Posts

AJ · 2026-06-17T12:11:24-0400

maybe Canon finally has some epic RF-S lenses in the pipeline

Haha! Thanks for the laugh. That's pretty funny.

Del Paso · 2026-06-17T11:26:05-0400

candyman said:
You can always add the 10-20 Works well in densely built cities and also for landscapes with interesting subjects in the foreground. Takes some of the photos I would normally use the TS-E 24mm for.

Well, I never visit a city without the 24 TS-E. I hate converging lines, and I am not so fond of cropping 10mm shots. I also have no real use for wider than 15mm. It could change after I get my RF 20-50mm, needing a bit wider than 20mm. Selling the 15-35 ? No! Too good!
Isn't it nice to have such "problems"?
And I'm "patiently" waiting for the rumoured 14mm TS-E.

Malm · 2026-06-17T11:17:22-0400

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??

EOS 4 Life · 2026-06-17T10:58:40-0400

koenkooi said:
I was about to reply with "My R8 disagrees"

My R5 C disagrees.
It would also be a perfect lens for the C400 or RED V-Raptor.

Michael Clark · 2026-06-17T06:09:17-0400

David - Sydney said:
I do wonder how diffraction in practice seems to be less of an issue for higher mp sensors than the maths would indicate.

You can only see diffraction at the DLA if the display is large enough to see individual pixels. In other words, viewing on a monitor at 100% with pixel pitch of less than around 144 ppi if viewing at 24" distance with 20/20 vision.

Click · 2026-06-16T19:01:40-0400

+1 Well done, Sir!

Click · 2026-06-16T18:59:51-0400

Great shot.

Well done, zajicekpavel.

Click · 2026-06-16T18:57:26-0400

foda said:
Golden-fronted Woodpecker with a palm fruit, seen while birding in Belize, April, 2026.

R5MkII RF200-800mm

View attachment 230140

Awesome. Great shot, foda.

ctk · 2026-06-16T17:53:21-0400

blackcoffee17 said:
$300 would be too expensive in many parts of the world. The whole point of this lens is to bring users into Canon ecosystem by offering a cheap but "professional" quality lens. Look at the RF 75-300. Canon could have improved it and make it $100-200 more but they choose to offer it for dirt cheap instead.

If $100 more for a lens makes it too expensive I doubt those folks are buying the $x,xxx camera bodies to mount it to. They could also keep the price the same and just make a better new version.

tomcat · 2026-06-16T14:24:03-0400

Also Canon did not find the reason, why 1.3.0 did not work on my camerabody - the did something like an firmware downgrade. But the good thing is, Version 1.3.1 was no problem to update. So, I´m happy with my camera again.
First I had some troubles to get help from Canon, as they had not informed their personal about the new firmware. But after some discussion, I could send it to the service team

Chig · 2026-06-16T13:04:54-0400

Nemorino said:
Is pre shooting enabled?

Yes, but that never caused this before on the previous firmware

Michael Clark · Monday at 8:36 PM

Czardoom said:
Are you illiterate or just stupid? Ever used an MFT camera? Apparently not.

Yep, someone definitely has an inferiority complex. Ad hominem arguments almost always the result of feelings of inferiority.

foda · Monday at 6:10 PM

How does that compare to Lightroom's Denoise?

neuroanatomist said:
Thanks! DxO PhotoLab, using the default options for DeepPrime XD3 so the 'work' is just one click for NR.

AlanF · Monday at 4:53 PM

Scarlet Tiger Moth (R5ii + RF 200-800mm).

@zajicekpavel · Monday at 3:51 PM

Today I wanted to take pictures of ladybugs..but not like this

R7+ Canon RF 100 mm f/2,8 L

DocInfoSci · Monday at 2:52 PM

I just joined the R3 club. It's more camera than most people will ever need, and remains in production today. Looking forward to years of great use, just as my other amazing DSLRs and MILCs before it!

Speedfinder · Monday at 8:46 AM

I found this part which I suspect is a part of an FD 500mm f4.5L lens.
Anyone recognise it

?

homebodyMacro2 · Sunday at 8:55 PM

AlanF said:
The 70-200mm f/2.8 Z is on my buy list. However, for macro of about 0.6x I am now getting too old to bend down to get the mfd of 70cm away, but the 2x TC on the RF 100-500mm or RF 100-400mm means I can stand relatively straight at 1.2-1.4m! Here's a Green Bottle Fly I took at 1000mm on the R5ii a few minutes ago!

Very nice!

Peter Ebel said:
Nice shots, have plenty of fun with this lens!

Yep! It's an unreasonably good lens, simply a joy to use.

rombe3jr · Sunday at 1:42 PM

PinholeR5 said:
I've been wondering about that as well. I do have the RF 16-28mm & 28-70mm f/2.8 that I use with the R8 in a small/light kit (I have an even smaller/lighter R50 based one). I've used the 70-200mm F4 with it and it is fine. Actually, the 70-200mm F/2.8 is compact enough that it can fit in my small kit bag. It is heavier, but compact enough to fit so I often use the 2.8 version.

I do agree with @Exploreshootshare that it would have to be really compact and light, i.e., less than 500g like the 16-28mm and the 28-70mm. The 70-200mm F4 is only 695g, so even then the difference in weight (and probably size) wouldn't be that large, but for that focal length F2.8 vs F4 would make a difference. Also, the RF 70-200mm F2.8 is 1Kg, so the weight difference is considerable and I'd assume an RF 70-180mm F2.8 would be less than 50% the cost of the RF 70-200mm F2.8.

I did look into the RF 14-35mm F4, and perhaps that would have been the better option. The 14mm vs 16mm is a significant advantage and the 35mm vs 28mm is as well. The F2.8 vs F4 tends to be not that great of an advantage for me.

I have heard the 70-200 f/4 is a great lens. It seems like a low price right now for $1,500 USD. With such great ISO / low light performance from newer camera bodies these days, perhaps an f/2.8 isn't really necessary? A 180mm reach and weight under 500g does seem like a tall order but would be a fantastic set of specs. About the only thing I can think of to do it better would be to keep the 67mm filter size. Then you could have the holy trinity with one set of filters. Combined with a R6 II right now and you have a fantastic kit, affordable (as "affordable" as full frame Canons can get at "only" $6,000 USD), but quite capable!

Nathalietje86 · Sunday at 11:15 AM

ctk said:
Whats needed in a super zoom that is not available? There seem to be way bigger gaps on the RX100 style camera side.

Raw the last super zoom compact camera hs740 of canon has only jpeg, i can go to Panasonic but i dont like Panasonic thats just not my brand.
Or go to Sony the last super zoom with raw is the hx99, because the rx100 line has only 200mm is in my eyes not a super zoom.

So its time for new super zoom compact camera's with raw

@zajicekpavel · Sunday at 6:21 AM

Macro R7

@zajicekpavel · Sunday at 6:18 AM

R7 + Canon 2.8 macro

@zajicekpavel · Friday at 2:12 AM

Transbee

HeavyPiper · Thursday at 10:45 AM

Shot with my 100-400mm lens.

Face Rock, Bandon, Oregon.

EricN · Jun 10, 2026

Del Paso said:
I'd suggest that you start comparing Canon, Sony and Nikon price lists.
Sorry, but similar products are usually priced similarly.

Even as the third-party companies favored by aquatic mammals are attempting to increase quality, they are also increasing prices closer to Canon, Nikon and that other company.

Posts

Posts

Attachments

Filter

Forum statistics

Gallery statistics