Latest activity

AlanF · Saturday at 5:45 AM

ISv said:
Well, we all know the distance matters and we all also know how so many times you can't get closer...
These are from ~7.9 meters away. Nikon D7200 x 200-500mm f5.6 (and we also know it's not the sharpest lens around !). Same Spotted Flycatcher, but from Bulgaria (2019). View attachment 230213 View attachment 230214 View attachment 230215

True, getting closer is always best. Here is one from the 2xTC on the RF 100-500mm at 11m. The 100-500 takes the 2xTC very well, and I prefer it to the 1.4x on that lens, and I used to use it regularly before getting the 200-800mm.

riker · Saturday at 3:56 AM

In 1998 there was a EF28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM.
28-135 is the perfect zoom range, it's all you need 80-90% of the time. I'd love to see newer generations.

Eloniel · Saturday at 3:37 AM

Chig said:
What about a 70-200mm f/1.8?
Awesome world's first and hopefully Canon can make it a bit lighter than the very similar spec RF 100-300mm f/2.8 and would be great to have a built in 1.4x extender for 98-280mm f/2.5

70-200 f2.0 would already be incredible.

If it accept extender (which I think it would not) it would be insane because it would compete against the 100-300 f2.8 which is very very expensive.

Chig · Saturday at 3:29 AM

What about a 70-200mm f/1.8?
Awesome world's first and hopefully Canon can make it a bit lighter than the very similar spec RF 100-300mm f/2.8 and would be great to have a built in 1.4x extender for 98-280mm f/2.5

GMCPhotographics · Saturday at 3:10 AM

Rceres said:
I can understand preferring the RF 85mm f/1.4L VCM if the RF 85mm f/1.2L feels too big, heavy, or awkward. That would make sense.
But I don’t quite follow the jump from “the RF 85mm f/1.2L is too big” to “a 50-150mm f/2 or 100-400mm zoom would be great.” The RF 85mm f/1.2L is about 103 mm wide, 117 mm long, and 1195 g. The Sony 50-150mm f/2 GM and 100-400mm GM are similar in diameter, roughly twice as long, and heavier. Those are not exactly small, discreet, easy-handling lenses either.
To me, the more interesting question is what Canon could do with a redesigned stills-first RF 85mm f/1.2L II. The current lens is optically legendary, but compared with newer RF designs it feels bulky. The RF 135mm f/1.8L shows how good Canon can be when optical performance, autofocus confidence, and handling all come together.
Imagine a new RF 85mm f/1.2L II with a slimmer barrel, a more modern internal focusing design, faster AF, the same or better rendering, and maybe even IS. Canon’s recent lenses suggest there is still room to improve both handling and usability without giving up what made the original special.
I get that zooms are popular, and Canon should absolutely keep building them. But some of us are still waiting (and hoping!)for Canon’s next generation of stills-first halo primes.

The problem Canon had with the rf 135mm, is that the ef version was / is so strong. Sure the new lens is sharper, gains 1/3 stop in brightness and an image stabiliser. However, it’s larger and heavier. Plus is very expensive, you really have to want one to justify the rf version over the ef version. The EF version puts out really great images that are very similar to the rf version. For a lot of users who already have the ef version, there’s not a particularly strong enough reason to upgrade.

ISv · Saturday at 2:22 AM

becceric said:
Thanks! Thats only one state away!

"Thanks! Thats only one state away!" - I really appreciate your dedication (really!!!)!

ISv · Saturday at 2:14 AM

ISv said:
Today some of my colleagues asked if I have photos of the Jackson Chameleon. I found only two specimens... In the film era I had several, I would be very disappointed if their population is in crisis! Yeah, I know they are invasive but they are still interesting addition to the local "flora" (fauna if you prefer )!
First specimen (the same individual) is from 2017, the baby is from 2021 and they are the very last I have seen!
Looking for the Chameleons in my folder "Reptiles and Amphibians" I found a photo that didn't made any sense for saving until I found the sequence ! Look at the second one (I posted the first in my previous post). And adding one more for compensation...

Trioceros jacksonii - Jackson's chameleon 1_DxO.jpg

Trioceros jacksonii - Jackson's chameleon 4_DxO.jpg

Exploreshootshare · Saturday at 2:13 AM

Del Paso said:
No, it's going to be expensive !

It's always expensive

But I bought quite a few f4 lenses instead of having a f2.8 set-up and a separate light weight set-up. F2 zooms would change that equation drastically.

ISv · Saturday at 1:17 AM

Noreaster said:
I was riding in the car to go birding. Saw the fox on the side of the road so the driver pulled over, in a very dangerous spot (only gave me about 20 seconds). I reached over got out my big lens and took a pic as the fox was running past me. I did not have time to check camera settings and obviously the shutter speed was way too low. I got lucky that I tracked the kit well and the result is its face was ok but everything else a blur.

Fortunately the speed was pretty good

! It's what made this photo really interesting!!

ISv · Saturday at 1:13 AM

P-visie said:
The angle of the fox’s head and the background blur make it a great photo.

Absolutely!!!

ISv · Saturday at 1:03 AM

Well, we all know the distance matters and we all also know how so many times you can't get closer...
These are from ~7.9 meters away. Nikon D7200 x 200-500mm f5.6 (and we also know it's not the sharpest lens around

!). Same Spotted Flycatcher, but from Bulgaria (2019).

Del Paso · Jun 19, 2026

Exploreshootshare said:
If Canon releases two F2 zooms with each under 1kg weight, I´m seriously going to restructure my lens line up. It´s going to be fun

No, it's going to be expensive !

Exploreshootshare · Jun 19, 2026

If Canon releases two F2 zooms with each under 1kg weight, I´m seriously going to restructure my lens line up. It´s going to be fun

Dragon · Jun 19, 2026

AlanF said:
My experience is that if the soft image does not have much detail, then the AI models do a reasonable and sometimes excellent job improving acutance. But if there is blurred detail, they hallucinate to deconvolute that detail.

I find AI does a much better job of reconstruction through noise that deconvolution of OOF subjects and that is not surprising.

AlanF · Jun 19, 2026

foda said:
Thanks for the photos, and even more so, for your experimentation with different lens and TC combinations. Have you tried using the 200-800mm lens with either of the TCs? If so, do you have any conclusions on performance?

Spotted Flycatcher 20m away: top pair 1120mm with the 1.4xTC on RF 200-800mm + R5ii, cropped and full image reduced; bottom pair at 800mm, no TC. The TC squeezes out a little more resolution and less pixellation. The quality is pretty good with the TC. And those who complain about the sharpness of the 200-800mm shouldn't. Your many own images on CR with it prove how good it is. Whether it's worth the hassle of the extra magnification with just a tad more resolution is up to you. You may well miss a BIF shot! I was hand holding at 1/800s.

6L8A3136-DxO_Spotted_Flycatcher_1120mm_full_reduced.jpg

6L8A3305-DxO_Spotted_Flycatcher_800mm full_reduced.jpg

foda · Jun 19, 2026

AlanF said:
A couple of shots from today using the 2xTC on the RF 100-500mm and R5ii at 1000mm f/14. A Corn Bunting, that was hiding at the top of a tree in strong winds that for a couple of shots parted the leaves so I could see it, and a Grey Wagtail on lotus leaves. The good thing for me this time of year with this combo is I can use the RF 100-500mm for shots of dragonflies, and put the TC on both for that and distant small birds. For comparison, which is of interest to @Maximilian as he is testing his lenses, there are shots of a Grey Wagtail in the distance (18m) at 500mm and 1000mm from today with the third being from the 200-800mm a week ago, a little closer.

View attachment 230198 View attachment 230199 View attachment 230200 View attachment 230201 View attachment 230202

Thanks for the photos, and even more so, for your experimentation with different lens and TC combinations. Have you tried using the 200-800mm lens with either of the TCs? If so, do you have any conclusions on performance?

danfaz · Jun 19, 2026

Ozarker said:
I'm very interested in the 10-20/4, Neuro. You are the go to guy for knowledge. How do you like the lens? Thanks.

Agree with @neuroanatomist, it's a very fun lens! You can get some very dramatic images.

Malm · Jun 19, 2026

Hi Robi!

Thanks for the insight! Sounds logical to me!

Concerning the quality: I'm usually a pixel-peeper, but Canons restrictions on 3rd party lenses makes it VERY difficult to find optimized lenses for niche markets like 'astro'. I have the good 'astro' lenses for the EF mount, and the 'astro' niche is probably too small for Canon to produce a lens for it. So far this X/Y/Z 14/2.8 lens is relatively well suitable for 'astro' (it's not a top-astro lens, but still a good one) and relatively light (backpacking etc.). So far, only Zeiss is producing manual high-quality RF lenses, but with a very limited selection and no 14mm or 24mm lens yet.

Michael Clark · Jun 19, 2026

Yana_a said:
Can I have M-RAW or M-cRAW?

There have not been any cameras since CR2 was replaced by CR3 that have M-Raw, S-Raw, or any other kind of reduced resolution "raw".

AlanF · Jun 19, 2026

Helmi2010 said:
Hello everyone

Over the last few years, I’ve mostly taken macro shots with an Olympus – it’s lighter to carry – but I still have lots of photos taken with a Canon on my hard drive.
A newly hatched Emperor dragonfly.

Best regards

Helmut

Anax imperator by Helmut Gloor, auf Flickr

The translucency is interesting.

Click · Jun 19, 2026

Helmi2010 said:
Hello everyone

Over the last few years, I’ve mostly taken macro shots with an Olympus – it’s lighter to carry – but I still have lots of photos taken with a Canon on my hard drive.
A newly hatched Emperor dragonfly.

Best regards

Helmut

Anax imperator by Helmut Gloor, auf Flickr

Excellent shot. Well done, Helmut.

Robi Naitsirhc · Jun 19, 2026

Malm said:
Sorry, but that isn't a new lens! That is just a known lens with a different label!
I saw it first as a Pergear 14/2.8 lens, afterwards as 7Artisan 14/2.8 (with a different desgin of the lens barrel) and now as Brightin Star 14/2.8. The optical construction - 13 elemenst in 9 groups - and the special glass elements are always the same. I have the Pergear 14/2.8 and the 7Artisan 14/2.8 (for astro photography) and don't see any difference. The optical quality is good (low coma for astro!), but the vignette is a little bit high. There is a more in-depth review of the Pergear 14/2.8 by phillipreeve.
It would be interesting to understand the structure behind these 'different' brands! Is it just one company which is just moving the lenses around from A to B to C or what??

Typical chinese, right!!!

This is a standard practice in the budget Chinese lens market. A core optical design originates from one or a small group of factories and design houses in China. Various marketing outfits and brands then slap their name on it. They adjust the barrel cosmetics, tweak the focus ring feel, or add minor changes such as aperture de-clicking. After that they push the product through their own sales channels.

Pergear released an early version around 2022-2023, followed by a Mark II. 7Artisans brought out their take later, near 2025, with different barrel styling but matching optics. Brightin Star, operating as Shenzhen Yinyao Technology, now sells it alongside other rebadges like Cheecar.

These companies position themselves as designers or assemblers with factory capabilities. Yet the identical MTF curves, element arrangements, and field performance across the lineup make it clear they share the same underlying product. It is not a single firm simply moving stock. Instead it forms a tight network of manufacturers and marketers that spreads distribution as wide as possible. The system holds costs down and reaches more customers. At the same time it muddies the water for buyers and weakens any real brand distinction. Quality control can differ from batch to batch. Overall it stays in line with the rest of the low-cost manual lens segment.

For Canon RF users chasing astro or landscape work these ultra-wides offer basic value at entry prices around $240. Edge-to-edge sharpness wide open will not rival premium optics, and vignetting remains noticeable. Stopped down they deliver acceptable results for the outlay. If existing copies already perform adequately, another version brings no meaningful optical gain, only fresh cosmetics and marketing.

Budget ultra-wides put accessibility first and perfection a distant second. The whole approach reflects how these Chinese operations routinely operate.

Helmi2010 · Jun 19, 2026

Those were the days – taking photos of flying dragonflies with the 70D and a macro lens. No subject recognition, no AI, just a relatively simple camera and, by today’s standards, a slow autofocus.

Aeshna cyanea by Helmut Gloor, auf Flickr

riker · Jun 19, 2026

Almost like they listened to our comments a few days ago

I would have liked a 28-85/2 more but hey, this is great news anyway.

I'm not an expert but I got the feeling IS is more effective than IBIS and I loved the original idea of IBIS+IS working together and providing the best result. I know officially IBIS provides 6-7-whatever stops but I'm skeptical.

Well, anyway, just make it as light as possible while maintaining IQ on a level which makes sense to use it on a 45MP body.

For second lens I don't want the 50-150/2, rather something more lightweight, like 105-135/2 or 120-150/2 with some macro capabilities. I don't need overlapping lenses, I don't even mind some gap.

Latest activity

Latest activity

Filter

Forum statistics

Gallery statistics