Latest activity

neuroanatomist · Dec 22, 2025

roby17269 said:
What happened to the latest 35 1.2 thread?
I am traveling so I haven’t logged in for a few days

The thread is ephemeral, just as lens is illusory.

neuroanatomist · Dec 22, 2025

Etnaphele said:
I would suggest avoiding this way of thinking, because it's wrong: f/2.8 refers to a physical property of the lens and Richard's text is correct.

DOF matches f/4.5 on FF, but light gathering is the same as f/2.8 FF (exposure triangle doesn't change). It's not easy to really understand this, I had to douple check multiple times with my cameras

It should be noted that both aperture and focal length are intrinsic properties of a lens, having nothing to do with the size of the sensor behind it. Manufacturers have no problem printing the FF-equivalent focal length in big numbers on fixed-lens cameras, sometimes along with the aperture like Panasonic does with “25-600” and “F2.8” on the FZ300 (though Leica puts the real focal length on the lens itself).

It’s not true that ‘light gathering is the same’. Light gathering is a function of the size of the iris diaphragm, not the f/number. The lens on the Ricoh GR IV gathers the amount of light of an 18.3mm f/2.8 lens, not a 28mm f/2.8 lens. The latter would have a larger iris diaphragm and gather more total light.

Exposure is a function of the light intensity (per unit area), and that is proportional to f/number. Also, even though the exposure triangle doesn’t change, image noise at the same ISO setting is higher with a smaller sensor. There’s no free lunch.

AlanF · Dec 22, 2025

Bob Howland said:
Not if you consider the human race to be a highly social species where social dominance matter.

The analogy is ridiculous. Most arguments by analogy are unsound as situations are rarely exactly analogous but if they are close enough they can make sense. We use analogies much of the time, but your one goes too far and you use it to ridicule @neuroanatomist and others. So, it's ridiculous on two counts.

Bob Howland said:
Frankly, this whole issue seems suspiciously like some guy with a penis and XY chromosones demanding that everybody must say that he’s a she. Social dominance only goes so far.

Del Paso · Dec 22, 2025

Bob Howland said:
And if a lot of people feel that way, then Canon will have made a mistake. They could replace the current lens with another lacking the SA control or, my guess, introduce an additional lens without it. My solution to the issue is to continue using my EF lens. The adapter doesn't bother me.

After having compared the EF and the RF 100 macros, I didn't hesitate one single second and put the EF on sale. This was already my 3rd. EF version, the first ones were even inferior , and it was still far inferior to the RF for landscapes. Don't you please tell me macros aren't for landscapes too, many use them in a more universal way, unless you want to always carry 2 100mm lenses.
The RF is just a full class above the EF. You don't want SA control? Don't use it, I do.
My 2 centimes of an Euro.

Del Paso · Dec 22, 2025

Zadak said:
I would think so, Canon screwed up the 100mm by giving it that useless SA control. Who approved that feature...

I did!

roby17269 · Dec 22, 2025

What happened to the latest 35 1.2 thread?
I am traveling so I haven’t logged in for a few days

Richard CR · Dec 22, 2025

Bob Howland said:
And if a lot of people feel that way, then Canon will have made a mistake. They could replace the current lens with another lacking the SA control or, my guess, introduce an additional lens without it. My solution to the issue is to continue using my EF lens. The adapter doesn't bother me.

Canon has experimented with going past 1.0x maybe from their feedback it just wasn't something that people were clamouring for.

Nathalietje86 · Dec 22, 2025

What is that with fixed range lenses for compact camera's

Bob Howland · Dec 22, 2025

P-visie said:
What a ridiculous comment.

Not if you consider the human race to be a highly social species where social dominance matter.

Bob Howland · Dec 22, 2025

Zadak said:
I own it and many other L series RF lenses, and I think it's useless

I would take a 1.4x compatibility any day over it

And if a lot of people feel that way, then Canon will have made a mistake. They could replace the current lens with another lacking the SA control or, my guess, introduce an additional lens without it. My solution to the issue is to continue using my EF lens. The adapter doesn't bother me.

Richard CR · Dec 22, 2025

Brown said:
What's so great about the Sony 100mm macro compared to the RF equivalent?
Is it just the ability to use teleconverters?

1.4x macro down to 2,8x macro with tc's, it's amazingly fast to focus, includes all the gadgets, focus limiter, FOUR focus motors - and its MTF is near perfect. for a pure macro you really can't do much better than that lens.

AlanF · Dec 22, 2025

P-visie said:
Purple sandpiper (Calidris maritima) feeding:
View attachment 227186

Sanderlings (Calidris alba) taking a stroll along the floodline:
View attachment 227187

Both taken this morning on the beach of the Dutch island Texel, R5 MK II + EF 600mm f4 II + 1.4 extender.

Texel looks like a worthwhile trip from the UK. Is it good in Spring and Summer?

neuroanatomist · Dec 22, 2025

Zadak said:
I own it and many other L series RF lenses, and I think it's useless

I would take a 1.4x compatibility any day over it

Fair. Canon felt differently.

P-visie · Dec 22, 2025

Purple sandpiper (Calidris maritima) feeding:

Sanderlings (Calidris alba) taking a stroll along the floodline:

Both taken this morning on the beach of the Dutch island Texel, R5 MK II + EF 600mm f4 II + 1.4 extender.

Zadak · Dec 22, 2025

neuroanatomist said:
I use it, as well. Those who don’t want to can lock it in the zero position. Others can choose to whine about it on the internet, even if they don’t own the lens.

I own it and many other L series RF lenses, and I think it's useless

I would take a 1.4x compatibility any day over it

neuroanatomist · Dec 22, 2025

ISv said:
Went to the Wikipedia to check at least the color of the cap (just for curiosity!) and was blown out by the images there: practically everything is artificially grown mushrooms and what is most disturbing some are arranged to look as growing in the nature!!!

I’m a big fan of iNaturalist.

neuroanatomist · Dec 22, 2025

Nemorino said:
I love the SAC!!!!

I use it, as well. Those who don’t want to can lock it in the zero position. Others can choose to whine about it on the internet, even if they don’t own the lens.

EricN · Dec 22, 2025

ISv said:
And these are from today. For the first one I have no idea: what it did resembles to me from at a firs glance was the Pleurotus eryngii from Europe - what I mean is the color and the impressed-fibrillate cap... Nothing else: it makes almost perfect ring in the grass (there is NO grass that will accommodate this mushroom on Hawaii! And P. eringii rarely does a ring - it grows solitary!) and very different attachment of the gills to the stem (+ several other differences!). Went to the Wikipedia to check at least the color of the cap (just for curiosity!) and was blown out by the images there: practically everything is artificially grown mushrooms and what is most disturbing some are arranged to look as growing in the nature!!! The photo in Wikipedia (some total ignorant from Poland!!!) is perfect example: P. eringii (aka King Oyster mushroom) in the nature is:
1. Parasitic on Eyingium campestre (it's a species complex with others growing on different Umbiliferae!). Not around the trees!
2. The wild mushrooms have in proportions by far bigger cap than stems (look at my photo: the closer and on focus fruit-body is about the right proportions !!! You can't say it's the same mushroom in comparison with the artificially grown!!!
After that just Agaricus subrufescens. I wish they were 6-8 of the same size: stuffed and on the side with baked baby potatoes and caramelized baby onions + fresh greens they would make an excellent dinner for two!

View attachment 227184 View attachment 227185

Wikipedia was a nice idea, but when anyone can edit, it's becmore likely to be misleading (unintentionally or not). At least on these forums when there are disagreements, someone with an open mind can read the argument and understand it better that these articles presented with the false expectation that nobody wants to challenge it.

Nemorino · Dec 22, 2025

Zadak said:
by giving it that useless SA control

I love the SAC!!!!

AlanF · Dec 22, 2025

Optical limits is one of Richard's favourite sites
Summary:
The Good
Very sharp at medium aperture settings
f/1.2 on a budget

The Bad
Blurry corners from f/1.2 to f/2
Excessive axial color fringing at f/1.2
Very pronounced focus shift
Wavy field curvature
Miserable corner bokeh in certain scenes
Overpriced for what it is

1.5/5 stars, Avoid!

Canon RF 45mm f/1.2 STM Review - OpticalLimits

A Canon lens with an aperture of f/1.2 and offered below $500 USD? Can this work out here? Let's check the Canon RF 45mm f/1.2 STM ...

opticallimits.com

Zadak · Dec 22, 2025

Brown said:
What's so great about the Sony 100mm macro compared to the RF equivalent?
Is it just the ability to use teleconverters?

I would think so, Canon screwed up the 100mm by giving it that useless SA control. Who approved that feature...

Brown · Dec 22, 2025

What's so great about the Sony 100mm macro compared to the RF equivalent?
Is it just the ability to use teleconverters?

Zadak · Dec 22, 2025

erader said:
that 20 might be the perfect astro lens

Shouldn't a "perfect" astro lens be wider than 20?

EricN · Dec 22, 2025

neuroanatomist said:
For example (not enumerating some parameters for the sake of simplicity), if you use an f/1.2 lens on FF then you would need an f/0.75 lens on APS-C to get DoF as shallow. Good luck finding that. OTOH, you can stop a lens on FF down by 1.3 stops to match the deeper DoF of APS-C.

I'm not sure if it's true, but I had seen people say there is no decrease in depth of field after f/1 (only more light is available). If true, it's not only difficult to acquire such a lens, but the cropped images' depth of field can never replicate anything less than f1.6 of a larger image sensor.

However, I see crop fans saying things like "I don't care about depth of field," I suppose it's a legitimate stance, but I also see complaints about canon's narrow aperture lenses.

ISv · Dec 22, 2025

And these are from today. For the first one I have no idea: what it did resembles to me from at a firs glance was the Pleurotus eryngii from Europe - what I mean is the color and the impressed-fibrillate cap... Nothing else: it makes almost perfect ring in the grass (there is NO grass that will accommodate this mushroom on Hawaii! And P. eringii rarely does a ring - it grows solitary!) and very different attachment of the gills to the stem (+ several other differences!). Went to the Wikipedia to check at least the color of the cap (just for curiosity!) and was blown out by the images there: practically everything is artificially grown mushrooms and what is most disturbing some are arranged to look as growing in the nature!!! The photo in Wikipedia (some total ignorant from Poland!!!) is perfect example: P. eringii (aka King Oyster mushroom) in the nature is:
1. Parasitic on Eyingium campestre (it's a species complex with others growing on different Umbiliferae!). Not around the trees!
2. The wild mushrooms have in proportions by far bigger cap than stems (look at my photo: the closer and on focus fruit-body is about the right proportions !!! You can't say it's the same mushroom in comparison with the artificially grown!!!
After that just Agaricus subrufescens. I wish they were 6-8 of the same size: stuffed and on the side with baked baby potatoes and caramelized baby onions + fresh greens they would make an excellent dinner for two!

Latest activity

Latest activity

Filter

Forum statistics

Gallery statistics