Latest activity

neuroanatomist · Sunday at 9:19 PM

Today's color is...red.

"Rose-breasted Grosbeak"

EOS R1, RF 100-500mm f/4.5-7.1L IS USM + RF 1.4x @ 700mm, 1/2000 s, f/10, ISO 25600

"House Finch"

EOS R1, RF 100-500mm f/4.5-7.1L IS USM + RF 1.4x @ 700mm, 1/800 s, f/10, ISO 6400

ISv · Sunday at 9:03 PM

White-rumped Shama and molting Red-billed Leiothrix (especially the tail and the upper tail covers).

Noreaster · Sunday at 6:16 PM

Noreaster · Sunday at 6:15 PM

Swamp Sparrow

Noreaster · Sunday at 6:15 PM

Swamp Sparrow anbd red winged black bird

Noreaster · Sunday at 6:14 PM

Damselflies, Insect, marsh bluet (Enallagma ebrium)

Noreaster · Sunday at 6:13 PM

Nothing exciting

becceric · Sunday at 6:00 PM

I had some luck with Showy Lady Slippers yesterday. The previous landowner allowed visitors to enter the fen for photographs, but not the current owner. Due to possible damage/poaching, I can't blame them.
Previous visits yielded poor photo opportunities from the road, but apparently more have sprouted up since last year's visit. These were posing near the edge of a ditch so definitely "showy".

We enjoyed an added bonus. There weren't the annual swarms of horseflies practicing "touch and go landings" on our heads!

neuroanatomist · Sunday at 4:59 PM

Bob Howland said:
At the other extreme Pentax used to make a 200 f/2.5 lens with a 77mm filter. Either it wasn't 200mm or it wasn't f/2.5 or both.

Probably both. For example, a recent Canon 600/4 patent was 588mm f/4.12. That’s consistent with my EF 600/4 II, where the front element measures about 143mm in diameter.

Bob Howland · Sunday at 4:52 PM

neuroanatomist said:
The front element of a 70-180/2 zoom would need to be 90 mm in diameter, or so. FYI, even though the 28-70/2 is a fat lens and takes 95mm filters, the actual front element is ‘only’ about 78 mm in diameter. But a 90 mm front element could work with a 95mm filter thread.

My Sigma 10-18 APS-C lens, the filter size is 67mm but the front element is 35.5mm. At the other extreme Pentax used to make a 200 f/2.5 lens with a 77mm filter. Either it wasn't 200mm or it wasn't f/2.5 or both.

neuroanatomist · Sunday at 4:31 PM

Eloniel said:
It's a threat if the 70-180/200 is at 4000€ vs the 100-300 at 10000€.
They can't really make a 70-180/200 at 10000 because the Sony alternative is really really less expensive.

So they don't have a lot of margin to design this f2.0 telezoom, of course optically, weight and size but also to have a cohesive lense in the lineup that can compete against Sony.

Once again...why do you think Canon has to 'compete against Sony' in this segment, lens-for-lens? Did you spend 6 years saying that Sony had to maintain their reputation and compete against Canon's RF 28-70/2? I doubt it. Where are the sub-$1000 600mm and 800mm lenses from Sony? Why don't they have to 'compete with Canon' in that segment?

Canon has led the ILC market for 23 years and counting. I'm certain they know more about what lenses to design and sell than you, me, or anyone else on this or any other Internet forum. But feel free to keep on making sweeping statements about what Canon has to do to 'be competitive'. Lol.

Eloniel · Sunday at 4:07 PM

neuroanatomist said:
So Canon shouldn’t make a 70-200mm f/2 because with a 1.4x TC that’s a 98-280mm f/2.8 and that’s ’a threat’ to the 100-300mm f/2.8.

Shhhhh. Don’t tell Canon that a 400mm f/2.8 with a 1.4x TC is a 560mm f/4. If they ever figure that out, they’ll understand the threat that poses to a 600mm f/4, and they’ll never make such a lens.

Or maybe that ‘threat’ is why, while Canon made 7 versions of a 400/2.8, they’ve only made 5 versions of a 600/4.

Forum dwellers thinking they understand the camera market better than manufacturers is a never-ending source of amusement.

It's a threat if the 70-180/200 is at 4000€ vs the 100-300 at 10000€.
They can't really make a 70-180/200 at 10000 because the Sony alternative is really really less expensive.

So they don't have a lot of margin to design this f2.0 telezoom, of course optically, weight and size but also to have a cohesive lense in the lineup that can compete against Sony.

neuroanatomist · Sunday at 4:04 PM

Exploreshootshare said:
Thx for the math. Honestly, I didn't realistically expect 180mm at the long end. But now you're telling me the diameter would be 90mm "only?" The lens will be smaller than the current RF 28-70mm f2 (100-104mm diameter depending on the source). The filter thread might also be smaller. I actually have hope for this lens now

The front element of a 70-180/2 zoom would need to be 90 mm in diameter, or so. FYI, even though the 28-70/2 is a fat lens and takes 95mm filters, the actual front element is ‘only’ about 78 mm in diameter. But a 90 mm front element could work with a 95mm filter thread.

Eloniel · Sunday at 4:02 PM

P-visie said:
Hope = deferred disappointment . A 180mm f2 lens would need a front element with a 90mm diameter, that is about the size of the front element of the RF 200-800mm. Your wish lens will be big, heavy and very expensive.

If it's not 180mm they would have to do a 70-160 or 70-170mm f2.0 if they want to have the world first title.

As said they don't have a lot of margin to do such a lense.

Exploreshootshare · Sunday at 3:57 PM

rombe3jr said:
But the Sony 28-70 f/2 is 36% lighter than Canon's version so that's a fair bit lighter (512 grams or 1.13 pounds). For anybody shooting for hours at a time that is a lot lighter to carry.

Yes, Canon needs a diet for this lens. The weight (and a fair bit the bulk, too) has kept me from purchasing it because it just too heavy to carry it around. The weight of Sonys lens is intriguing and think Canon will be up to the task to accomplish building a successor with nearly the same specs concerning weight.

Exploreshootshare · Sunday at 3:53 PM

P-visie said:
Hope = deferred disappointment

Germany sucked yesterday, but I kept watching because I hoped they'd turn it around. Ta-da, they actually did it. So sometimes, hope is not a deferred disappointment whether it is in sports, politics (look what the Hungarian people accomplished) and sometimes even for first-world-camera-wishes.

P-visie said:
A 180mm f2 lens would need a front element with a 90mm diameter, that is about the size of the front element of the RF 200-800mm. Your wish lens will be big, heavy and very expensive.

Thx for the math. Honestly, I didn't realistically expect 180mm at the long end. But now you're telling me the diameter would be 90mm "only?" The lens will be smaller than the current RF 28-70mm f2 (100-104mm diameter depending on the source). The filter thread might also be smaller. I actually have hope for this lens now

If you're responding to my first initial post (sub 1kg) you're probably right. But for that focal length 1,2 kg would be ok. As long as the 24-70mm f2 is put on a diet.

scyrene · Sunday at 2:21 PM

rombe3jr said:
Seems like a fantastic idea and I think would help solidify the Canon market

Depends what you mean. Psychologically, maybe? In the minds of a few fans. But these lenses are so esoteric their sales are probably rounding errors compared to kit models.

P-visie · Sunday at 12:51 PM

Exploreshootshare said:
I am hoping for a world´s first 70-180mm F2.

Hope = deferred disappointment

. A 180mm f2 lens would need a front element with a 90mm diameter, that is about the size of the front element of the RF 200-800mm. Your wish lens will be big, heavy and very expensive.

rombe3jr · Sunday at 12:24 PM

Exploreshootshare said:
It'll be interesting to see what happens. I thought camcorders just had kind of a revival. Maybe Canon wants to profit from it instead of killing them of.

For the original F2.8 L trinity you're kind of right. There is an overlap between the UWA zoom and the standard zoom, but not for the telezoom. The 24-105mm wasn't really part of trinity, it was more of a "one-lens" set-up kind of thing instead of two lenses. For the EF mount there was and still is the EF 24-70mm F4 L. A lens which was never "brought over" (is that a correct term/ phrase?) to the RF mount. The f4 trinity also only had an overlap with the UWA and standard zoom.

Interestingly, the new f2.8 STM trinity doesn't have an overlap between the UWA zoom (16-28mm) and standard zoom (28-70mm) and believe it won´t have an overlap with the telezoom. Concerning the f2 zooms, they are harder to design and every focal length saved will save significantly more weight. Therefore, I hope (and actually believe) a F2 trinity won't have any overlap.

Of course, Sony went a different way and according to an article it was a design choice because research showed that there are more people willing to buy a 50-150mm F2 rather than two f2 zooms. This could happen to Canon too, but they usually do things differently anyway. Also, I believe they want to differentiate from Sonys offering. Beating that lens is pretty hard, but coming up with a different lens that can be market as "worlds first" is a pretty good answer. Therefore, I am hoping for a world´s first 70-180mm F2.

Oh wow... a 70-180 f/2 would be a world's first on any mount! I wonder what size and weight it would have to be. Seems like a fantastic idea and I think would help solidify the Canon market and not so tempting to try Sony with its 50-150 f/2. And as you say, this would not have overlap since Sony does have a 28-70 f/2 so it overlaps the 50-150 f/2 by 20mm. But the Sony 28-70 f/2 is 36% lighter than Canon's version so that's a fair bit lighter (512 grams or 1.13 pounds). For anybody shooting for hours at a time that is a lot lighter to carry.

rombe3jr · Sunday at 12:12 PM

Can a "world's first" lens include one that is already in existence on another mount but not RF yet?

Exploreshootshare · Sunday at 12:08 PM

Bob Howland said:
I think the 20-50 is an extremely important lens or, more exactly, an extremely important architecture. It's the first interchangeable lens in a neat package whose focal length is designed to be controlled by the camera body. Previously Canon used a kludgy add-on to do that task. For photographers, this doesn't mean much. For video, this could kill camcorders. Furthermore, it's an L and comparatively cheap.

It'll be interesting to see what happens. I thought camcorders just had kind of a revival. Maybe Canon wants to profit from it instead of killing them of.

Bob Howland said:
Regarding overlapping focal lengths, consider the 14/15-35 & 24-70/105, 24-105 & 70-200 and 70-200 & 100-400/500. Canon does this all the time, unlike Sigma that tends to have little or no overlap.

For the original F2.8 L trinity you're kind of right. There is an overlap between the UWA zoom and the standard zoom, but not for the telezoom. The 24-105mm wasn't really part of trinity, it was more of a "one-lens" set-up kind of thing instead of two lenses. For the EF mount there was and still is the EF 24-70mm F4 L. A lens which was never "brought over" (is that a correct term/ phrase?) to the RF mount. The f4 trinity also only had an overlap with the UWA and standard zoom.

Interestingly, the new f2.8 STM trinity doesn't have an overlap between the UWA zoom (16-28mm) and standard zoom (28-70mm) and believe it won´t have an overlap with the telezoom. Concerning the f2 zooms, they are harder to design and every focal length saved will save significantly more weight. Therefore, I hope (and actually believe) a F2 trinity won't have any overlap.

Of course, Sony went a different way and according to an article it was a design choice because research showed that there are more people willing to buy a 50-150mm F2 rather than two f2 zooms. This could happen to Canon too, but they usually do things differently anyway. Also, I believe they want to differentiate from Sonys offering. Beating that lens is pretty hard, but coming up with a different lens that can be market as "worlds first" is a pretty good answer. Therefore, I am hoping for a world´s first 70-180mm F2.

neuroanatomist · Sunday at 11:16 AM

Eloniel said:
A 70-200 f2.0 compatible with teleconverter would be a threat to the 100-300 F2.8 so I assume the it will not be compatible with teleconverter.

So Canon shouldn’t make a 70-200mm f/2 because with a 1.4x TC that’s a 98-280mm f/2.8 and that’s ’a threat’ to the 100-300mm f/2.8.

Shhhhh. Don’t tell Canon that a 400mm f/2.8 with a 1.4x TC is a 560mm f/4. If they ever figure that out, they’ll understand the threat that poses to a 600mm f/4, and they’ll never make such a lens.

Or maybe that ‘threat’ is why, while Canon made 7 versions of a 400/2.8, they’ve only made 5 versions of a 600/4.

scyrene said:
This is what I always wonder. "Compete" means one thing to forum dwellers and I think something rather different to the companies involved.

Forum dwellers thinking they understand the camera market better than manufacturers is a never-ending source of amusement.

obl918 · Sunday at 10:54 AM

scyrene said:
Warranty length depends on your location doesn't it? I think in some countries you would still be covered.

Definitely not for me, I already checked.

One year in US.

Celts88 · Sunday at 10:38 AM

Click said:
Lovely shots. I especially like the B&W.

Thanks for the comment.

I've never taken a photo and made it black and white but thought it was a good subject (castle) to have a go. I also added the effect of old glass over the photo that gave it a slightly old look which I think helps (to me anyway), below is photo in B&W without the old glass effect

ctk · Sunday at 10:35 AM

People really think camera gear development is like a tennis match. Even the most GAS afflicted spec sheet chaser is not switching back and forth between systems on every new update. Those folks just deep fry their credit cards and buy everything that comes out.

I went from Nikon to Sony to Canon and now am back with Sony. As much as I admire and envy some of the strides Canon RF has made since I bailed, I really have no appetite or reason to switch again. I feel like Canon, Sony and to a lesser degree Nikon and Panasonic FF MILC systems have more than enough for the vast majority of enthusiasts.

Latest activity

Latest activity

Filter

Forum statistics

Gallery statistics