GoPro’s New Max 2 It’s been six years since GoPro introduced the Max. The new 360 action camera offers what GoPro claims is “true” 8K 360-degree video. Apparently, this 8K resolution does not include any overlapping or unusable pixels, so you get the full 8K resolution from the video output. GoPro also states that no […]

See full article...

This is a great-looking flash trigger. Godox stepped up their game with this one. Today, Godox has announced the X3Pro flash trigger, featuring a significantly larger screen and body. Some proponents can really argue, though, that while this looks good, the lack of tactile controls makes this more challenging to control in the studio environment, […]

See full article...

JDub said:

I had the affordable Sigma EF 135mm 1.8 and that was crazy crazy sharp too, only sold as I had the 105mm 1.4 and used that more.
The EF 135 2.0 by today's standards could be considered soft, however, not everything needs to be pimple revealing sharp.

For my workloads I'm not likely to notice a difference, but if I were creating wall sized posters the real world difference may be worth it.

Personally I'm saving for the 85mm 1.2 first. At 135mm you stand quite a way away from your subject/model.

Click to expand...

thx for your reply. I don´t mind softer lenses, sometimes I actually prefer them. But with the R5 "soft" often turns into "not sharp" oder even slightly blurry. I am experiencing this with RF 35mm. I loved the pics I took with EOS R, but have some trouble with the R5.

As for now, I'll probably just rent the 135mm for a weekend to play around. It should be fun and satisfy my curiosity.

Assuming these are planned lenses, I really hope that 20-50 F4 is a full frame one, it would be great on my R8.

mimbu said:

You're paying for IBIS in every lens, and there are of course lenses that don't have it at all.

Click to expand...

A minor quibble: by definition, a lens cannot have IBIS. ILIS or just IS.

I do astrophotography. My workflow in the field involves manually focusing the lens, and then mounting the camera on my tracker and shooting multiple frames. Once mounted on the tracker, checking focus is cumbersome.
One of the key sources of bad data, and sometimes whole wasted nights, is focusing errors. It is very easy to bump the focus ring to throw things off slightly, just enough to create unacceptable frames. Things get even trickier when a lens heater is needed.
Is there a way to turn off focusing completely - i.e. no autofocus and no manual focus. In theory one should be able to turn off manual focus because modern R mount lenses are focus-by-wire and there is no mechanical coupling between the focus ring and the lens elements. I want to focus my lens at the start, and then leave the lens elements where they are.
My camera is an RP.

antonn said:

I use both cameras (R1 + R5M2), and I've used the R3 and R7 with this lens. These cameras and this lens weren't available a decade ago.Speed isn't necessarily a matter of high power; different autofocus algorithms are enough. For example, the R5M2 is reluctant to shift focus from a blurry foreground to a distant background, while the R3 and R1 try to focus immediately. The settings are the same, but the algorithms are different. With the RF100-500 lens, both cameras (R1 + R5M2) work equally fast, perhaps because the DOF is larger and the camera can more easily determine where to focus.You can always try it yourself to be sure

Click to expand...

The RF 600/4 is basically an EF adapted lens whereas the RF 100-500mm is native RF. I wonder if they are the reasons for the difference. Perhaps someone with the RF 100-300mm could comment. The AF of the RF 100-500mm on the R5ii (and on the R5) continues to amaze me for speed of locking on to BIF.

You can't ignore physics. The larger the sensor the larger the lens, the faster the lens the larger the lens. I'd pick a faster lens over a longer one any day. After all these aren't made for sports or birding. For that I'll take my om1. Something pocketable with a fast lens, good af and an evf all day for me. G5x iii please. I would say g1x iv but then there is that physics problem. Even the lx100 isn't pocketable and it's only mft.

Have video shooters never heard of a zoom lens?? That is the easiest way to change focal lengths. Oh, are they afraid they'll forget to set the zoom for a shot?? Wow, what professionals. Leave it to video shooters to make changing a lens seem next to impossible because the filter size is different... Are we still living in reality right now or what?

AlanF said:

Richard, the MTF chart is confusing me. Is it corrected for diffraction like the Canon one is? The values at f/8 are lower than at f/4 so it could be. Otherwise it is unusual for f/8 to be so less sharp.

Click to expand...

the fact that the center lp30/mm goes down at F/8 makes me think you are right that they are showing it diffraction corrected.

steven parker said:

I own four of their YN600EX-RT speedlights and have mixed reviews. Build quality is poor: loss of connection between camera body and flash at the hot shoe, every battery door broke so I had to replace them plus some minor off-camera wireless sync problems. Still, all my problems seemed to be everyone's problems (after checking the boards) so I switched back. I'm a photographer in New York and the secondary market is flooded with Canon Speedlights at ridiculously good prices. I picked up four of them this week (September 2025). I'm not comfortable using Yongnuo lenses considering the problems I had with the YN600EX-RT Speedlights. If anyone has real world reviews or photos please share.

Click to expand...

For 3rd party flash I always go for Godox, those Yongnuo flash are pretty old and it is from their early days. There's a lot of progress since then.

mimbu said:

As a Canon customer, Canon knows what is best for you. Those third party lenses are dangerous and you shouldn't hang out with them. You might pick up some weird disease.

That sl*t Sony lets anyone mount, you should stay far away.

Click to expand...

I just wanted to say I thought this was really funny! Thanks for posting it.

DJI has announced the newest drone in its Mini lineup, the Mini 5 Pro. The new Mini 5 Pro drone now features a 1″ sensor in the sub-250g series for the first time, promising excellent imaging. DJI has made significant improvements to this model, building upon the features of the Mini 4 Pro it replaces. […]

See full article...

hello, I have the R6M2 and was using the Older 600exII flash. found a deal at KEH for the EL5 for 200.00 but was looking for a flash Dome? Question do they make one? and did I waste $ getting the EL-5?

justaCanonuser said:

I agree, Fujifilm was the final killer of the S series, their medium format offerings are extremely attractive.

Click to expand...

Very nice cameras indeed, for comparably little money.
I am still tempted, if only I could convince myself I need a Fuji GX camera...

My old EF 85mm f/1.2 II is one of my all time fav lenses, in particular because it still has a touch of vintage look, but this lens may drive me to add a new 85 to my lens selection. The AF drive of the old 85 isn't up to fast movements, and a silent drive for video is definitely a progress (if it IS silent).

Where is the R6III now :/?!

Viltrox has announced the first lenses that it will supply to the L-mount. In case you missed it, on September 1st, Viltrox officially announced that the company was joining the L-mount alliance. As a new member, Viltrox is the 10th company to join the L-Mount Alliance since the public announcement of the L-Mount standard at […]

See full article...

Laowa has launched a new 180mm F4.5 1.5x Macro lens that they deem APO. What does APO mean, and why does Richard think it’s important? It means that there are little, if any, achromatic aberrations. According to Leica, who know a thing or two about lenses, they state this; Stands for ‘apochromatically corrected’. In normal […]

See full article...

There is an interesting post on FStoppers for those interested in another opinion about Canon’s strategy to keep the RF (FF) mount closed. The title is “The Genius of Canon's RF Mount Lens Lockdown”.

A quote from the conclusion (emphasis is mine): “Canon was accused of walling off the garden when they began controlling RF mount access. Critics predicted market share losses, user defection, and ecosystem stagnation. Photography influencers proclaimed Sony's third-party friendly approach the obvious future. The consensus was clear: Canon had made a strategic error that would cost them dearly.

In hindsight, it may have been the construction of a remarkably profitable fortress. With minimal competition for their high-margin premium glass and a comprehensive stable of budget lenses that preempted third-party alternatives, Canon transformed a widely reviled approach into one of the most successful plays of the mirrorless era. The company didn't just survive the transition from DSLR to mirrorless; they maintained strong profitability while commanding premium pricing across their lens lineup.”

See: https://fstoppers.com/business/genius-canons-rf-mount-lens-lockdown-711104

I use the shuttercount app as well. A nice bonus is that the 'Pro' version has the option to automatically adjust the time+date in the camera when connecting.

Bob Howland said:

These lenses raise a question. Why can't/don't still zoom lenses hold the larger aperture for as much of the zoom range as possible. For example, a 300 f/2.8 lens requires a front element of about 107mm. Now consider a 100-300 f/2-2.8. That 107mm should allow that f/2 to be maintained out to 214mm. So why doesn't it? My fantasy lens would be a 200-500 f/2.8-4 with a selectable 1.4x TC. Update: It would hold f/2.8 out to 350 mm.

Click to expand...

Take a look at a zoom lens and you will see a chassis to carry the aperture blades down the barrel, and as the chassis moves down the barrel, you no longer have a 107mm opening. The opening is now down the barrel, not the opening at the end of the lens. That's how it seems to me, anyway and why these types of variable apertures would require a much larger front element and be much larger and heavier than people think. Maybe not even possible to design.

Ian K said:

I would rather have 36mp than have diffraction kick in at f5.6.

Click to expand...

Not sure what you mean by "kick in", but there is ALWAYS diffraction, at all apertures. The "diffraction limit" is not a limit. It is a calculation assuming some things about the Airy disk. The resolution of a photo, at the focal plane, is determined by pixel pitch, diffraction, motion, and aberrations. Slightly away from the focal plane, resolution improves by stopping down way narrower than f/5.6. Many of us routinely select f/11 or 13 as the best compromise when shooting macro on an APSC sensor.

Also remember that it's the lens that creates diffraction, not the sensor. Having more pixels doesn't increase diffraction. But you can see its effects better by pixel-peeping.

As long as I can remember (which for me goes back to 8 mpx cameras), there have been fears about noise and diffraction with higher pixel count cameras. Sensors now have an order of magnitude more pixels, yet IQ keeps on improving.

So it seems the camera manufacturers know what they are doing.

I'll be one of the first in line for the R7 II if it has the rumored improvements, and for me, the more pixels the better.

As per https:www.youtube.comwatch?v=6PZEwGkrwlg from IBC, the lens will cost 1799USD for the EF version. Good news.

Sounds an intresting camera and a great value.