Latest activity

Richard CR · Oct 16, 2025

snapshot said:
hope you can dig up MTF for all 4 of these 200 F/2 or 1.8. i have thought about the EF 200 lenses from time to time, but wonder if i would really take it anywhere. would it really displace my 70-200 f/2,8 which gets great images.

The 1.8L I've only seen in a few places by they are long since gone. They were essentially a flat line. I'd say the Sigma's MTF is similar.

Keep in mind the laowa was shot with a 50MP A1 II and considered "soft" by some wide open, but that far exceeds anything we had to test with when the EF 200mm F2.0L came out, the 1Ds Mark III was 21MP, which was considered "insanely high resolution" at the time.

The EF 2.0L MTF is in the article itself.

If you have and love the 70-200 f2.8, then probably not? The 200mm f/2's were always some pretty special use case lenses.

snapshot · Oct 16, 2025

Richard CR said:
medicore lens design is an interesting choice of words. You do realize this is sharper wide open than the 200mm f2L, yes? the only one that was sharp wide open was the legendary 200mm F1.8L.

Sigma is 25% or so more expensive than the Laowa and also larger, and it's not available for Canon RF, and will most likely never be. so, no, that's not an apples to apples comparsion. So why compare it to a lens that is considerably more expensive, and if you have an RF camera, you'll never be able to use?

hope you can dig up MTF for all 4 of these 200 F/2 or 1.8. i have thought about the EF 200 lenses from time to time, but wonder if i would really take it anywhere. would it really displace my 70-200 f/2,8 which gets great images.

P-visie · Oct 16, 2025

David - Sydney said:
I agree that some RF lenses have made some EF lenses not relevant anymore. Not releasing a 300/2.8 (or f4) due to 100-300/2.8 is one area but adds cost and weight.
No 500mm or 200-400/4 replacement makes sense if a 200-500/4 is ever released but until then...
Not having mid-priced teles besides RF100-500 is a gap that has let Nikon/Sony bodies and lenses in. How much of a loss is unknowable.
The cheaper end with rf200-800, 600/11, 800/11 is well covered as well as the pointy end of the market.
The Chinese lens makers may be the solution for Canon's reticence and for niche lenses... we shall see.

The (rumored) RF 300-600mm lens will be Canon’s answer to the “cheap” Nikon PF telelenses. This lens will also replace the EF 200-400mm f4 +1.4 extender. If the rumors are correct, we’ll known in a few weeks.

Richard CR · Oct 15, 2025

BFG9000 said:
The softness issue is due to a mediocre lens design.
I think there's nothing more apples to apples than compare two 200mm f/2 lenses released almost simultaneously. BTW, Laowa claims that the lens 'provides flagship level results'.
You can always get the Canon EF 200mm f/2L.

medicore lens design is an interesting choice of words. You do realize this is sharper wide open than the 200mm f2L, yes? the only one that was sharp wide open was the legendary 200mm F1.8L.

Sigma is 25% or so more expensive than the Laowa and also larger, and it's not available for Canon RF, and will most likely never be. so, no, that's not an apples to apples comparsion. So why compare it to a lens that is considerably more expensive, and if you have an RF camera, you'll never be able to use?

Mikeydeedee · Oct 15, 2025

ctk said:
Whats the deal with this? I have an a7cII but miss Canon colors/ergos/menus. And there are enough STM lenses for me to scrape by with (28-70/2.8, 35/1.8, 14-35/L, 24-240)

Just a bummer they don't have a modern sensor in the ~3x MP range. But the 24MP is good and the Mk1 45MP sensor seems to be going for cheap

I switched to Sony a7riii from xt3 from 6d from 5dii* two years ago and hate the colors- love the resolution, I’m pining* for this re1 to bring me back to canon even if it’s with adapted ef. Hbu?

Mikeydeedee · Oct 15, 2025

No, I am not checking canon rumors on a weekly/ daily basis for updates about the re 1. That is a flat out lie.

David - Sydney · Oct 15, 2025

BFG9000 said:
You can always get the Canon EF 200mm f/2L.

Only from the second hand market and as it was a low volume lens, it would be hard to find in some countries.
It may also still be more expensive than a second hand one plus heavier/bigger.
If not apples-to-apples then maybe horses-for-courses

GMCPhotographics · Oct 15, 2025

Del Paso said:
There's also the R8's "horrible" EVF, compared to the R6's. I could never get used to the R's (3,69 million dots). The R 8 has only 2,36 million dots...
Though I know many wouldn't care, a good EVF is essential for me.

The EVF in the R6II is a lot larger and higher resolution that the units found in the R8 and R7. The R8’s lack of a 3rd dial, joystick and tiny battery all add up to a slightly frustrating camera. However, the lack of IBIS give its shared 24mp sensor a slight sharpness edge over the R6II.
It’s also super light and very small. It’s also beautifully made. I’m amazed Canon managed to squeeze a flappy screen on it.

BFG9000 · Oct 15, 2025

David - Sydney said:
Is the softness issue primarily because of the direct comparison with the Sigma (and Canon) which is more expensive, larger and heavier?
Is it really an apples-to-apples comparison especially when the Sigma is not available for EF/RF anyway?
What other options exist for RF users besides the 70-200/2,8 zooms?

The softness issue is due to a mediocre lens design.
I think there's nothing more apples to apples than compare two 200mm f/2 lenses released almost simultaneously. BTW, Laowa claims that the lens 'provides flagship level results'.
You can always get the Canon EF 200mm f/2L.

David - Sydney · Oct 15, 2025

Is the softness issue primarily because of the direct comparison with the Sigma (and Canon) which is more expensive, larger and heavier?
Is it really an apples-to-apples comparison especially when the Sigma is not available for EF/RF anyway?
What other options exist for RF users besides the 70-200/2,8 zooms?

David - Sydney · Oct 15, 2025

m4ndr4ke said:
Wouldn't the same happen to the R5, if it had auto-standby off as well?

Yes... but I didn't have that setting properly on the RP :-(
I haven't tested it though. I wouldn't need the grip either if the RP allowed USB charging while it is working. Charging only works with it turned off (another lesson learnt)

m4ndr4ke said:
I usually keep my RP on top of the desk all week, to photograph the cats. It's always turned on but I allow it to sleep. The battery lasts well over a week, that way. After work, usually I don't charge the battery that is inside the RP, I just put it to personal use as is, and charge it just before leaving for a new assignment.

Once I left home with the camera but with no battery. Now I always have a battery in and rotate them to an external charger.

David - Sydney · Oct 15, 2025

blackcoffee17 said:
Replacing some EF lenses wouldn't make sense these days, like the EF 200mm 2.8 or the 400 5.6 or maybe even the 500 F4. Also, many RF lenses never had an equivalent in EF, like the 16mm 2.8, 24-240 or 28-70 2.8 and F2.

I agree that some RF lenses have made some EF lenses not relevant anymore. Not releasing a 300/2.8 (or f4) due to 100-300/2.8 is one area but adds cost and weight.
No 500mm or 200-400/4 replacement makes sense if a 200-500/4 is ever released but until then...
Not having mid-priced teles besides RF100-500 is a gap that has let Nikon/Sony bodies and lenses in. How much of a loss is unknowable.
The cheaper end with rf200-800, 600/11, 800/11 is well covered as well as the pointy end of the market.
The Chinese lens makers may be the solution for Canon's reticence and for niche lenses... we shall see.

David - Sydney · Oct 15, 2025

P-visie said:
People who compare the RF lens line up with Canon’s EF lens line up also tend to overlook the fact that the camera market has shrunk dramatically since the heydays of the EF mount. It is unrealistic to expect that Canon will produce an RF replacement for very EF lens.

Maybe unrealistic but it hasn't stopped Canon from producing some innovative RF lenses.
My point was that if Canon isn't willing to compete in certain market segments then they should license a 3rd party if they are interested.
Win-win-win for Canon, 3rd party and users.

David - Sydney · Oct 15, 2025

justaCanonuser said:
I think that's the best approach, since Canon's EF-RF adapters work extremely well. I'll keep some of my EF lenses for a while, including a few 3rd party lenses.

Laowa's 200/2 with AF for EF is an a very interesting option. It may not have fantastic focusing speed compared to Sigma's version but it isn't available for EF/RF anyway.

justaCanonuser said:
Now that's a wide angle - with such an ultra-wide lens you don't need AF, even wide open
Btw not only Chinese makers of manual focusing lenses (may) produce lenses for Canon's RF mount: Zeiss offer their Otus 50mm and 85mm f/1.4's for Canon's RF mount, too.

It sees behind the lens with 220 degree coverage. tripods, feet and fingers will be the challenge except if I shoot directly vertically for night sky/milky way.

I will be focusing at infinity and will need to tape the focus ring to stop it from moving but it is possible to focus up close with MFD ~8cm ie almost touching the front element.

Walrus · Oct 15, 2025

It's sharp only from f2.8 so it's a no for me, there are 70-200's especially for EF with equal sharpness at same aperture but the bonus of being able to zoom backwards, and also cheaper to buy; see Chris Frost's side to side with Sigma, posted 10mins ago (yesterday he also posted full dedicated review):

- YouTube

Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.

youtu.be

john1970 · Oct 15, 2025

roby17269 said:
I guess I was debating the "overly expensive" bit - compared to other 200 f/2 lenses (I had the EF one)

Pity though: I liked the EF 200 f/2 a lot and I could use a new one... the price is great, and it could have made me overlook the need for an adapter... but the softness fully open is a big no-no for me

Same here. The lack of fast focusing and soft wide open are deal breakers for me regardless of the price. Once I factor in the EF-RF drop in adapter and sales tax the total cost is $2400, which is still a significant amount of money.

David_B · Oct 15, 2025

Richard CR said:
Laowa today has officially announced the Laowa AF 200mm FF 200m F2.0 C-Dreamer lens, the first Chinese manufacturer to make one of the big and fast halo lenses. Laowa touts several key advantages over its OEM and Sigma competition, including the size, weight, and price of the telephoto prime, with the Laowa lens being smaller, […]

See full article...

And because it is EF, it does auto-focus? I didn't see that mentioned in the story.

Bob Howland · Oct 15, 2025

Ever since Sigma has been allowed to make APS-C lenses for RF, that's what I've been buying. I use my R7 more than my R6-2 now.

P-visie · Oct 15, 2025

roby17269 said:
Well the images were definitely sharper at f/2 in the DCW review. The difference was so stark that I'd be surprised if the resolution difference was the cause.
Maybe that lens has issues with Sony's AF? No idea.
I'll have to check Gordon L's later as YT is not allowed at work

Gordon Laing is a preview, he has some images of Brighton Pier (@about 4:20 in the video), he says “crisp details, but not as sharp as the Sigma 200mm f2”.

roby17269 · Oct 15, 2025

P-visie said:
Yes, DCW are more positive, the pictures in the review are taken with Z6 II, a 24 mp camera, Petapixel tested the lens on an A1 II, which is 50MP. That may account for the difference. And DCW reviews in general are usually positive.

Well the images were definitely sharper at f/2 in the DCW review. The difference was so stark that I'd be surprised if the resolution difference was the cause.
Maybe that lens has issues with Sony's AF? No idea.
I'll have to check Gordon L's later as YT is not allowed at work

P-visie · Oct 15, 2025

roby17269 said:
Their narrative is quite more positive though and they call it sharp at f/2
They tested it on a Nikon which may change things a bit

Yes, DCW are more positive, the pictures in the review are taken with Z6 II, a 24 mp camera, Petapixel tested the lens on an A1 II, which is 50MP. That may account for the difference. And DCW reviews in general are usually positive.

Brown · Oct 15, 2025

While it sounds like a good performer, I fail to see what makes its lower element count impressive, considering the lack of IS.
The original Canon EF 200mm f/1.8 only used one more element than the Laowa.

Click · Oct 15, 2025

Very nice series, Nemorino.

Mirnavi · Oct 15, 2025

Gordon Laing’s first test with R6m2, looks good to me but the price could be lower...

- YouTube

Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.

www.youtube.com

roby17269 · Oct 15, 2025

P-visie said:
Yes, the measurements in the review from Digital Camera World confirm the results from PetaPixel: soft at f2, sharp at f4.

See: https://www.digitalcameraworld.com/cameras/lenses/laowa-200mm-f-2-af-ff-review

Their narrative is quite more positive though and they call it sharp at f/2
They tested it on a Nikon which may change things a bit