Is it that hard or expensive to make an APS-C zoom? Because it takes Canon 20 years and 50 patents to finally make one. All this while selling millions of APS-C cameras every year. In the same time Sigma somehow manages to design a whole series of high quality APS-C lenses. And even the much smaller Nikon.

Still hoping for a compact camera like the 740hs with enough zoom around 300mm, an evf and raw mode and a bigger sensor for shooting wildlife with it
And if they make it in a G7 or a V3 or a new 740HS thats up to canon

but please canon make some compact camera's especially for photographers

EricN said:

The 45mm is a little closer to 35 by 5mm. It's not much, but at least it wasn't 55mm, right?

Click to expand...

What a great solace for someone waiting for an RF 35mm f/1,2 L !

Thank you @Skux and @neuroanatomist.

There's definitely a place for lenses like the RF 100-400 for insects, but there is a particular look that you get from true macro at long focal lengths (partly due to sharpness at MFD?), which is why I keep my Sigma 180 f/2.8 as well

Skux said:

The newer ones can be set to "Exposure Simulation + DOF preview" where they will stop down in live view. This resolves the issue of focus shift with the 45mm f/1.2, 100mm f/2.8 L, and other lenses by letting you focus at the desired aperture rather than wide open.

Click to expand...

ExpSim + DoF Preview is my usual setting. Agree that it does resolve the issue of focus shift, though FYI it does not always let you focus at the desired aperture because if you stop down far enough, the camera may need to open the aperture somewhat to allow enough light for AF. Focus shift is evident close to wide open, stop down enough and the increased DoF mitigates the issue.

Here's an example with the R1 and 28-70/2. Stopped way down from wide open, you can see it open the aperture briefly (not to wide open, just 'enough') just before the first AF confirmation beep. I then opened the aperture up a bit (not to wide open, but to an aperture where focus shift could be an issue if this lens exhibited it, which it doesn't) and there is no aperture change before the second AF confirmation beep.

View attachment Stop down focus.mov

AlanF said:

Which Canon bodies stop down during AF?

Click to expand...

The newer ones can be set to "Exposure Simulation + DOF preview" where they will stop down in live view. This resolves the issue of focus shift with the 45mm f/1.2, 100mm f/2.8 L, and other lenses by letting you focus at the desired aperture rather than wide open.

This appears to only be available on RF lenses (when I tried adapting EF glass the option is not available, however this may be limited to a selection of lenses).

Bodies with Exposure Simulation + DOF preview:
R1
R3
R5 II
R6 II
R7
R8
R10
R50

Bodies which do not have this feature:
R
RP
R5
Ra
R100

Snapster said:

I'm surprised more of the reviews didn't catch the focus shift issue. Or it could be a quality control issue because of the cheap price?

If you can't get eyes in perfect focus at f/1.4 - f/2 on an R5 autofocus, the lens is absolutely a no go.

Click to expand...

Focus shift is a property of the lens design, not a production issue.

Portraits should be fine as the issue is only noticeable at close shooting distances.

Exploreshootshare said:

I´ve read the article a second time and I somehow get the feeling that something gets overlooked what a lot of customers want:
- First of all: they want lenses and cameras to fit their budget.
- furthermore, they want good, sometimes great images, that are better than their SP. Otherwise why buy a camera...
- secondly: they want creative control (not all, some just shoot in automode)

A lot of customers don't demand "clinically perfect" images and lenses. But most reviewers don't get that...

Click to expand...

I wonder how many actual buyers read one or more reviews, dig deep into test chart results, etc. No real idea, but the #1 mirrorless lens on amazon.com is the RF 50/1.8, which Klaus gives 3 stars of 5. Heck, the #7 mirrorless lens on Amazon is the RF 75-300, and even Bryan's rose-colored glasses struggle to find the silver lining there – "...it is not a high-performing model. If you are severely budget-constrained or using the lens in a high risk scenario (such as use by the kids), this lightweight lens might be the right choice for you."

I think your initial point is spot on, most people first look at spec and cost and make a decision mainly based mainly on that. It bears repeating – those of us discussing camera gear on the internet are not representative of most buyers.

DocInfoSci said:

But your needs and preferences are yours, absolutely!

Click to expand...

That is exactly my point.

P-visie said:

Maybe YOU do not want or need a macro lens, but please do not tell me what I want (or need).

Click to expand...

I suspect "you" is meant as the royal you, as in "a person of the community in general". In which case, the statement probably holds. The EF 300 IS f/4 L plus an extender (some image quality impact) or spacer (no image quality impact) has been used by many for great insect shots in lieu of a dedicated macro -- as an example.

In fact, I still have this combo still and while I prefer it for ducks, cows, and bears the odd dragonfly has been captured with great detail. I also keep dedicated macro lenses laying about.

But your needs and preferences are yours, absolutely!

Snapster said:

I'm surprised more of the reviews didn't catch the focus shift issue. Or it could be a quality control issue because of the cheap price?

If you can't get eyes in perfect focus at f/1.4 - f/2 on an R5 autofocus, the lens is absolutely a no go.

Click to expand...

Depends on the camera and settings used. It can be resolved with exposure and aperture previews turned on in cameras that support this setting combo.

EOS 4 Life said:

Most reviewers tested the lens on the R6 III.
New cameras do not have a focus shift.

Click to expand...

Which Canon bodies stop down during AF?

Snapster said:

I'm surprised more of the reviews didn't catch the focus shift issue. Or it could be a quality control issue because of the cheap price?

If you can't get eyes in perfect focus at f/1.4 - f/2 on an R5 autofocus, the lens is absolutely a no go.

Click to expand...

Most reviewers tested the lens on the R6 III.
New cameras do not have a focus shift.

Maximilian said:

The acronym stands for "Global Positioning System". And there were too many *** discussions here, so Craig seemed to have blacklisted it

Global Positioning System - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

And IMO it is only bad, if you can't switch the battery drain off (when not needed) or when it is jammed by military

Click to expand...

Thanks for the clarification. I Googled "*** slang" and some obvious offenders showed up. I wasn't aware of the previous controversy on this site.

EricN said:

Probably nobody cares...

Click to expand...

Aaaaww

DocInfoSci said:

I'm always fascinated by the hate for the EF 1.2. What do people use it for and on which body that it becomes unfit for purpose? I use the EF 50 1.2 for portraits of people and animals. I have always loved the outcome. On an R6 it's great, and with DLO it's amazing. In my humble opinion and for my purpose, of course.

Click to expand...

I used it for fashion portraiture but, imho, it did not hold a candle to the 85 1.2 II and, especially for the money, I found its performance unacceptable. Never understood the point of a 1.2L lens that was not useable at 1.2
Just to be clear, I absolutely do not mind you liking it, but I reserve my right to loathe it

roby17269 said:

I guess I just don't care

Click to expand...

Probably nobody cares...

***. An integrated *** receiver would create a ‘hump’ along the top surface. I *** tag all my photos. I use the Canon Camera Connect app on my iPhone. This requires setting my iPhone display Auto-Lock to ‘Never’, as Camera Connect stops updating *** when the iPhone screen goes dark. I haven’t had any battery issues on my iPhone as I lock the screen when finished shooting at a location.

Apparently, the acronym for Global Positioning Satellite is a 'bad word' ???

I´ve read the article a second time and I somehow get the feeling that something gets overlooked what a lot of customers want:
- First of all: they want lenses and cameras to fit their budget.
- furthermore, they want good, sometimes great images, that are better than their SP. Otherwise why buy a camera...
- secondly: they want creative control (not all, some just shoot in automode)

A lot of customers don't demand "clinically perfect" images and lenses. But most reviewers don't get that...

Markov said:

For butterflies and dragonflies you don't need/want a macro lens. I have used the R7 with the RF 100-400 mm lens for that and it works great.

Click to expand...

Maybe YOU do not want or need a macro lens, but please do not tell me what I want (or need).

Exploreshootshare said:

Funnily, some of favorite lenses have gotten bad reviews such as the 85mm F2, 100-400mm F5.6-8 and RF 16mm F2.8. The 85mm was recommended to me by a people photographer on a German camera website and it is a bargain. The 100-400mm was recommended to me by AlanF (among others) here at CR and it is great. It even produces great images with the TC attached. The 16mm was praised by photographer who hikes in the alps and so far, almost every time I used it delivered. All recommendations came from photographers who actually used the lenses, know their value despite their caveats. But the caveats don´t really matter if know how to work around them or know how theses lenses were intended to be used.

Click to expand...

I have all three of those! OL actually gives the RF 85mm/2 a highly recommended and 8.5/10 for optical quality. Even though they pan the 16mm, they have to admit "A 16mmm f/2.8 for this kind of money is an insane bargain even with the mentioned limitations." The RF 100-400mm gives best telephoto bang for the bucks of any telephoto and very decent quality.

Richard CR said:

I, of course, weighed in with the MTF inspection of this lens, and left the conclusion that it really depends on your use case for the lens. I personally wasn't a fan. […]

See full article...

Click to expand...

Did you honestly base your opinion on solely on the MTF chart? I´m asking because it kinda sounds (reads) like it.
To me, that would be like judging a car for an article for a magazine by only looking at a picture of it. Take it out for a spin, would you please?!

Basing an opinion about a camera lens solely on an MTF is fundamentally flawed imo because an MTF chart measures only one narrow aspect of performance under artificial conditions or sometimes - afaik are just simple calculations. (not sure about the calculations part, I've read some contradicting information). Real-world image quality depends on many factors it can’t show—such as color rendering, contrast, bokeh, distortion, autofocus behavior, and practical usability.

Basing a lens purchase on chart testing alone is misguided imo because test charts evaluate lenses in controlled, artificial conditions that rarely reflect how they are actually used. Charts emphasize measurable sharpness and contrast at specific distances, but they ignore critical real-world factors such as rendering style, color and micro-contrast, flare behavior, bokeh, autofocus reliability, handling, and how the lens performs across varied lighting and subject matter. A lens that excels on a chart can still produce uninspiring images in practice, while one that tests “worse” may deliver more pleasing and usable results in real photography.

I’ve owned many Canon PowerShots over the years - S50, G5, G9, G1X, G15, G7XIII. These complemented my Canon DSLRs – 10D, 1DII, 1DXII.

The PowerShot G allure for me is ‘almost’ DSLR image quality, numerous menu control settings in a very compact, pocketable size. I use them for street and travel photography where a DSLR is impractical.

My G7XIII is, for me, the best ever. I can’t think of too many things that would be possible to improve on.

Size. This is most important for me. I can put my G7XIII in a coat pocket, ‘cargo pant’ pocket or in a small waist pack. This requires some compromises:

Lens/Sensor. The lens needs to retract for pocket ability. The larger sensor and lens of the G1X precluded retraction of its lens. 70mm on the long end is a no go for me. 24-100mm equivalent is perfect. I shoot mostly JPEGs and in-camera optical aberration correction works fine.

EVF and Flash. I’ve never used the ‘optical’ viewfinder on any of my PowerShots and an EVF ‘hump’ increases the size for pocket ability. I’ve also never used the ‘pop up’ flash, but keeping it is OK. A hot shoe is sort of ridiculous as just about any external flash would be larger than the camera.

***. An integrated *** receiver would create a ‘hump’ along the top surface. I *** tag all my photos. I use the Canon Camera Connect app on my iPhone. This requires setting my iPhone display Auto-Lock to ‘Never’, as Camera Connect stops updating *** when the iPhone screen goes dark. I haven’t had any battery issues on my iPhone as I lock the screen when finished shooting at a location.

Display. The rear display must articulate similar to the G7XIII. I can place the camera on the ground and point the screen up. I can hold the camera over my head and point the screen down. I can even flip the screen over and take a selfie (never done.)

Video. For a photo-centric camera, just the ‘basics’. The V1 covers the video creators.

Pricing. I’m OK with ~$1k USD. I was recently willing to pay twice what I paid for my G7XIII to get another for replacement.

EricN said:

The 45mm is a little closer to 35 by 5mm. It's not much, but at least it wasn't 55mm, right?

Click to expand...

I guess I just don't care

David_B said:

But the ability to pull apart some of the individual beams is lost.

Click to expand...

Lol. If you believe that's what is happening, your understanding of the technical aspects of optics is more flawed that I thought.

David_B said:

To go to an extreme point, why even bother with a full frame lens if all we need to do is put an APS-C lens on the front of a full frame model and then stretch that image such that it "fill the picture".. Afterall, what's a few dark corners/boundary between friends if digital corection is ok? Where's the cutoff point between too much stretching vs acceptable stretching?

Click to expand...

I suppose the only reasonable cutoff point is, are you happy with the resulting images. Since you don't use distortion correction and most lenses have at least some, I suspect you have a low bar for image quality by my standards. I know that straight lines are just that, and I want them to appear that way in my images. Eschewing distortion correction means straight lines in your images are curved, to me that is highly undesirable (and I only tolerate when it's necessary for correction of volume anamorphosis, because I prioritize the appearance of faces at the edge of the frame over lines being straight).

David_B said:

The detail that gets lost in the squashed iamge (it doesn't fill the srnsor, so I'm using "squash" as the term to refer to it being made small) can't be made to reappear with some magic process. Even if you take into account the blur from the AA, there must be less refined data to work from in an image that's only 19.96mm "high".

Click to expand...

Only 19.96 mm 'high', as opposed to 21.64 mm. 8% shorter on the half-diagonal. With the 24-105/2.8 at 24mm, the black corners are less than 0.05% of the image that need to be 'filled in' by 'stretching'. On my R1, that's 11,400 pixels out of the 24,000,000. If you want to lose sleep over that, be my guest.