Ronomy said:

I agree with your statement...R7 wheel placement was a huge improvement over the old placement. However many cant seem to learn new ways to use a camera so with too many complaints, now its gone. They should have changed all of there cameras to the R7 wheel placement.

The wheel on the R7 is perfect for using FV mode. It is so easy to change your settings quickly while looking through the viewfinder.

People get set in there ways and I bet many haven't even tried FV mode yet.

Manual mode is a thing of the past after using the R7 and FV with that perfectly placed thumbwheel. Its like riding a bike once you setup along with the above the buttons to access what you need to make setting quickly right inside the viewfinder.

Its been a fantastic change for me. And I am not a young guy. I've used the old method since the start.

I also have a 6D and doesn't bother me using it. So I don't understand this R7 thumb wheel issue many complain about. Does it really cause finger cramps? The old way is more of a finger cramp. IMO

Click to expand...

That thumbwheel may be perfectly placed for you, but my thumb doesn't comfortably reach it. I even switch the functions of the Exposure Lock and AF-Start buttons on the back of all of my Canon cameras because I use back button AF for pretty much every shot I take (other than manually focused astrophotography) because my thumb reaches the middle of those three buttons on the top left of the back more naturally than it reaches the left of those same three buttons.

Sporgon said:

They may yet kill the current 24mp high speed cam R3 line !

Click to expand...

But they did not name the R7 the M7, either. There's a reason for that.

neuroanatomist said:

Sorry, but...huh? You could argue that BSI delivers better signal-to-noise (which is true, but while relevant for smartphones it's not really relevant at pixel sizes for ILCs). But better sharpness? Can you support that claim with evidence?

The main difference that BSI can make is with noise (as above, the magnitude of benefit is inversely proportional to pixel size), and the main way that plays out for image quality is dynamic range. In a very relevant comparison, check out the R5 (FSI) vs. the R5II (stacked/BSI). You're asking for a stacked/BSI sensor in the R7II, but in fact the R5 has slightly better dynamic range than the R5II. Having said that, the difference is pretty minor and not likely to have any real-world significance, so yes – the stacked/BSI sensor is better because it has a faster readout meaning less rolling shutter (and the ability to use flash with eShutter), and those are meaningful benefits. But they come from the stacking, not the BSI (even though the latter is required for the former).

Click to expand...

It can be argued that noise affects the perception of acutance (which is what most people who use the word "sharpness" actually mean) in either one of two ways. The more noise an image has, the less 'sharp' it is perceived. Until recently with the advent of exceptionally effective AI noise reduction, the more NR applied to reduce the perception of noise, the blurrier the photo became.

GMCPhotographics said:

Cameras like the 5Dii and the 1Ds3 were at the cutting edge of camera developement and the 5Dii was a far later camera, both revolutionary at lauch and state of the art. But a 1Ds3 was looking a little long in the tooth against the 5Dii, except for AF, battery life, ergonomics and buffer.

Click to expand...

The 5D Mark II debuted (Sept 2008) almost exactly ten months after the 1Ds mark III (Nov 2007). Even with the rapid pace of advance in technological capabilities of digital cameras from around 2002 through 2012-14 or so, when things started to plateau, ten months was not THAT long.

Bob Howland said:

That depends on how much Canon wants to charge for it. The 21MP Canon 5d2 made the 21MP 1ds3 virtually unsellable. The 24MP Nikon D3X was replaced after 4 years by the D800, with 50% more pixels, a less rugged body and a 60% price reduction. People who want lots of pixels don't seem willing to pay for extreme ruggedness

Click to expand...

The 5D Mark II could also do video. The 1Ds Mark III could not.

Del Paso said:

Retro cars, retro cameras, why not?
There seems to exist, according even to Canon executives, a real demand for them.
And I don't think those customers will ask for high-end features. I only wonder why everybody prefers the AE-1 over the A1, better ergonomics in my opinion.
Will I buy it? Maybe not, unless I need a backup or EDC body to replace my aging R.
But if Canon can make money with it, they should produce it quick, before this fashion fades away!

Click to expand...

Because the AE-1 was the mass selling one that former owners, or those who aspired to own one back in the day, have nostalgia for.

David - Sydney said:

Do you still have your EF11-24/4 after you got the RF10-20?

Click to expand...

Nope, I sold it. Holding one lens in each hand made that a very easy decision.

For those that have shot with the Canon EF 135 F2L and the Canon EF 180mm 3.5L macro, which would you pick if you had to?

I'm a macro shooter but I already have the mp-e 65mm and a Venus 15mm. A long time ago, I REALLY wanted the 180mm because it would be great for distance, where the others are not (distance from camera to insect).

That being said, I think 135mm would be great for portraits and of course other things.

Either would be going on my R5ii. I still have my 5Diii but I don't think I'd be using either on it. I'm not even sure why I still have it, aside from telling my wife she can have it but she never uses it! In fairness, we've not been out shooting a lot.

I'm leaning towards the 135mm, especially if it's a favorite around here and even adapted but I'm just curious about people's opinions that have used both. I feel like there's not many that have used the 180mm on here but if you have, I'd love your feedback about both!

P.S - I just got done reading the comments and I believe Riker said the Sigma 135mm 1.8 is better in every way. Do others believe that or disagree?

EF16-35/4 was my workhorse.
Samyang 14/2.8 is very hard to beat and the replacing the RF8-15/4 and Sigma 20/1.4 can't be justified at this time.

All my RF replacements had something better than their EF counterparts to warrant changing and has taken over 5 years to do and generally with discounts.

neuroanatomist said:

These are my favorite EF lenses:
View attachment 228323

Click to expand...

Do you still have your EF11-24/4 after you got the RF10-20?

Distinctly Average said:

Nice shots. Here in the UK we only have 3.5 species of snake. The .5 is an introduced species only found at two sites but would have been native here a couple of hundred years ago. Of the other three species, only the adder is venomous. They are quite relaxed snakes very rarely biting people. Usually they only bite when trodden on or some muppet grabs one. So I am comfortable photographing them with a 60mm on a crop body. I don’t know the species you show there so not sure how aggressive they are.

Click to expand...

The only snakes or spiders I would shoot in Australia would be in a zoo (or dead)!
Sharks are no problem though

Ph0t0 said:

I wasn't sure if you were serious or just teasing, because it seems like there are so many things you can photograph with a 100 or 135mm lens, even with an aperture wider than f2.0

But if you are serious:

Click to expand...

Yes, I was being serious. I would use an emoji if I was teasing.
Thanks for the examples. I appreciate your time to describe them.

Wide aperture makes perfect sense for outdoor/blurring backgrounds and bokeh. I thought that 100mm (or 135mm) would be too far away to direct models especially with outdoor ambient noise.
For indoor/studio, I found 100mm (or more) to be hard to direct the model especially when shooting floor length shots. Moving the lights/backdrop was easier to control the background lighting.

For the environmental shots, I would say they are similar to stock libraries (albeit specific for the brief) or B-roll for video but others may have better names.

Low light outdoor portraits makes sense. For me, I would use my 100/2.8 or 70-200/2.8 and have a greater distance to the background if possible to enhance the blurring/separation. This assumes it is possible to move the subject relative to the background. I'll use an off camera speed light sometimes.

For my indoor sports, f2.8 or f4 was sufficient to blur the other participants and still show their body postures.
I do push the ISO with the poor lighting in halls but hasn't been an issue for my non-paying subjects.

Love the list. i have or tried most of them, but not the 200 F2. Maybe someday. Kinda suprised 400 F2.8 wasnt there or the 600 F4. maybe they are/were too expensive for lots of folks like me.
my list:
* 24(8)-70 F2.8 - love this lens, the reverse zoom makes the lens hood so useful.
* 100-400 L IS both are great but version 2 is awesome
* 85 F1.4 L IS is perfect for portraits and is fast enough to capture the subject moving around (which my F1.2 could not)

runner up
* 70-200 F2.8 LIS II does pretty good at group photos, the extra width helps me not stand soo far back as i would have to with 100-400.

new additions
* Sigma 105/F1.4 and 150-600 contemporary, dont know if they can push the above off my camera yet. not sure if 150-600 is sharper than 100-400+1.4 TC

I've bought almost 50 Canon lenses together with a few select third party lenses. Canon you can thank me by getting your telephoto lenses offerings in order. I've started using Nikon's 800mm f/6.3 with the Z8. While the Z8 in no R5, the lens is a dream for bird photography and possibly my top lens!
But to get back on topic, my top 'Canon' lenses:
Canon's 500mm f4.5L - that re-invigorated my passion for bird photography but started a love/hate affair with tape & 1.4x converters!
Sigma's 85mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art - a beast but easily my sharpest lens
and Canon's MP-E 65mm f/2.8 macro - a peerless macro

OMG, such a comment-bait post, can't resist

The 50/1.2 was my biggest disappointment in the whole EF L lineup.
And the 135/2 is a very old and outdated piece, the Sigma 135/1.8 is far superior in every regard.

The 35/2 IS should not be left out.

I've owned or used most Canon stuff since 2005. Fujifilm is my "main" kit today, but i still keep some old cheap EF stuff around as my "old timey classic kit"

My standouts which ive bought and sold repeatedly over the years:


16-35F4L
EF-M 22/2
40 STM
50 1.4
RF 35 1.8
EF 135L
70-200F4L IS II

it's hard not to mention of course 100-400 II, 35L,17-40F4L, 200 2.8L II etc etc etc etc etc. i wouldve put the 100-400L II on my top list but its so large its really sort of a niche lens for me. "top" for me means actually wanting to bring it out. though optics wise stellar.

I have to say, I don't know how popular it was, but the 400 f/5.6L was a very good lens. Lightweight, optically very good, and reasonably inexpensive. No IS, but only 7 elements.

jim said:

The MP-E is heavy but also not the easiest to 'focus'. I find the long throw challenging when my subjects are very small and you have to gues what is the appropriate magnification. This is not going to happened, but I wish it had power focusing, using a rocker. That way my hands stay in position and I can rock back/forth and tweak to focus/magnification. I seem to remember something like this from Minolta...

Click to expand...

Interesting thought. With the EF-S 60 I often use BBF to get rough focus the the good old rocking to nail the critical spot. The MP-E is as you say a bit of a different case. Magnification does come with experience but still challenging to get a good composition. When I get it right the results can be superb. But success rate is certainly lower than the 60.

I’ve recently added the Laowa probe lens to my kit. I’ve only shot amphibians with it so far but looking forward to using it on butterflies and dragons later this year.

The lack of a decent RF macro lens is one of the reasons I switched to Olympus for all my outdoorsy stuff. The 90 macro (180 mm equivalent) is an awesome lens for optical performance, features and handling. Magnification is up to 2x optical, and it works with the 1.4x and 2.0x teleconverters giving up to 4x optical - and AF works at any magnification. Canon can't touch that.

I still have Canon gear for other purposes, and if the R7 Mark II gives us what we've already had for (eeek) four years with the OM-1, and there's a fully competitive macro lens waiting in the wings, then anything could happen.

Distinctly Average said:

For me it has been a bit different. I had a lot of success with the 7D/7D2 as my dedicated macro setups. The 80D I struggled with as the viewfinder at not as bright as that of the 7Ds. So when I swapped my R7 as my dedicated macro body and the 5D2 for wildlife I found d I could setup the R7 with a brighter EVF helping manual focusing. You can also engage the focusing aids in the R7/R5II to help with manual lenses in.macro.

I do enjoy the MPE but it is a heavy lens to use handheld for long periods. So I hope any future iteration will be lighter.

Click to expand...

The MP-E is heavy but also not the easiest to 'focus'. I find the long throw challenging when my subjects are very small and you have to gues what is the appropriate magnification. This is not going to happened, but I wish it had power focusing, using a rocker. That way my hands stay in position and I can rock back/forth and tweak to focus/magnification. I seem to remember something like this from Minolta...

I have to go with the EF 100mm macro because it still produces wonderful images and my copy works fine even after being beaten up over the nearly 14 years I've had it. Plus it's versatile and a handy size.

The 24-105 f/4 mark I always punched above its weight, image quality wise, and works better now with IBIS than it did on DSLRs (I think its old IS is only rated for a couple of stops).

I kept my Sigma 180 because the images it produces are dreamy - but the IS and AF have always been a bit dodgy, and it's so big and heavy I often don't use it.

Honourable mentions to the 500 f/4 II and the 70-200 f/4. The MP-E is great but not technically EF ;p

I asked LR and the answer is a surprise to me. My most used EF-Lenses are in this order:
* EF 200/2.8L II USM
* EF 100-400L IS Mk II (Replaced by: RF 100-500 and EF 400/2.8L IS II)
* EF-S 60/2.8 Macro USM (Replaced by: RF 100/2.8L IS)
* EF 85/1.8 USM (Replaced by: EF 85/1.4L IS)
* EF 16-35/4L IS
I spend a lot of money to replace some of these lenses, and did not by far use the new glass in the same intensity. The only Replacement, which was worth the money, according to my LR-Statistics was the RF 24-105/4L IS - it is my new favourite. What do we learn?

Another vote for the Sigma 150-600. Awesome lens.

I'm surprised about the 24-105 over the 24-70. The former pays the price for extra range in image quality. The 24-70 F4 is the only EF lens I still have, I'm waiting for the RF equivalent. The IQ of the EFs is still great, but they look and feel dated, and the adaptor adds unwelcome weight and bulk.