Latest activity

Mistral75 · Nov 27, 2025

Canon Rumors said:
In late 2024, Canon surprised us with the announcement of the RF 28-70mm f/2.8 IS STM, a fast zoom in a very small package. Earlier this year, Canon followed that up by launching the RF 16-28mm f/2.8 IS STM. Both lenses have been well received by the Canon community and for good reasons. This is […]

See full article...

Do you remember your own post from 22 May this year?

Canon RF 70-150mm f/2.8 IS STM Coming To Complete the Trilogy? - Canon Rumors

m4ndr4ke · Nov 27, 2025

Walrus said:
And the 50 STM is generally better; at f1.8 the two are comparable in the centre (but 45 has worse purple fringing), in midframe 45 is clear winner, but in the corners it falls apart way worse then the 50

From the brief experience I had with the 45, I'd say the RF 50 1.8 is always sharper. Wide open, I think the 45 has more contrast in the corners, but still lower sharpness in the entire frame, while the 50 1.8 has a nice level of sharpness but very low contrast in the corners.
Stopping down both lenses, the 50 wipes the floor with the 45, in terms of resolution. By f/2.8 to f/4, the 50 is brilliant.

The thing is, I already have f/2 in the zoom lens, so the 1.8 primes don't really offer me anything, I mean, it's not attractive swapping lenses from f/2 to f/1.8, even if on my second camera. I need something at least one full f-stop faster. Usually, I don't even carry the 1.8 primes, only the 35 goes to weddings, to photograph the wedding rings but, for every other assignment, I go with the 28-70 f/2 attached to the R6, next to the RP without lens, and then the RF 70-200 2.8 and 16mm 2.8.
I just want something for when f/2 is not enough and flash is not an option. Sometimes, that happens.

Walrus said:
If I need bright apertures I already have the sharpest std lens on the market

You know I've met it as well...

but I also need something that can go in the shoulder bag without being a burden.
At ~350g, this 45 is a feather.
The 40 Art is heavier than my 70-200

I'm somewhat torn between this and one of the VCMs (most likely, the 50), knowing such lens wouldn't be used often, which makes it somewhat unreasonable investing over €1k, but makes this one slightly attractive.

GMCPhotographics · Nov 27, 2025

ashmadux said:
I personally have been complaining and somewhat raging about this for a while now. I was very disappointed with the r62 in terms of the image performance and the body styling and feel. That said, there's something really really weird about the resolving of the r62 sensor, and I retired the camera after a month.

One of the most basic or toughest tests that I put it through was simply taking a picture of a lamppost in the park, with ragged trees/leaves around; so there's random detail and color everywhere. But I just couldn't get sharp images out of this basic test. When I later got my R5 it was the first thing I tested and it nailed it.

I'm a certified pixel peeper that has been tracking my sensor performance since my very first camera. It's just the nature of how I work very close. I use my photos in a ton of design layouts and so I often have to use them at 100% or close.

Anyways, I noticed how r62 files, especially in the daytime, would 'look' sharp but still not sharp. It honestly drove me crazy. It did take me awhile to get used to the autofocus but then even that was wigging out. But regardless I still have a month's worth of pictures in Japan to pixel peep and scratch my head. The smoothness is just looks weird when you know something is supposed to be much sharper. And I can directly compare it to the 5d3 files which do not exhibit this behavior and can produce some razor sharp portrait images regardless of eyes or skin etc.

And on the other side of this coin, because of the nature of that smoothing or noise reduction or less resolution combination also with the AA filter, r62 night photos of especially areas of Tokyo can look absolutely amazing. It just smoothes out in all of the right ways while keeping sharp edges. I have images of the previous Gundam at night and center Tokyo and some of it just looks absolutely fantastic... Almost miraculously clean. But man the daytime photos just really grinded my gears. My portraits as well, zooming into the eyes/eyelashes have this kind of soft sharpness effect, and I hated it.

The last thing I'll say is that from the reviews of the r52, especially from the raw files samples, I could spot the noise immediately. Whether that turns into a debate for a lot of people who just didn't care or yada yada, I noticed back then that the image quality took a hit. But all it did was make me feel great about my R5 purchase.

Sometimes it's good to feel good that i didn't need to upgrade. Because there's always caveats, big or small. At least with Canon. But more noise? Absolutely not, that's a automatic no purchase for me.

Cheers all.

What are you comparing your R6II with? I’ve been really pleased with the sharpness and detail I’m seeing with my copy and my lenses. It’s far superior to my previous cameras.

neuroanatomist · Nov 27, 2025

MarioGC said:
28-70mm? I owned one once. It was the most useless lens I have ever owned. Always too long at the short end and too short at the long end. It doesn't matter if it is f/2.8. I wouldn't buy one even if it were a f/2.
24-70 is ok, 24-105 still better.
Just my 2 cents.

I have the 24-105/2.8L and the 28-70/2L. The former is an excellent general purpose lens, for me the latter essentially substitutes for a set of fast primes (though I do also have the 85/1.2L DS for portraits).

MarioGC · Nov 27, 2025

28-70mm? I owned one once. It was the most useless lens I have ever owned. Always too long at the short end and too short at the long end. It doesn't matter if it is f/2.8. I wouldn't buy one even if it were a f/2.
24-70 is ok, 24-105 still better.
Just my 2 cents.

erader · Nov 27, 2025

DocInfoSci said:
Thanks! Very interesting to see this. Overall quite positive and not a crazy sacrifice for the pixels gained. Super happy to see this, and maybe with the R6 iv they'll keep the pixels but bump the ISO back up -- which would be a killer combo for this tier.

That stated, I think that the first comparison must always be pixel to pixel -- not downsized. If I buy a matrix of pixels then I want to use all of those pixels -- downsizing is a silly comparison. If I downsize of my R6 20mp images to 10mp they're amazing even at 52k ISO -- but why would I do that? I wouldn't. Crop, yes, but downsize for quality? Nope. I use all of those pixels to the best that I can and each pixel must stand on its own.

yeah when you hear that downsize argument you know it's noisier

Walrus · Nov 27, 2025

m4ndr4ke said:
It's no miracle maker, of course. This will be a fun lens to many people, the focal length is absolutely excellent.
I'm kind of low key considering it. The image quality is not at the level I'm used to, but this would be a secondary lens to me, so requirements wouldn't be quite the same.
Autofocus is slow, and its chromatic aberrations are "questionable" to say the least, but the lens is still pleasant to use.
I'll give it a though when the price drops to 400€ or less.

I'd call "fun" a 30€ lens, not a 500€ one, but of course anyone will decide what "fun" ceiling is, according to they're own income and will to spend

the max I spent for a lens is the 1000€ for the 28-70 STM (even if 15yrs ago I spent 800€ for the 70-200 f2.8 which with inflation is surely more then 1k€ today), so a lens that cost 50% of my max budget ever is still pretty expensive.

And the 50 STM is generally better; at f1.8 the two are comparable in the centre (but 45 has worse purple fringing), in midframe 45 is clear winner, but in the corners it falls apart way worse then the 50

Canon RF 50mm F1.8 STM Lens Image Quality

View the image quality delivered by the Canon RF 50mm F1.8 STM Lens using ISO 12233 Resolution Chart lab test results. Compare the image quality of this lens with other lenses.

www.the-digital-picture.com

Then same story at 2.8 (but here centre is visibly worse on the 45), and it continues; the 45 catch up in the centre and it's better in the midframe up to f4 , at f5.6 the 50 goes even in the midframe, but even at f8 the 45's corners haven't catch up with the 50. This lens is trash, it's worth only when costing no more then the 50 STM, it's as simply as that, it's a 200€ lens, not 2.5x as much.

If I need bright apertures I already have the sharpest std lens on the market, which at f1.4 matches the 45 STM when closed at f8 (because at f5.6 still lags behind)....c'mon! https://www.the-digital-picture.com...eraComp=1697&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=7

Still waiting for Chris Frost review as the final word, which is not happening surely due to Canon wanting to get early orders in before the disaster is shown in full by Chris, even if TDP review is pretty clear.

Patti E · Nov 27, 2025

Sunnystate said:
Couple birds from Florida...
Thanks.

Love the lighting on the Snowy and the Grebe!

Del Paso · Nov 27, 2025

P-visie said:
You must be joking when you call Facebook and X good sources.

In addition to the other comments: it is good practice, and polite to the author of then original, to include a reference or link to the source that you quote.

I must contradict you here. X is an excellent source for white supremacists, Adolf lovers etc...

RaPhoto · Nov 27, 2025

Dragon said:
Nice shots. Hawk doesn't seem too concerned about the crows harassing. We have hawks and ravens here and they seem to share a mutual respect.

The crows gave up after a few minutes, and then she went back to scanning for breakfast.

m4ndr4ke · Nov 27, 2025

Walrus said:
I'd say this seals the deal (in negative) on the lens, but, as seen in the first reviews, it was to be expected.

I'm waiting, as the final word, for Chris Frost's review, that isn't coming yet, so either Canon didn't give him one to test, or they gave to him but asked to pospone the release until they say so. Either cases speak for themselves.

It's no miracle maker, of course. This will be a fun lens to many people, the focal length is absolutely excellent.
I'm kind of low key considering it. The image quality is not at the level I'm used to, but this would be a secondary lens to me, so requirements wouldn't be quite the same.
Autofocus is slow, and its chromatic aberrations are "questionable" to say the least, but the lens is still pleasant to use.
I'll give it a though when the price drops to 400€ or less.

Tom R5R7 · Nov 27, 2025

m4ndr4ke said:
If it can't, a single nano USM certainly will, like the RF 100-400mm.

The STM in the RF 45mm f/1.2 is unimpressive, I tried the lens last week. It's smooth but very slow.
So far, the only lenses where STM truly seems to be enough are those that don't have that much movement to perform (10-20mm f/4, 16-28mm f/2.8, 28-70mm f/2.8).

I think that in the case of the 45 mm, being based on a Gaussian design, the entire lens groups, or most of the elements move to focus. That is a lot more burden then having only a group in the center of the lens doing the focusing task.

RaPhoto · Nov 27, 2025

A pair of Cassin's Kingbirds this Thanksgiving morning. Canon R5 and RF200-800mm.
Some morning wing stretching: Enjoy.

m4ndr4ke · Nov 27, 2025

Snapster said:
a lens that is supposed to be able to shoot action. Or why would you even need a budget 2.8 otherwise?

Was that a joke?

Sports are probably what one would shoot less with a budget 2.8.

Canon Rumors said:
I have had no issues with the 45 as far as autofocus speed and accuracy.

Its autofocus speed didn't impress me. It's very smooth for a gear type STM, it's the smoothest I ever used (again for a gear type STM), but I found it to be just slightly faster than the 85mm f/2 - I had both side by side.
This is not to trash the lens, I'm actually considering it, but I was hoping for it to be a little snappier.

john1970 said:
The only lens that I own that has a STM is the 10-20 f4 L lens and in that lens it works very well.

Yes it does, I'd say the STM implementation in that lens makes it almost as fast as a nano USM, it's great.

AlanF · Nov 27, 2025

The effect of filters on the telephotos seems erratic.

neuroanatomist said:
Even with the easy to clean L-series lenses that have the 'fluorine' coating (fluorocarbon, really, but Canon doesn't want to call it that), I use a clear filter. I have no problem cleaning a bare front element at home with the proper tools, but often when out shooting I will just rub the filter clean with a microfiber cloth. No rocket blower to get the fine particles off (and with moisture on it, they would not blow away anyway). I've scratched a couple of B+W filters that way, and those are far easier to swap out than a front element.

The effects of filters on telephotos puzzles me. A B&W filter that caused no problems with the EF 400mm ii and seemed fine on the RF 100-500mm degrades noticeably when on the RF 100-500mm + 1.4xTC.

neuroanatomist · Nov 27, 2025

P-visie said:
The coatings on the RF200-800mm are not comparable to L-lens coatings. There is no “repellant” coating layer. That is why I use a UV filter in environments where it is likely that dirt, water or spray will come on the lens, e.g. photographing birds on the beach.

Even with the easy to clean L-series lenses that have the 'fluorine' coating (fluorocarbon, really, but Canon doesn't want to call it that), I use a clear filter. I have no problem cleaning a bare front element at home with the proper tools, but often when out shooting I will just rub the filter clean with a microfiber cloth. No rocket blower to get the fine particles off (and with moisture on it, they would not blow away anyway). I've scratched a couple of B+W filters that way, and those are far easier to swap out than a front element.

P-visie · Nov 27, 2025

David_B said:
It's at least as good as anything else on the Internet. Cite Wikipedia on X and you're accused of being a libtard because of its political bias.

You must be joking when you call Facebook and X good sources.

In addition to the other comments: it is good practice, and polite to the author of then original, to include a reference or link to the source that you quote.

neuroanatomist · Nov 27, 2025

David_B said:
I'm tired of and over such childish comments.

Many of us are, and yet you keep posting.

David_B said:
Yet how many people here have ever heard of her before?

There are many great scientists who have made significant contributions to their fields and have impacted society as a whole, yet about whom relatively few people have heard.

I personally knew, and my wife worked for, a scientist who was on the Manhattan project. Robert Oppenheimer is a household name thanks to the eponymous film, in which the scientist to whom I’m referring wasn’t featured. He was certainly honored in his lifetime, not only with a Nobel prize but also by having an element named after him (in fact, he was the first of only two people having that honor). I wonder how many people have ever heard of him?

Speaking for myself, I knew of Blodgett before the platform from which you lazily copied and pasted your post even existed.

P-visie · Nov 27, 2025

snapshot said:
i have not been buying UV Filters since i started buying L-lenses which come with lens hoods. Also L-lenses make cleaning the front element very easy.

The coatings on the RF200-800mm are not comparable to L-lens coatings. There is no “repellant” coating layer. That is why I use a UV filter in environments where it is likely that dirt, water or spray will come on the lens, e.g. photographing birds on the beach.

Click · Nov 27, 2025

Cool shots. I especially like the 3rd one. Well done, Nemorino.

EricN · Nov 27, 2025

David_B said:
It's at least as good as anything else on the Internet. Cite Wikipedia on X and you're accused of being a libtard because of its political bias. Denigrating a source of information achieves nothing. I'm tired of and over such childish comments.

You're missing something important. There are sources more reliable/trustworthy than Facebook. As well as less bias than or at least opposing bias to Wikipedia. Simply put, neither is as good as ANYTHING else on the internet. Not wanting to admit you're wrong might be more childish, but virtually nobody is tired or over it when about themselves.

Nemorino · Nov 27, 2025

great crested grebe
R5m2 + RF 100-500 + 1.4 TC
@ 1/4000s, f/10

Click · Nov 27, 2025

I really like the lens flare.

john1970 · Nov 27, 2025

m4ndr4ke said:
If it can't, a single nano USM certainly will, like the RF 100-400mm.

The STM in the RF 45mm f/1.2 is unimpressive, I tried the lens last week. It's smooth but very slow.
So far, the only lenses where STM truly seems to be enough are those that don't have that much movement to perform (10-20mm f/4, 16-28mm f/2.8, 28-70mm f/2.8).

That observation is very reasonable. The only lens that I own that has a STM is the 10-20 f4 L lens and in that lens it works very well.

Snapster · Nov 27, 2025

Not really interested in a 70-200 2.8 without the latest nano usm tech. The STM could be very disappointing for a lens that is supposed to be able to shoot action. Or why would you even need a budget 2.8 otherwise? You can already shoot portraits with the 85mm f/2 and tele landscapes with the 100-400 f/ whatever.

What would add something new to the table is an RF 100-300 f/4L. The 70-200 f/4L is so small it could easily be a bit bigger with more reach and be 100mm more amazing for many things.

Latest activity

Latest activity

Filter

Forum statistics

Gallery statistics