/lens replacement surgeries on both eyes. (Best Christmas gift ever.)

The paper that I utilize most when building the 8.5x11 calendars (printed with the G620) is Canon's standard Matte Paper (MP-101).

The MP-101 paper is NOT double-sided--while one side is best suited for ink jet printing (white with the faintest of bluish-tint), the other side is an off-white that is a bit tan/yellow in color.

Here's the deal: in past years (pre cataract-removal), it was virtually impossible for me to distinguish between the printable (white) side of MP-101 paper, as opposed to the tan/yellow side that is not designed for accurate color inkjet printing. I had to ask my wife for assistance.

This year's Christmas season? Post cataract-removal?

I can easily determine which side of MP-101 paper is the printable side.

Happy Holidays!

Great Blue Heron taking off in the snow.
R5ii + 100-500.

AlanF said:

MILFs?

Click to expand...

Didn't even know what MILF meant before googling...

Del Paso said:

I look at you in admiration, you are a saint!

Click to expand...

I'm the patron saint of F-stop equivalence debating.

EricN said:

Thailand and Malaysia were similar as far as cameras.
I am choosing to decline to comment on MILFs as I'm a newly wed and shouldn't even think about it.

Click to expand...

I look at you in admiration, you are a saint!

EricN said:

Thailand and Malaysia were similar as far as cameras.
I am choosing to decline to comment on MILFs as I'm a newly wed and shouldn't even think about it.

Click to expand...

OOOPSY...
Edited (what have I been thinking of?)

AlanF said:

MILFs?

Click to expand...

Mirrorless Interchangeable Lens French, i.e. French people wearing non reflecting glasses

Del Paso said:

Yet I must confess that, during my 3 weeks in Japan, I only saw a tiny number of MILFs and DSLRs, and most of them were APS/C. Believe me or not, I only saw 5 or 6 FF, 1 Nikon DSLR, an EOS 5D III, a Sony A7, 2 R6, an R3. That's about all! One single day in Yellowstone: 50-60 FF and a huge amount of big whites.
But a lot of compacts in Japan! And masses of cellphones...

Click to expand...

Thailand and Malaysia were similar as far as cameras.
I am choosing to decline to comment on MILFs as I'm a newly wed and shouldn't even think about it.

Another beautiful shot. Well done, Norman.

Del Paso said:

Yet I must confess that, during my 3 weeks in Japan, I only saw a tiny number of MILFs and DSLRs, and most of them were APS/C. Believe me or not, I only saw 5 or 6 FF, 1 Nikon DSLR, an EOS 5D III, a Sony A7, 2 R6, an R3. That's about all! One single day in Yellowstone: 50-60 FF and a huge amount of big whites.
But a lot of compacts in Japan! And masses of cellphones...

Click to expand...

MILFs?

EricN said:

For a while, it seemed like a threshold could be reached where almost everyone exclusively used a phone camera and the only people buying photography equipment would be professionals and fanatical hobbyists both types capable of being tempted to spend shameful amounts on niche items. In this way, Canon may have been less likely to do STM and 1.4 lenses

Spoiler: spoiler

they'd have no recourse but to proved you with a
35mm 1.2 L or FASTER!!!

Click to expand...

Yet I must confess that, during my 3 weeks in Japan, I only saw a tiny number of MILCs and DSLRs, and most of them were APS/C. Believe me or not, I only saw 5 or 6 FF, 1 Nikon DSLR, an EOS 5D III, a Sony A7, 2 R6, an R3. That's about all! One single day in Yellowstone: 50-60 FF and a huge amount of big whites.
But a lot of compacts in Japan! And masses of cellphones...

For a while, it seemed like a threshold could be reached where almost everyone exclusively used a phone camera and the only people buying photography equipment would be professionals and fanatical hobbyists both types capable of being tempted to spend shameful amounts on niche items. In this way, Canon may have been less likely to do STM and 1.4 lenses

EricN said:

It might look like a large format setup, but I look at it this way: If you're already using more equipment such as lighting than you'd carry around on foot solo, a heavier setup would be more expensive, but you already either take multiple trips to move everything or you have assistants.

Click to expand...

I already do 2-3 trips home -> car and car -> shoot location when I have all the lights. But that's for very specific shooting. I would still need and want a setup I can carry around for other purposes. And I consider the RF 85 1.2 as something I can easily carry around...
MF lenses can partially "get away" with slower apertures because of the MF sensors' crop factor. But what combo of fl / aperture makese sense on a MF sensor may not make sense on a FF sensor

EricN said:

It could be they don't believe they could make a profit.

Click to expand...

I think that is correct. Some people have been clamoring for Canon and Nikon to enter the MF fray, but they haven't, because it is too niche for them

roby17269 said:

While I do enjoy my MF lenses a lot (HC mount), they are already big and heavy even if the primes are 2.8 or slower. MF primes faster than f/2 are quite rare and there are no 1.4, let alone 1.2 ones. Just saying that FF users’ expectations would need to be adjusted…

Click to expand...

It might look like a large format setup, but I look at it this way: If you're already using more equipment such as lighting than you'd carry around on foot solo, a heavier setup would be more expensive, but you already either take multiple trips to move everything or you have assistants. It could be they don't believe they could make a profit.

White-vented Plumeleteer seen while birding in the Reserva Natural Retorno del Colibrí, Colombia, November, 2025.

R5MkII RF200-800mm

Click said:

Very nice shots, dantaz.

Click to expand...

Thanks, Click!

Buylongterm said:

That it is! LOL. I broke down (no will power) and bought it! I got it for 2900.00, so I convinced myself it was a deal that I couldn't refuse.

Click to expand...

I complain bitterly about the stupid little things Canon gets wrong, that they should not.
But, the 24-105 2.8 and the 70-200 Z are jewels. You will not regret it.

lindt1 said:

I got this lens a few month ago. Till now i haven't had the time to try it out at night. No tracking/stacking and very little experience in nightscape images.

View attachment 227252

EOS R6 Mark II, RF 20 f/1.4 VCM, 30s, f/1.4, ISO 200

Click to expand...

Beautiful shot. Welcome to CR.

Very nice shot , Pieter.

I got this lens a few month ago. Till now i haven't had the time to try it out at night. No tracking/stacking and very little experience in nightscape images.



EOS R6 Mark II, RF 20 f/1.4 VCM, 30s, f/1.4, ISO 200

Ruddy turnstone (Arenaria interpres) feeding on barnacles on the Dutch island Texel.



R5 Mk II With EF 600mm f4 II + 1.4 extender.