AlanF said:

As @neuroanatomist has written many times, he has the same charts as the digital-picture and has got them to correct some results. You can do digital-picture type charts for free by downloading them from the bobatkins site. However, to measure lp/mm with precision you need to use IMATEST or similar, which is done by opticallimits, lenstip, ephotozine etc.

Click to expand...

To get meaningful results, I think dedicate software such as IMATEST or similar is required. Otherwise there's too much subjetivity.

I kept digging regarding the lack of 28mms and found this review. Such a shame that Canon doesn't offer a similarly sized 28mm but with at least the image quality of the EF IS and fast autofocus. Sadly their pancake has great image so it will never happen, there are just not enough people looking for a great autofocus on this focal length.

- It may seem a bit strange but these days full-format 28mm prime lenses are almost exotics. The unpopularity probably relates to the perception that such lenses aren’t wide enough for landscapes or architecture and too wide for everything else.
[...]
As already hinted in the introduction, direct competitors to the Sony FE 28mm f/2 (shown to the left below) don’t exist.

A beautiful animal well captured. My favourite is the third.

R7 II CFB card slot, R8II R10II CFB/SD express please, no more UHS-II

I bought the EF 50 1.4 just before this lens was announced. Fits better in my bunch of EF lenses and can be used with a variable ND adapter.
R7 destroys that lens wide open - on FF with 24MPix it is very usable wide open. What I like is that the older EF version has low distortion and moderate CAs without any correction.
Now about the RF 1.2 45: It is close to these older designs in IQ, suffers from strong distortion and it has AF which is not the case for 3rd party lenses, a huge advantage!
Now my opinion about IQ wide open etc:
If you can use f/2.8 or f/4.0 and the lens is sharp, contrasty, gives good colors you can use it for landscape, lots of portrait situations, nature, architecture.
With f/1.2 or f/1.4 you have the option for low DOF or night shots which are not accessible with e.g. a f/4 or f/2.8 zoom. Some degradation in sheer sharpness is traded in to get the photo which is not possible with f/4 or f/2.8.

I would be satisfied with a well corrected (not relying on computational correction for good results) RF-S 15-60 4.0 IS USM with a good close focus range (1:3 reprod. ratio would be stunning).
But maybe three lenses?
→ f/2.8 High End Z type 15-60
→ f/4.0 High quality fixed aperture 15-60
→ f/2.8...5.6 good quality var aperture 15-85 like the older EF-S version
And the EF-S 15-85 is of really good quality, very low noise AF, IS and reasonably sharp at least for 4k video - the R7s 32 MPix sensor reveals the non-perfect sharpness but photography is more than just pixel peeping.

Click said:

I really like this shot. Well done, danfaz.

Click to expand...

Thank you, Click!

Hey everyone, here's a few selections from a sequence of shots I captured yesterday.

I really like this shot. Well done, danfaz.

Cute American Kestrel.

More flowers from today: I didn't see any bird deserving to be on photo.

7DmkI said:

Take off!

Click to expand...

....With the landing gear in transition. Nice shot!

Click said:

Cute little ball of feathers. Nicely done, Alan.

Click to expand...

The Goldcrest is Europe's smallest bird, weighing in at 5.5g/0.2oz. The Firecrest, which I saw yesterday, is very close in weight and size, but is much rarer.

American goldfinch and white breasted nuthatch

Snapster said:

I might also be inherently against "one lens solution" type of lenses. It's rarely if ever the best tool for the job.

Click to expand...

IMO, sometimes the ‘one lens solution’ is the best tool for the job. For me, when the ‘job’ is a family trip where I want good quality photos including memory shots, but don’t want to detract from time with the family by carrying a bag full of lenses and changing them out, the best tool is often the R8 and RF 24-240mm.

But yeah, if I’m being honest then I will add that I often also carry a fast, wide prime (24/1.4, 24/1.8 or 20/1.4) and the 10-20/4 since that kit fits in a bag small enough that it isn’t excluded from venues (museums, etc.) that don’t allow backpacks.

Cute little ball of feathers. Nicely done, Alan.

I went back to the same spot as I saw a Firecrest yesterday, this time armed with the RF 100-500mm as the conditions were so dire between showers. Got in just one shot as a bird briefly appeared for about 20 seconds. And, when I looked at the image - a Goldcrest. (1/200s at iso 40,000), I am tempted to buy a used 400mm f/4 DO ii for these conditions, but it would rarely be used and still cost about £3500).

Checking travel pics from last summer, I realized I shoot so much landscape at 200mm this won't make it. Also in cities and with people I often use apertures faster than 2.8.

I might also be inherently against "one lens solution" type of lenses. It's rarely if ever the best tool for the job.

ISv and Speedfinder,

Very nice shots, guys.

Would be much nicer to have something like 70-180 (closer to the 200mm and maybe less wide if it makes the lens easier to design). But I get that the diameter of the front element depends… you all know it.

And Canon probably needs to protect their 70-200 (both f/4 and f/2.8) so there must be some disadvantages to that STM lens.

Forgot to add, its a Corn Bunting central Spain

They might be LBJs but they can sing .

David_B said:

If someone used different lenses and could prove a difference, would it be accepted? Or would people argue that the results aren't meaningful because different lenses. Maybe it doesn't matter because people will just be argumentative.

Click to expand...

It would likely depend on the comparison. For example, I’m not sure that comparing the digitally corrected corners of the inexpensive RF 16/2.8 to the optically corrected RF 15-35/2.8 would be valid, because the base quality of the two lenses is very different. Having said that, it is interesting that the digitally corrected corners of the RF 16/2.8 deliver similar IQ to the optically corrected corners of the far more expensive (but also much older) EF 14/2.8L II.

David_B said:

Sorry, I can't help as I don't have the required equipment (a lens that doesn't fill the sensor.)

Click to expand...

I see. So you’re belief that optical correction is superior is akin to faith – belief without evidence.

David_B said:

IMHO, to do a proper test you'd need to shoot a test pattern chart, the kind that's used by digitalpicture, dpreview, with all the lines at angles to enable measuring lpmm, etc.

Click to expand...

As @AlanF mentioned, I have the same enhanced ISO 12233-type charts used by Bryan/TDP.

David_B said:

Thanks, I didn't know that.

Click to expand...

You’re welcome.