RF to EF to put new great lenses on my beloved 1DC.

Valvebounce said:

Hi John.
Very nice shot.
But did anyone else look at this and think it needed something, I thought eyes and a mouth and they would make a lovely family.
Sorry John.

Cheers, Graham.

Click to expand...

I think eyes would be just fine too!

mirage said:

But I would prefer if those market research firms would just refrain from publishing such useless and/or even misleading "Sales Rankings" to the "not so well informed general public".

Click to expand...

Shrug. It’s like DXO. They publish data to promote their services. If a person reads it who has no business (in the commercial sense) reading it or basis to understand it comes away with misinterpretations, what’s the harm? It’s trivial to that reader.

The only group of non shareholders I can easily think of who might have use for this data are people who predicate their purchase decisions on popularity (perhaps some extrapolation of success to predict supported life), but people who go to that length are likely to parse the data rather than stop at a headline on an advocate/enthusiast website.

Larsskv said:

I am sure RF lenses will be compensated for focus shift, but I don’t see why Canon would do it for EF lenses in future R bodies. It could hurt RF lens sales.

Click to expand...

The problem doing it in body is obvious, new ones are added after bodies are released, and the body does not change or have the right info. The cost of issuing new firmware for every body would be pretty high, and most users would not update in any event. Canon does update lens tables occasionally along with firmware updates to add new lenses or make corrections, but never on any kind of regular basis.

With characteristics being in the lens, it is a elegant solution. Since I've also read of reviewers finding focus shift exists with the 50mm f/1.2 RF, it seems to still exist. The good news is that the cause of focus shift, Spherical Aberration, is low in the new lens, so its detectable but not a major issue any longer. That lens does sound like a really good one.

Rogers comment about dropping a lens certainly aligns with my views. Its why buying a used lens with a unknown history can lead to disappointing results, people often sell a lens because they are just not happy with it even though mechanically its fine. It could have been bumped too hard in shipping or dropped. I've pointed this out to people posting about dropping their lens countless times, but most think that if seems to work fine, how could it be damaged?

I also noticed that the Canon 100mm L tended to have more variation. Mine has the largest AFMA of all my L lenses, and I suspect that it is not totally as good as it should be, but I still like it. I've thought about replacing it, but with my new R, the focus is right on. I once mounted it on a Kenko TC to see if it worked. The AF motor went wild, moving focus in and out slightly like a vibrator, very fast!. After that, it made a noise when it focused. I checked, and the front lens element was loose because the ring that holds it in place had backed off part of a turn. I have the tool to tighten the ring and did, but I've always wondered if the element rotated and is decentered or out of spec. There is nothing obvious though.

"Probably the most pertinent point for you guys is that lenses don’t change over time very much unless something happens. They don’t change much with use, but they can change with abuse, even accidental abuse. If a lens gets dropped (even if it seems fine afterward) or repaired, it may well change optically."

YuengLinger said:

You seem to be the first to share this combination. Thank you! Great shot that shows the slim plane of focus.
This doesn't make GAS easier to deal with.

Click to expand...

Thank you

robotfist said:

I would kill for any of those fixes.

But Canon doesn't listen to ANYONE.

Click to expand...

Ya I've called CPS & Cinema support about it and can't have been the only one. The support is sad.

Recovery time and strength differ from person to person. I used to hold the 500mm f/4L IS II with a 7DII for about 2 hours on a boat shooting intermittently. The result was my left hand barely escaped tenontitis after about 2 to 3 months later. A 400DOII is perfect for me (I can walk, handhold and shoot with it for hours). So these are my limits. But I have no complaints. I use my 500 while on a car or close by using a tripod.

Tuesday, November 6th, 2018

Fallen leaf on my back lawn

Thank you, Del Paso.

I own a 6D. I started with a Billingham Eventer, which I find superb, but it is too large. I really do not mind the width and the height, but it is too deep (front to back). Then I changed for the Hadley Pro, which I like, but it is really tight for my lenses (I use a Canon 24-70 2.8, a 70-200 2.8 and a 50mm and a TC2x). So, I thought the Hadley One would be right in the middle of the Pro and the Eventer, however, these bags are not inexpensive, so I am trying to find someone with a kit similiar to mine who was already tryed it on the same bag.

Check reviews at a reliable website, there are some that are noted for weird reviews or comments.

The Digital Picture is a good start.

"As mentioned, Canon has informed us that the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS III USM Lens has the same optical design as the II. That makes predicting the III's image quality easy, especially since I've used the prior version of the lens for over 8 years. The image quality discussion below references the II with the expectation that the III will be the same. "

He did not indicate that AF is faster. With the same internal components, don't expect it to be different.

Roger at Lens Rentals reviewed the lens and tore it down to compare it to the MK II. Except for a paint job and a better but fragile lens coating, its identical.

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2018/09/review-of-the-canon-70-200mm-f2-8l-is-iii-lens/

FroKnowsPhoto said:

Hi, I think you may want to re-watch the video, please spell my name right Jared. The guy sitting in the chair had nothing to do with AF and everything to do with attempting to fill up the buffer. Second, "word is canon marketing has been throwing..." cool, show some examples or proof of this, i'd love to see that information. You imagine they are putting the screws to us? Where do you get this information, so uninformed and flat out WRONG. You have no idea what goes into doing what we do, so stop trying to saying everything is a "puff" piece or we must be getting paid.

You know what it costs me to create this real world review in man hours? You have no clue what it takes to run this FREE service, so please get informed before spreading false information.

Click to expand...

Welcome to the mad house!
Keep calm and carry on shooting RAW

GMCPhotographics said:

I hear what you are saying. I found the face / eye tracking fine with the RF 24-105, but when I switched to a 35mm f1.4 shooting at f1.4 I found it very skittish and would frustratingly jump between eyes in a very unhelpful way. I then swapped out to my 135mm f2.0 L and found exactly the same issue. After this experience, I didn't even bother with my 85L. I really wanted to like this camera, but I personally found with with my current lens bag...this camera's AF is intolerable and not fit for my purposes. I can't imagine ever putting my 400mm f2.8 LIS on this thing. I think I would bore any wildlife before I'd get it to focus consistently or where I want it to.

Click to expand...

A little misunderstanding here. I have turned of eye AF. I mostly use AI Servo, and find the face tracking to work really well most of the time. It is really nice when it works, and you can focus on composition and getting "the moment", and forget about nailing the AF-point.

Face tracking can be a bit frustrating to use when there are more than one potential face in the frame.

Bob Howland said:

Wouldn't inconsistency in image quality indicate a manufacturing problem, not an optical design quality? How does a new design with a new optical formula correct a manufacturing problem?

Click to expand...

Maybe it is a problem to adust the current lens formula - optics and the corresponding mechanical parts - at low cost.
What about another design which is more tolerant to deviations from perfect alignment is cheaper compared to better adjustment of the old design?

Moderator1 said:

I just added it for our users. Thanks for the reminder

Click to expand...

Thank you, too. For the fast response.

YuengLinger said:

As a US citizen, I can 100% agree with you!

Click to expand...

I hope for all of you - and us - that everything will turn to the better - soon.

Mt Spokane Photography said:

...
I wonder if I would want to put a expensive lens in a silicone sleeve?

Click to expand...

No! I wouldn't.

Silicone is only good far way from any technical equipment or technical process. Just ask a varnisher
(and - personaly - it is also not good inside of anybody, if there is no medical need of it - but that's just IMHO. Don't ask a surgeon )

That would be a treat to have the OG cat poster to post some more cat pictures.

I wonder if this coincides with an upgrade to their fab capabilities. I think it's unlikely that they would be able to compete with Sony/Samsung with their current process so maybe this could signal a new process node, and the ability to implement more advanced technologies, for future Canon sensors.

Being limited now to buying quality gear from just two or three online sources, it's easy to forget how many EF/EF-S mounts there are in the world, and how many stores are still selling them. Walmart, Target, Kohls, Costco... And in nearly every country. EF/EF-S mount bodies and lenses are pretty much a commodity. Maybe it is a stretch to say five years!

Still, enthusiasts and pros are at least approaching a crossroads. A few years ago, it was just a matter of saving enough money and/or justifying a need for, say, a Big White. Now there's another factor. Buy the current version or wait (and save longer!) for the RF version?

djack41 said:

Haha! Wish it were true but I also wish there was a Santa.

Click to expand...

What? There's was no Saint Nick? Sure there was!

41.3%

Got it.

You're sure it isn't 41.2% right!? lol

Anyways, thanks for the tips.

Act444 said:

I don't think your wait for a 70-200 2.8 RF will be longer than about a year, if Canon rep statements hold any water. The 100-400, on the other hand, *may* take much longer...

Click to expand...

Yeah, I hope the wait isn't too long. When do you think they will come out with teleconverters?

No.

Great AP, Jon! Thanks for showing.
Greetings Andy