Incredible detail and sharpness. How does the lens feel size-wise? Do you have the RF 50 to compare it to?

Really nice set! Yes, the face detect automatically focuses on the eye, always, missing whatever is in front like the nose, mic stand, hands, hair etc.

I tried today with this combo in a activity center/gymboree (not sure what it’s called) And I was so seriously disappointed with the AF, nearly everything was oof... it was fluorescent lightning and quite okay light, f1.2, 1/1000s iso 6400-10.000 but no AF mode worked. As long as someone stands still it was flawless, but the big issue is low light and tracking, everything backfocused. It seems even the RF50 requires loads of light to track...

Don Haines said:

How do you know he didn't invent it?

Click to expand...

He did, didn't you see the movie?

I am eagerly awaiting this lens, in SA mount

Hi there,
I did not mean a filter holding system at the rear of the lens but in the lens barrel where the lens is attached to the camera body just like an EF lens adapter ring which also holds Polarizing & ND filters. I hope it’s quite clear and understood.

It's kind of like trying to get people to differentiate between loose and lose, or fewer and less, or the proper use of apostrophes (not apostrophe's).

But I've always thought the Canon nomenclature was obtuse and confusing, especially their different lens categories.

I think the solution is to use your nose as the primary point selector. It helps if it's double-jointed, but be careful you don't get your nose out-of-joint.

Thanks for sharing, Craig.
And thanks to Roger and team for doing this all the time.

BTW: There are some two threads already about this. Maybe merging them with this together?

this one was Spectre.... Puff the Magic dragon was Vietnam era AC-47 with 3 mini guns

DAveC

Kit Lens Jockey said:

I think the fact that the exposure changes just by taking a shot or turning off and on the camera shows this is a bug. I feel like the EOS R has a lot more bugs than people want to actually admit. Hopefully Canon is taking notes and will give us some good fixes in a firmware update.

Click to expand...

Yes, I also think it is bug, and I got it out of the loop when I changed the ISO manually. This was the first time this happened so I was purplexed. After the viewfinder became overexposed, I panned the camera across several targets and it still remained overexposed. Which was when I took a picture, reviewed it on the back of the camera, and the picture was as overexposed as the viewfinder. And after taking the picture, the viewfinder was still overexposed. I don't remember how long it was in this state but it seemed at least 10 seconds until i changed the ISO.

The good news is I didn't have any issues with the adapted EF 300mm lens on the R. I didn't notice any speed/accuracy difference compared to the 5D4. Granted, there wasn't to much foreward/aft subject movement.

Since I basically live in my 4x4 RV most of the time, I really don't want anything but the camera, and even the box requires finding a place for storage. I really appreciate the feedback and am ready to place my order for a refurbished 6DM2 - it will suit me well, as I'm just a hobbyist. Thanks everyone.

Is there a takeaway from this? Does the lens offer too many complications for a rental business? Are consumers going to find it to be a "high-maintenance lover" too? My first reaction was, "Maybe I should (for the 50th time) reconsider the simple little ef 50mm f/1.2L USM." But the IQ and AF of the RF monster seem to hold so much promise (as opposed to the known issues of the EF 1.2).

I like the way Roger presents the facts without conjecture, without sounding alarms based simply on so much new tech jammed into the tube.

And this is just the first generation of RF lenses.

4fun said:

size and price, hopefully.

RF 24-105 is far from "stellar". it is "decent". 40% higher price than EF Mk. II, but IQ, size, weight not really better. IQ is behind Sony.

Personally i'd prefer a "decent IQ", compact and well-affordable (500 €) "non-L" RF 24-85/4 IS STM rather than a 24-70 4 L at more than a grand. the (very good) Nikon Z 24-70/4 is about 600 in kit with Z6. will be interesting to see comparison, if/when Canon launches the lens.

Click to expand...

The EF 24-105mm f/4L mkII was expensive, esp compared the mkI, when it came out, to the point people speculated it was released just to raise the price & Canon's profit. Difference at Amazon is 25% at the moment, $1099 compared to $875.

My guess is the RF version is here to eventually take the EF version's place - a cheap & convenient kit lens.

On the 5D I settled comfortable on the f/2.8L trio of zooms. I'll consider switching to EOS R when it has a similar trio of RF lenses.

Untitled by RexPhoto91, on Flickr

Untitled by RexPhoto91, on Flickr

Untitled by RexPhoto91, on Flickr

Untitled by RexPhoto91, on Flickr

cayenne said:

Well darn....

I was wanting to get a decent fish eyed lens to play with on my 5D3 that doesn't break the bank, but I want one that doesn't present a cropped off image.

;(

Click to expand...

Sigma 15mm f/2.8?

I will say that I was a bit surprised that the lens is manufactured in Taiwan, and that the typical Styrofoam upper/lower pads that surrounded my previous lens purchases have been replaced by a roll of bubble wrap.

chrysoberyl said:

An interesting perspective - but spherical aberration reduces sharpness at the same time. And yet this lens is very sharp. So perhaps the degree of spherical aberration is slight? This is confusing.

Click to expand...

I would guess that lens engineers are increasingly able to finely tune aberrations to find a good compromise between resolution and rendering of OOF areas. The Canon 50mm RF, wide open, also bias the blur wide open for increased rear smoothness and yet is very sharp as well. It's quite apparent in that shot : https://4.img-dpreview.com/files/p/sample_galleries/4037492029/9020232199.jpg
A few years ago Nikon communicated on their new approach to measure and design lenses (search for Optia), which apparently increased their ability to understand how aberrations influence OOF areas and I would be surprised if Canon, Sigma, and others couldn't do the same.
I also don't think that Lenstip knows how to test for spherical aberration anyway. They said that the Nikon 105mm f1.4 ED's spherical aberration was "vestigial" and I'm not sure that this is the case .

I occasionally use the EX-90 for with a EOS-M camera, and it is barely adequate, especially if you want to bounce. I prefer using the 470ex-ai for when I don't need the 600ex. The 470ex-ai supports zoom range up to 105mm which matches well with the EF/RF 24-105 f/4 IS. The 600ex supports up to 200mm (i.e. 70-200s). The ai is nice because it can reposition the flash head for you when you switch between landscape/portrait orientation automatically.

Antono Refa said:

The noctilux costs about the same as a 300mm f/2.8 w/ AF & IS, and would sell even fewer copies. Most Nikon photographers would rather pay a quarter the price for the 58mm f/1.4g and gain AF on the way.

That is, the 58mm f/0.95 is mainly a show off. Canon would be better off giving the old EF 50mm f/1.4 the same upgrade it gave the 24-28-35mm trio. It would be cheaper to develop a 50mm f/1.8 IS USM, and it would sell a whole lot better.

Click to expand...

I agree completely with you, Antono, but I think the old rivalry between Canon and Nikon had always a non-rational touch. But, maybe, Canon regards the new RF 28-70 F/2 as bold enough, since Nikon offers quite slow zoom lenses for their Z system. I am pretty sure that Canon will sell substantially more copies of that super fast zoom lens than Nikon of their Noctilux. Nikon isn't Leica these days, Leica can sell about 10 k$ prime lenses because they are established in the luxury market anyway.

Graphic.Artifacts said:

Makes sense. I think you may be right. Sounds like high end 8K broadcast gear. Error correction rather than visual effect. I wonder if Canon intends to market broadcast cameras? I'd imagine it's very profitable.

Click to expand...

Not as much as you'd think(a lot of it is prestige and marketing. And back-in-the-day tech would trickle down to the consumer level whereas today we see a lot of ideas/tech at the consumer level first, then it's adapted to the pro market). Even though most broadcast gear is expensive(at least at the scope/scale of a normal/sane person), it's a lot more expensive to manufacture vs. consumer gear and things like R&D costs are harder to recoupe, because you're only selling a few handfuls of copies in comparison to a piece of consumer gear.

Just reporting back. After a few weeks i am really pleased with the 80d, a big improvement over the 60d. Also must say i love the 50mm 1.8. Never used a prime before but it is a joy on this camera.

Although I wouldn't expect its release quite so soon, let's not rule out an APS-C R camera. Canon currently has its hands full producing RF lenses for the current FF R, but I think it is inevitable that a crop version will be offered at some point.

It's even better at 2x speed. Nice job.

Click said:

A lovely girl and a very nice portrait.

Well done, CFB.

Click to expand...

Thank you, Click.

A used 85 1.8 is already very affordable and thus re-selling at the end of ownership is hardly likely to result in a large loss. ATM there is an excellent 85 1.8 FS on FM for $275. I can hardly see much further decline in the price unless you really thrash it.
I had one for years and loved it. The flaws are overstated IMO.