Posts

becceric · Nov 15, 2021

robinlee said:
You are most welcome, where are you residing now?

I'll be glad to be your guide

And put my wife/navigator out of a job?

SteveC · Nov 15, 2021

neuroanatomist said:
Nonsense. Here's the download link.

Oh, you're right. I forgot about the "replace all the parts at once" option. Which is probably cheaper in the long run.

Nov 15, 2021

I haven't used ether of these. I was wanting 'a' speed light for my Zed bodies, but these look a bit overkill when all I am after is a catch light or gentle fill light for wildlife.

Ozarker · Nov 14, 2021

leadin2 · Nov 14, 2021

I used f/5.6 and f/8 with auto focus quite often, so EF L will stay with me longer. =)

Nov 13, 2021

ulrichsd said:
I guess that the 18-55 dx kit lenses are polycarbonate mounts as well, but I've never owned one, I bought my cameras body-only. so I've never actually owned a plastic mount lens

I own a few – several of the EF-M lenses have plastic mounts.

john1970 · Nov 13, 2021

On Nov 12, 2021 Photorumors mentioned that two yet to be announced Canon lenses were registered on-line.

New Canon Lenses Registered

Maybe these two lenses will be announced around the same time that the R3 is officially released?

Mt Spokane Photography · Nov 12, 2021

sanj said:
Thank you. I think I will have to try this. If I do, I will let you know. "Better than JPEG" is not good enough for the assignment I was going to use this for. :-(

I think you should try it to see. I have not really tried to capture frames from 8K video but recall someone saying that the results for a BIF were not as good as they had hoped. I did play with doing a frame grab and managed to do it from 8K but It was just a quick try and I deleted it.

Del Paso · Nov 12, 2021

The wonder of Loctite's superglue...

But it must have been hard to turn the living-room upside down

Kiton · Nov 12, 2021

A little embarrassed to admit this, but hey, you guys were right. It was the filter! Did some tests this week at sun down, almost no flare without the filter in place. Will swap it out for a BW or Nikon filter. Thank you!

Nov 12, 2021

gruhl28 said:
Just curious, why do you think an 18-45mm f/4-5.6 is likely? That would be an unusual range for FF. Are you thinking there's going to be an APS-C RF body soon? I don't remember what opinion you've expressed on that before.

I think it's likely because it appears on the leaked image/screenshot of Canon's RF lens roadmap. Personally, I don't think we'll see an APS-C EOS R for several reasons. An inexpensive 18-45mm FF lens would be a good budget UWA zoom option for the RF system, and by starting at 18mm perhaps have a significant number of people buy both the 16/2.8 and the 18-45.

Joules · Nov 12, 2021

Tremotino said:
I always feel like my TSE 24 II has more DR than any other lense ever used on my 5div.

Basically the histogram graph is with the same body and same scene a little bit more compressed

Dynamic range of a scene may be affected by the lens. For example, anything that lowers contrast, such as flare or ghosting, will compress the histogram. Similarly, video is shot with very flat profiles that are super low contrast to compress the DR of a scene into a tighter histogram. But that is done digitally after the image is created on the sensor.

Maybe your lens isn't as punchy as your others.

But that's not what we're concerned with when talking about a cameras DR for stills. The sensor is a bottleneck independent of the lens. Any kind of contrast reduction in a lens that I'm aware of comes from light bleeding into areas where it should not be. So it is degrading the image, even if the actual contrast can easily be compensated for in post.

So even though your shadow areas may get a bit brighter with enough flare/ghosting in your image, it doesn't actually mean you're getting any additional detail in those shadows. And therefore not any real gain in dynamic range.

JohanCruyff · Nov 11, 2021

I ordered my RF 16mm on 17 october; it was supposed to be delivered today by Amazon.it, but it has been postponed to 19 november.

kaihp · Nov 11, 2021

bainsybike said:
Well I've just updated through "Check for Updates" from within DPP4, and didn't require a serial number at all.

Correct. It's only when you go to download a 'full' release from the Canon support website that it requires a valid serial number.

I don't quite understand why they ask for it, because it's easy enough to find one floating on the net or digging it out of the EXIF from a suitable camera.

jd7 · Nov 10, 2021

AlanF said:
Here are my impressions of the lens

Canon RF 100-400mm f/5.6-8 IS USM: First Impressions

I ordered the Canon RF 100-400mm yesterday, it arrived this morning, and the lens now "Pre-order" status on the website. I had time for just a few tests and one or two shots only, so I'll give my initial impressions and follow up later with more. I do have the RF 100-500mm and an EF 100-400mm II...

www.canonrumors.com

Everyone should have one!

You're making me want an RF 100-400mm and I don't even own an R system camera!

RunAndGun · Nov 10, 2021

Time flies…

EricN · Nov 9, 2021

Thanks

calfoto · Nov 9, 2021

Side note:

I’ve used a Nikkor 28 PC on an R5 with a Nikon to R mount adapter - while totally manual it worked quite well for the task at hand

Chaitanya · Nov 9, 2021

navastronia · Nov 8, 2021

koenkooi said:
You could try inspecting the contacts on the lens, they might be worn or dirty.

I know from experience that the EF85mm f/1.8 works great on the RP, but it has horrible CA and really wants to be used at f/2.5. But the AF is fast. The RF85mm f/2 also works great on the RP, is very sharp, but the AF is a lot slower and only f/2. And 'experience' is 'taking pictures of my kids', not a paid job.

appreciate this. Contacts were neither worn nor dirty, but the lens did start working again. May trade over to the 85/2, but undecided as of yet.

jd7 said:
I'm afraid I cannot help with the particular problem with that lens, but I wouldn't be too quick to right off all third party lenses, or even Samyang lenses, because of one bad experience. Canon gear fails too. Look around CR and you will see plenty of people talking about problems they have had even with Canon's better gear. For example, I recall someone talking about an R6 failing not long after purchase becasue the IBIS unit failed, and some years I bought a 24-70 f/4L IS lens which was pretty poor out of the box (but very good after Canon serviced it). Don't get me wrong, my impression is Canon generally has very good quality control, and Canon may be a step above the third parties. That would certainly be the conventional wisdom. However, I do not have the data (does anyone? LensRentals maybe?) to know how Canon compares with other manufacturers (including Samyang), and in any event it is all consumer gear so there will certainly be some items which fail with any brand including Canon (and I don't read much into the conventional wisdom which gets echoed around the interwebs).

Anyway, FWIW I don't think you should feel stupid. You bought a cheaper (and relatively light) lens, which so far as I can tell is very good optically, and gave it a go. Maybe you have discovered it's not as good value as it might first seem, or maybe you have just been unlucky. Unless perhaps I hear a lot more reports of the Samang RF 85mm failing though, it is still the only RF 85mm I would be interested to buy if I had an R camera. I don't want the size or weight, or cost, of either of the RF 85L lenses, and I haven't seen or read anything about the RF 85 f/2 IS which has impressed me much (slow AF, only f/2, sharpness is fine but bokeh and overall rendering seems disappointing).

Best of luck sorting out the issue, however you decide to deal with it.

Quite appreciate your reply -- Thank you for your input! I enjoy your perspective. Yes, first party glass dies, too. It was just so startling to have it happen this way, so my first thought was that it was Samyang's gear being somehow more prone to failure. I also had another job over the weekend and had no idea how I'd complete it, given I had to travel and didn't have time to buy something. I think in those situations, people rely on CPS . . . Will continue trouble shooting my gear and see if I can replicate the issue.

RexxReviews said:
I have been using this lens for about a year on my R5 and R6 bodies and have had NO issues like what you are describing. The only issue I had was solved with a firmware update, and that was focus and IBIS related. That firmware was well over a year ago. If you aren't on the latest firmware that could be part of your issue, you will need a dock in order to update it.

Thanks for your reply. Yeah, I had no issue with the lens for the first 6 months. Purchased brand new, so at least there's the warranty. Hope to sort it out before the New Year so I can at least stop worrying, hahaha

pulseimages · Nov 8, 2021

Does anyone know how the Canon 35 2 IS compares in sharpness to the 35mm lens in the Fujifilm X100T?

pulseimages · Nov 8, 2021

I ended up passing on the 24-70. 1) The weight of the lens is not great without IS. I tested it over 3 days and 70mm is just too short for my needs. I used to own the 28-80 2.8-4 L USM and that was heavy too but I produced a lot of great work with it on a 40D. I’ll look into replacing my 70-200 2.8 L non-IS.

Magellan · Nov 7, 2021

I had a problem like this just recently with my R5+EF-RF adapter+1.4TC+100-400mm EF IS L II lens. I've commented on another thread regarding this (https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/search/475093/). The preview image 'shake' was really violent and the screen also seemed to show ghosting from previous preview frames (like 1-2 sec prior). Definitely associated with IBIS as it didn't occur when IS mode was switched off. I didn't think that this was a problem when actually recording video, but it was (though seemingly not as bad as in preview mode). When I got home I tried my RF 24-105mm f4 lens and could still see the problem, so I initially though I'd be heading for a warranty repair, but as per the other thread, I now seem to have fixed this (wrench(5)->reset camera->basic settings). Someone else commented on that other thread that they had had the same thing. I've uploaded a zipfile of a video clip showing the problem ( .mov files aren't allowed as attachments..).