Latest activity

David_B · Nov 27, 2025

One day there'll be a RF 24-70/f4 that's at least as optically good as the EF24-70/f4 for a similar price. ah dreams.

Meanwhile, there'll be a 70-200 for every ocassion.

David_B · Nov 27, 2025

AlanF said:
Not only were you too lazy to check the facts in a Facebook post - that well-known source of misinformation and disinformation,

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.

And I read the other post too, but it didn't require a reply or anything further - it was enough of an addition by itself - because its goall was to share information rather than argue.

AlanF said:
...

Katharine Burr Blodgett - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

That is one helluva lot of recognition within her lifetime. My links were, as I specifically wrote, to follow on from @P-visie 's for subsequent recognition.

Yet how many people here have ever heard of her before? How many photographers would know what she achieved/did? I wonder how many times her name is mentioned in Canon's patents... this is grok's answer:

Katharine Burr Blodgett, a physicist at General Electric, held eight U.S. patents related to surface chemistry, thin films, and non-reflective coatings (such as US 2,220,860 for "Film Structure and Method of Preparation"). None were assigned to Canon or mention her in that context. Extensive searches on patent databases and for licensing to Canon found no connections, as her work was tied to GE.

It is the same story for Nikon & Zeis. Despite disovering the technology that makes photography worthwhile, she gets no credit.
In my opinion her contribution to photography and everything else that involves lenses can't be understated. Never, in any lens announcement or story on lenses/their coatings, have I ever heard about her before. Don't you think that it's a shame she isn't more widely recognized?

dpc · Nov 27, 2025

ashmadux · Nov 27, 2025

GMCPhotographics said:
What is interesting, the Sony A7 IV with it's 33mp sensor scores a chart value of (as seen here: R6ii test chart) 72/73. The R5ii is scraping a low 76. The R6ii comes in at a credible 64. The original R5, scores 81/82. Which is in line with other 45mp sensors. I supsect that the R6iii when it's tested will resolve similar resolution / detail levels of the current R5ii. This makes the R6iii the detail resolution sleeper of the range, where the R5ii's main advantage is the Electronic shutter / Stacked sensor / 14bit processing. But in most other areas, the R6iii is similar or equal.
I'm not dissing the R5ii, it's an amazing camera, but these are the tested facts...there's something funky going on with the R5ii's resolved detail compared to the original R5. it's almost Like Canon have put a stronger AA filter over the sensor.

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.

Kiton · Nov 27, 2025

Another irritant, it does not give remaining capacity on older batteries. Only with the new P battery.
It was flashing red during some tests and when put in the R5, it still had 48%.

So I need a new spare for the mk 3 and the older spares are for the R5, plus carrying a spare for the R3.
3 types of batteries in my bag.

At least the new P series batteries are the same price as the older series.

Bob Howland · Nov 27, 2025

Repeating myself yet again, I want Sigma to introduce the 50-140 f/2.8 OS (?) DC C to complete their trinity. I already own the 10-18 and 18-50 and they are excellent, especially on the R50V.

johnchio · Nov 27, 2025

Honestly I'm hoping Canon would release something like their EF 200 f2.8 (which is very old). If they do it on RF it could become an appeal to the people who use the 70-200 for sports. Maybe even something slightly longer to use on crop sensor bodies (240mm f2.8 or f4? which will become a 384mm on a crop body). And they could put in the same USM as the 100-400 which I use and feel no real problems with. All for around $1000-1500? Also would like to see them start to use VCM in more types of lenses.

Del Paso · Nov 27, 2025

On the one hand, an inexpensive 70-200, like the 100-400, will certainly appeal to lots of customers.
On the other hand, the RF 70-200 f/4 isn't overly expensive, while optically superb and compact...

m4ndr4ke · Nov 27, 2025

Canon Rumors said:
Can STM Handle it?
Going back to the “type” quote, perhaps we’ll see something like an RF 70-180mm f/2.8 IS STM? I’m just throwing out an idea for us to think about.
Can Canon’s new STM focus motor handle doing a telephoto zoom? By the sounds of it, it likely could. The latest STM motors are snappy, silent and accurate.

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).

GMCPhotographics · Nov 27, 2025

snapshot said:
i looked but i am disappointed with the test procedure. is this really seeing a RF50 1.2L vs RF28-70 2.8L @ F4+ comparison? if so i am impressed honestly that the RF28-70 competes very favorably. to bad they didnt show the RF50 1.2L at 2.8 also. is the idea really that noise reduction in the raw files significantly impact camera resolution? if so i would advise them to find a high resolution lens they can adapt to any major system and manually focus it. as it is i see a fun curve peaking at F/4 and tailing off.

I think you will find that those lenses when stopped down far out resolve any current sensor being tested. MFT charts generally are for wide open results, most lenses resolve significanly higher when stopped down by 2 stops, usually resolving at their optical peak performance. These lenses choices allow a comparison between sensor brands using inter-brand adapters. Having 2 consistnet lenes allow us to dail out the lens performance as it's a common standard with these tests.
What is interesting, the Sony A7 IV with it's 33mp sensor scores a chart value of (as seen here: R6ii test chart) 72/73. The R5ii is scraping a low 76. The R6ii comes in at a credible 64. The original R5, scores 81/82. Which is in line with other 45mp sensors. I supsect that the R6iii when it's tested will resolve similar resolution / detail levels of the current R5ii. This makes the R6iii the detail resolution sleeper of the range, where the R5ii's main advantage is the Electronic shutter / Stacked sensor / 14bit processing. But in most other areas, the R6iii is similar or equal.
I'm not dissing the R5ii, it's an amazing camera, but these are the tested facts...there's something funky going on with the R5ii's resolved detail compared to the original R5. it's almost Like Canon have put a stronger AA filter over the sensor.

AlanF · Nov 27, 2025

snapshot said:
i looked but i am disappointed with the test procedure. is this really seeing a RF50 1.2L vs RF28-70 2.8L @ F4+ comparison? if so i am impressed honestly that the RF28-70 competes very favorably. to bad they didnt show the RF50 1.2L at 2.8 also. is the idea really that noise reduction in the raw files significantly impact camera resolution? if so i would advise them to find a high resolution lens they can adapt to any major system and manually focus it. as it is i see a fun curve peaking at F/4 and tailing off.

The relevant comparisons for measuring the resolution of the sensors are in the sections "Matrix Resolution". Their description of the procedure shows how carefully they made the measurements and why they didn't show f/2.8. They make it clear they measure at apertures where the lenses are limited by diffraction only and not by chromatic aberration. That is why the RF28-70 competes so well with the RF 50/1.2 - the results are independent of lens and depend only on f-number. So don't be disappointed with the test procedure, it is excellent.

Here is the section that describes this.
"We determine sensor resolution based on the MTF50 function, and measurements are typically taken on unsharpened RAW files, which we previously convert to TIFF format using dcraw. To avoid optical aberrations, we measure MTF50 values only for the f/4.0–f/16 aperture range, where diffraction is the main limiting factor. It's also worth remembering that we take between a dozen and several dozen shots at each aperture (with both autofocus and manual focus), then select the best ones. In this part of the test, in addition to the Canon RF 24-70mm f/2.8L IS USM lens, we also used the RF 50mm f/1.2L USM lens. The highest results are presented in the chart below."

don't_know_shxx · Nov 27, 2025

Canon Rumors said:
I will be doing a similar format on the photo side of things starting next week.

Thank you very much for your Work. Reviews like this are crucial for my work, since i cant test every camera myself.
I work as a Salesman in siwtzerland for the Visuals Groupe, and selling cameragear / also for the broadcast industry.

Having sites like this, is very helpful to me, since we mostly only get the technical details for the cameras from the companys.

best
Manuel

ThomasTH · Nov 27, 2025

I especially like the first photo, which is minimalistic and kind of abstract.

Eloniel · Nov 27, 2025

PinholeR5 said:
I guess you are right in the canabilization. I would definitively sell my 28-70mm F2 if I bought the 35-135mm F2, even though the 28-70 F2 is by far my most used lens outside of sports (100-300 F2.8) and wildlife (100-500mm probably, but EF 400mm f2.8 iii, EF 600mm f4 ii, RF 200-800 and 100-300mm).

I do have some hope, though.

The RF 28-70mm F2 was released 7 years ago. There have been plenty of mentions of a MK II, especially after Sony came out with their much lighter version last year (918g vs 1430g). The RF 28-70mm F2 was a trailblazer, a halo lens, the kind of lens that makes you want to switch systesm. A 70-135mm F2 lens would be really underwhelming in the face of Sony's 50-150mm. Canon releaseing their own 50-150mm F2 would be great, but not exactly a standout lens. A 35-135mm F2, on the other hand, would be a one of a kind new lens. While 35mm isn't exactly wide enough to replace a standard zoom, 28mm barely is, it is wide enough to make it quite usable in a lot of settings! Yes, the 15-35mm f2.8 could complement it very well. Actually, even the RF 16-28mm F2.8 could fill the wider end.

Well, the current Sony 50-150mm F2 (1340g) is ligher than the Canon RF 28-70mm F2 (1430g). So it is possible to have a 50-150mm with reasonable weight, that is, if you can manage the Canon RF 28-70mm F2, a 50-150mm F2 should be manageable.

it is priced at $4k vs the Canon 28-70mm F2's $3.3k, but the Sony is a newer lens. So the cost isn't that different.

I agree that all things equal, lighter is better . But, if we fix cost and IQ, then, for me:

Good trade-off:
50-150mm F2 -> 50-135mm F2 that is lighter/smaller
50-135mm F2 -> 35-135mm F2 that is heavier/larger

In other words, I'd trade-off focal length range on the long end for size/weight, but I'd happily deal with larger weight/size to get move focal length range on the wide side.

If 1kg is already heavy and at the max for you, then perhaps an RF 28-70mm MK II at ~900g and an RF 70-135mm F2 at ~900g would be the ideal. I'd go for a 1500g RF 35-135mm F2 in a heartbeat!

I'm totally with you, I would trade long end mm for wider ones instantly on this lense because that would be mean less having to change from one lens to another whereas with a lens starting at 70mm you would have to change constantly for wide portraits...
And I guess that's why Sony choosed a 50mm wide angle.
The advantage of these lens is not having to change lenses all the time and not having to carry them. If you wanted the absolute best quality you would bring a 35mm, a 50mm, a 85mm, a 135mm and maybe a 105mm.

PinholeR5 said:
Hey, i'm totally with you on the ergonomics and color science!

Sorry if my comments came off the wrong way. I didn't mean to imply that what I think/want or what Sony does should dictate or influence what you (or anyone else) do(does)/want(s).

I will say that looking at other systems is useful to me for a number of reasons. First, it gives an idea of what is technically feasible. So, a Sony 50-150mm F2 at 1340g means such a design is potentially techicaly feasible in the Canon system. As we were speculating on how heavy the several options would be it is useful to have some reference points.

The second reason I find it useful to look at other systems is that I believe Canon (not any person on this forum) is influenced by what competitors do. So as we speculate about what new products Canon will put out, taking a look at the competitive landscape can give a hint. When I said a 70-135mm would be underwheliming given the Sony 50-150mm, in reference to how the RF 28-70mm F2 was such a remarkable lens in pushing the focal length range and aperture curve. I was just commenting on Canon vs Sony as competitors trying to market to multi-system users, users that change systems, new users not yet into any of the systesm, etc. Even then, as I noted in my post, for some folks having a 70-135mm F2 that is significantly lower weight than the Sony 50-150mm F2 would be a big winner.

There are many lenses from other systems I would love to have. The Nikon 400mm f/2.8 & 600mm F4 with built-in TC are great examples. Also many of the newer Sigma full-frame mirrorless lenses look very enticing to me. However, none of them enticing enough for me to change systems, yet.

When I think of getting a Sony camera so I can use some of those lenses, I usually give up when I remember that I'd be stuck using a Sony camera .

Again I'm with you, it's not about you and me changing from one system to another (I will not do it), it's about Canon competing against Sony to keep their customers and bring new ones.

And yes I would not like to be in Canon strategy position on this topic because whatever solution they choose (lighter and narrower range vs heavier and wider) some people will not be happy. But I still think if they want to go for the internet hype a wider f2.0 range is more a wow factor than a lightweight lens.

For Sony, I can see them complete their F2.0 Trinity with a 15 or 16 - 28 or 30 mm F2.0.

Jethro · Nov 27, 2025

neuroanatomist said:
I've been a certified diver for over 20 years, but only recently (2023) started with underwater photography. The impetus for it was my daughter getting her PADI certification. I don't count my first attempt, which was with a Kodak disposable underwater film camera I used off the coast of Belize in 2003.

I do have a set of Panasonic DMC-TS30A P&S cameras that are waterproof/shockproof and suitable for snorkeling, I got them for my kids to use on trips mainly for the durability. My middle kid uses hers a lot now that the P&S look is trendy.

When starting to look at underwater photo setups, I debated the three main categories in the article – a good underwater P&S, a dedicated camera like the SeaLife one, and a housing for one of my MILCs. I ended up settling on one option not discussed in the article, a housing for my iPhone. There were several factors to the rationale:

I didn't want to spend a huge amount of money for something I'll use relatively rarely

I wanted to spend most of the budget on lighting not the camera/housing

I was looking to shoot both stills and video, and the iPhone is good at both (though not excellent)

I bring enough photo gear when I travel and wanted avoid bringing another camera for a dedicated use

A phone housing offers some degree of future-proofing for 'camera' upgrades, unlike a dedicated P&S or ILC housing

I set myself a budget of $2500, which was the same initial budget I picked for my first DSLR setup (in 2009, that got me the T1i/500D, EF-S 17-55/2.8, EF 85/1.8, Speedlite 430EX II and a Manfrotto CF tripod with an ok ballhead).

As with all photography, lighting matters...that's arguably even more true underwater. In addition to 'regular' underwater photography, I was interested in trying some fluorescence imaging (I have spent a lot of time looking at fluorescing cells under microscopes, so I thought it would be pretty cool to look at larger specimens). In researching multiple systems, SeaLife had a well-regarded iPhone housing and seemed to offer the most comprehensive setup that included fluorescent lighting. There are two components to underwater fluorescence imaging – a blue light source (or UV, but blue is better) and a yellow filter to block the reflected blue light so all you see/capture is the fluorescence.

In looking for a custom-fit yellow filter for the SeaLife phone housing, I connected with the physicist/diver who co-developed SeaLife's fluorescence imaging lights, and that turned out to be a great connection. He fabricated the filter for the housing, and also made custom-fit filters for mine and my daughter's masks for a better fit than the generic ones that come with the blue lights. I was also able to order SeaLife gear through him at a substantial discount from the direct/B&H pricing, so my $2500 budget went quite a bit further.

I ended up getting the SportDiver Smartphone Housing, a pair of Sea Dragon Pro Dual Beam white lights (flood plus spot), a Sea Dragon Fluoro Dual Beam (blue flood plus white spot), a pair of small handheld lights and a flouro mini light, along with trays/arms, handles so the big lights can be used mounted or handheld, and spare batteries.

View attachment 226939

Overall, a very bright and versatile setup that has worked well so far. My only hope is that I get more opportunities to use it in the coming years.

Very interesting perspective - when I look up the Australian website, the housing will "... encase most Android models including all larger Samsung S Series Ultra models and Google’s Pixel range, and all iPhones from iPhone 11 through iPhone 17 Pro Max." for AUD599.

So, genuinely useful for iphone/camera upgrades, as opposed to the specific housings used for (say) the R5 series, as other posters have noted in the past! For what would be my very occasional use, it's a realistic possibility.

Richard CR · Nov 26, 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.

I think it's the reverse, actually, unless you are printing 100" wide prints and want people to camp out 6" away from the print and compare side to side, it's a little irrelevant. There's a diminishing return to more mega pickles.

You aren't paying x dollars per megapixel, you're paying for the camera on the whole.

In this case, objectively, just downsizing is the worst-case scenario, as I mentioned in the article.

neuroanatomist · Nov 26, 2025

I've been a certified diver for over 20 years, but only recently (2023) started with underwater photography. The impetus for it was my daughter getting her PADI certification. I don't count my first attempt, which was with a Kodak disposable underwater film camera I used off the coast of Belize in 2003.

I do have a set of Panasonic DMC-TS30A P&S cameras that are waterproof/shockproof and suitable for snorkeling, I got them for my kids to use on trips mainly for the durability. My middle kid uses hers a lot now that the P&S look is trendy.

When starting to look at underwater photo setups, I debated the three main categories in the article – a good underwater P&S, a dedicated camera like the SeaLife one, and a housing for one of my MILCs. I ended up settling on one option not discussed in the article, a housing for my iPhone. There were several factors to the rationale:

I didn't want to spend a huge amount of money for something I'll use relatively rarely
I wanted to spend most of the budget on lighting not the camera/housing
I was looking to shoot both stills and video, and the iPhone is good at both (though not excellent)
I bring enough photo gear when I travel and wanted avoid bringing another camera for a dedicated use
A phone housing offers some degree of future-proofing for 'camera' upgrades, unlike a dedicated P&S or ILC housing

I set myself a budget of $2500, which was the same initial budget I picked for my first DSLR setup (in 2009, that got me the T1i/500D, EF-S 17-55/2.8, EF 85/1.8, Speedlite 430EX II and a Manfrotto CF tripod with an ok ballhead).

As with all photography, lighting matters...that's arguably even more true underwater. In addition to 'regular' underwater photography, I was interested in trying some fluorescence imaging (I have spent a lot of time looking at fluorescing cells under microscopes, so I thought it would be pretty cool to look at larger specimens). In researching multiple systems, SeaLife had a well-regarded iPhone housing and seemed to offer the most comprehensive setup that included fluorescent lighting. There are two components to underwater fluorescence imaging – a blue light source (or UV, but blue is better) and a yellow filter to block the reflected blue light so all you see/capture is the fluorescence.

In looking for a custom-fit yellow filter for the SeaLife phone housing, I connected with the physicist/diver who co-developed SeaLife's fluorescence imaging lights, and that turned out to be a great connection. He fabricated the filter for the housing, and also made custom-fit filters for mine and my daughter's masks for a better fit than the generic ones that come with the blue lights. I was also able to order SeaLife gear through him at a substantial discount from the direct/B&H pricing, so my $2500 budget went quite a bit further.

I ended up getting the SportDiver Smartphone Housing, a pair of Sea Dragon Pro Dual Beam white lights (flood plus spot), a Sea Dragon Fluoro Dual Beam (blue flood plus white spot), a pair of small handheld lights and a flouro mini light, along with trays/arms, handles so the big lights can be used mounted or handheld, and spare batteries.

Overall, a very bright and versatile setup that has worked well so far. My only hope is that I get more opportunities to use it in the coming years.

Click · Nov 26, 2025

Beautiful shot. Well done, jamtra.

jamtra · Nov 26, 2025

jamtra · Nov 26, 2025

snapshot · Nov 26, 2025

AlanF said:
I don't use a filter on my RF 200-800mm as I find a small decrease in IQ with a usually good filter (Marumi). It's just noticeable when pixel peeping on high resolution charts. A Maven filter was a disaster on it.

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.

ISv · Nov 26, 2025

Nemorino said:
R5m2 + Laowa RF 58mm
Stack of 34 frames, handheld
View attachment 226919

Last rose for the year? It really makes it special! Nice photo!

becceric · Nov 26, 2025

P-visie said:
And wait until you see @AlanF rate for the 1.4* and 2* extenders .

I think that rate would be considered a "tariff". Very trendy these days.

PinholeR5 · Nov 26, 2025

Ozarker said:
My gosh. You guys act like switching systems, or like what some other manufacturer does, should influence somebody not in that system. Honestly, I choose what I choose because that's what I like. Period.

This handwringing and telling others, "You want this, but that would be underwhelming compared to that." Not to me it wouldn't.

Will Canon ever put out a 70-135? Probably not. Whether they do or not doesn't make me lust for ergonomically challenged Sony. Or color science challenged Sony. I'm in the Canon system. Does not matter to me Sony does.

Hey, i'm totally with you on the ergonomics and color science!

Sorry if my comments came off the wrong way. I didn't mean to imply that what I think/want or what Sony does should dictate or influence what you (or anyone else) do(does)/want(s).

I will say that looking at other systems is useful to me for a number of reasons. First, it gives an idea of what is technically feasible. So, a Sony 50-150mm F2 at 1340g means such a design is potentially techicaly feasible in the Canon system. As we were speculating on how heavy the several options would be it is useful to have some reference points.

The second reason I find it useful to look at other systems is that I believe Canon (not any person on this forum) is influenced by what competitors do. So as we speculate about what new products Canon will put out, taking a look at the competitive landscape can give a hint. When I said a 70-135mm would be underwheliming given the Sony 50-150mm, in reference to how the RF 28-70mm F2 was such a remarkable lens in pushing the focal length range and aperture curve. I was just commenting on Canon vs Sony as competitors trying to market to multi-system users, users that change systems, new users not yet into any of the systesm, etc. Even then, as I noted in my post, for some folks having a 70-135mm F2 that is significantly lower weight than the Sony 50-150mm F2 would be a big winner.

There are many lenses from other systems I would love to have. The Nikon 400mm f/2.8 & 600mm F4 with built-in TC are great examples. Also many of the newer Sigma full-frame mirrorless lenses look very enticing to me. However, none of them enticing enough for me to change systems, yet.

When I think of getting a Sony camera so I can use some of those lenses, I usually give up when I remember that I'd be stuck using a Sony camera

.

Latest activity

Latest activity

Attachments

Filter

Forum statistics

Gallery statistics