Tbh I was slightly disappointed to discover the 100-400 only locks at the wide end, although it doesn't really matter.

neuroanatomist said:

Are you familiar with UniWB?

Click to expand...

Nope. Looks interesting; thanks.

AlanF said:

2923 is predicting far into the future? Or was that a typo. Anyway, the R5 is stuck at number 1 and is not making headway.

Click to expand...

Xelaq, may be an advanced species with four dimensional capabilities?
Good eye! After three years R5 should be above number 1. Canon is d**med!!1!

mdmphoto said:

Brazilian, or Red-Crested Cardinal: have a habit of stopping down once, for sharpness; though with this lens the difference between F/8 and F/11 @ 400mm is negligible...

Click to expand...

Thanks for the reply - I loved the bird. I have tested all my telephoto lenses fro IQ vs f-number and unless I need more dof I have never stopped down. You do see reports on some sites that the RF 100-400mm is significantly sharper at f/11. But, my pair are not and neither are those tested by opticallimits, which is slightly sharper at f/8, and ephotozine, which is slightly softer.

DhlcadR6 said:

TBH post-2010 there's not much newer standard zooms from EF. That lens is still good enough for modern use. It beats Sony's 24-70 GM1 and the Sigma 24-70 E/L mount.

Click to expand...

I think what you say is true.
However, @Walrus has been trying to say that there are no benefits with Canon's higher priced lenses in comparison to the third parties to support his insistence that Canon is wrong to not want third party autofocus lenses on the R mount. My point is, at best, it is biased to suggest there have been no improvements with Canon's designs over ten years. Even worse, the ef 80-200 L is from 1989. He wants the third party lenses available for Sony α mount and that is fine, but attempting to make points by comparing older designs with recent designs leads me to infer the opposite of what he wants:
As time goes by, it is natural for designs improve. Therefore, one can make the conjecture, if a manufacturer's old design is equal to another manufacturer's recent design, the first manufacturer's recent design is likely to be superior.
Of course, one should use all three designs for long enough to know each lenses attributes to make accurate comparisons.

Fascinating research, though I suspect the applications are more for robotics than consumer use. Nonetheless, such innovations can have tremendous impact.

AlanF said:

The RF 100-300mm is not really a lens for birders, it’s too short. The 200-500mm with TCs goes from 700-1000mm if so desired. The 100-300mm with a 2x TC at 600mm f/5.6 is not as sharp as the bare RF 100-500mm. Before the 400mm DO II became available, I used the 300mm f/2.8 II for a few years. Excellent Lens that is, the longer ones are better for birding.

Click to expand...

I agree, my standard focal length for birding is 700mm (500mm + 1.4x TC), mostly on a crop camera.

tangerine_sedge said:

Holy thread resurrection Batman!

I've just bought a refurbished version of the RF 50 1.2, and it exhibits exactly the same behaviour as the one in the Youtube video.

I have an R3 and an EF 50 1.2, so could compare performance side-by-side.

The RF was slower and noisier than the EF and occasionally failed to focus completely. Placing the RF into Manual Focus mode, and this ALSO occasionally failed to allow me to manually focus (I believe it's an electronic link and not manual). The RF was more consistent in better lighting conditions but was still slow and noisy to focus. My old EF 50 1.2 performed flawlessly in all lighting conditions.

I played with the 'stop focus' setting suggested above and this made no difference.

My assumption is that this lens was sent back to Canon due to the above 'fault' then sent straight back out the door as a 'refurbished' lens. This lens will be going back to the shop, and I'll wait until I can find a better copy.

Click to expand...

Because it's refurbished, maybe it's the same lens...

Del Paso said:

With or without SAC...

Click to expand...

This thread is about a special bokeh. So not a question.

For anyone looking for 3rd party RF lenses with AF. The glimpse of hope is down to Yongnuo again.

Earlier on this year they re-introduce the YN85mm F1.8R DF DSM onto their official website and Taobao(the domestic version of Aliexpress, and it's much better than Aliexpress but PRC only due to the payment methods). They named to mount as 多規格(Multi-spec) to get away from Canon China's legal action.

And now they introduce the mark ii with movable electrical contact points to evading Canon's legal team further... And other manufactures should consider this as Canon didn't patent the RF design in this way


Source: https://www.bilibili.com/video/BV1pu4y137a8/



Sadly, the pricing outside of China is ridiculous, it's not competitive enough to get them instead of Canon's. Unless you have someone know how to buy it directly from Taobao or Yongnuo's official site.
And my personal advice is for RF users that doesn't have IBIS. it's not worth it to get it over native options.





Myself has the original batch of YN85 and YN35.

YN85 is perfect, no issue with the lens' performance and firmware updates.

YN35 is somewhat a letdown as the Servo AF with subject recognition on is not reliable enough. When using Human/Animal/vehicle recognition but no such subject in frame. It won't go back to normal servo AF and focus hunt everywhere across the frame. And the AF area is smaller(but bigger than f11 Duos). Forcing myself to switch it off or use Single shot AF only. No issues on video AF though.





Enough rant from myside. Praying Viltrox and other CN 3rd parties to do the same on the lens mount, so those APS-C primes can be available for RF-S as well. (16/50mm f1.8, 23/27/33/56/75mm)

btw Meike 85mm f1.4 RF when???? Was that just fake news?

Dragon said:

Probably safer to say that SA uses Sigma's interpretation of EF protocol. The fact that they have had to update many EF mount lenses over the years to keep up with new bodies from Canon suggests that they didn't have a complete grasp of the protocol. The addition of the USB dock for the newer lenses makes the upgrades far less painful, but the updates are still around and likely will be for the foreseeable future.

Click to expand...

The core electronic communication is the same which surprised me. Canon was also the first manufacturer to use Ring Type USM and electronic focus rings on their new AF lenses. When Canon initially released Ring Type USM lenses they hadn't come up with a clutch override system yet. So all Ring Type USM lenses implemented electronic focus override. The same way an STM lens works and allows Full Time Manual Focus. The EF 300mm F/2.8L USM lens was the first lens to use Ring Type USM and have an electronic focus ring in 1987. Other lenses would also use this same electronic focus ring such as the EF 50mm F/1.0L USM lens and the original EF 85mm F/1.2L USM lens. Which was based off the 50mm F/1.0's design and the 85mm F/1.2 Mark also was based off the same design as its predecessor. Both the 85mm F/1.2 original & Mark II both utilize Ring Type USM & electronic focus rings.

YuengLinger said:

Did you just delete a new thread??? I wrote a reply that had nowhere to go!

Sounded like a Windows 11 problem in the "phantom" thread.

Try running sfc /scannow, and if that fails, DISM, which you can read about on legit Windows forums online.

Also, Windows 11 occasionally has mysterious corruption issues within a folder, so you could try starting fresh with a new folder that is not within the existing, problematic folder.


Good luck!

Click to expand...

I haven't delete anything.
Thank you for your advice. will try

tq0cr5i said:

The scheduled firmware upgrade for Canon EOS R5 is in March 2024, according to Canon Hongkong Company Limited’s official website. The upgrade will add the support for the Power Zoom Adapter PZ-E2/E2B. May be version 1.9.x or 2.0.x.

View attachment 213343

Click to expand...

Nice find! If the rumours of the R5II announcement are correct, that would mean the R5 gets that firmware update after the announcement of its successor.

Quack said:

Believe me, not as tired as we are about your endless whining.

Click to expand...

Wow, you're here (13 nov 2023) since less then a month, and you're tired already of me? I feel I'm really annoying, sorry for that, I didn't want to be a whiner! Well, I think the solution might just be to press the ignore button on me, so I won't bother you anymore, that's certain! Thank you again, and sorry for disturbing!

Heads up to my fellow Canon users that may be interested... I ordered the 100-300 lens on Cyber Monday (Nov 27) from the Canon USA website while it was on sale and I combined that sale offer with an additional 15% off from Rakuten and I got an extremely good and rare deal on this lens. Not only did I save thousands, but to my surprise I received the lens 5 days later (Dec 2).

stillviking said:

Leica Q2 is just EXPENSIVE. Why not Fuji x100v or Canon R8 or RP with a pancake lens (EF 40mm or RF 28 mm)??

Click to expand...

It's not "that" expensive....to many out there.

But in the examples you mentioned....the Fuji is not FF sensor, it is crop.
I believe the resolution of the Q2/Q3 sensor is quite a bit larger than the R8 and RP....the latter I believe is about 60MP?

So, it's not only a size thing...BUT, also the specs and performance at that small, small size you have to consider too.

Just a thought.

The changelog lists these 2 changes:

Firmware Version 1.2.0 incorporates the following enhancements and fixes:
1. Adds support for RF-S10-18mm F4.5-6.3 IS STM lens.
2. Fixes minor issues.

Click to expand...

I have these Kiwifotos eye cups on my R6 Mark II's and really like them. They don't interfere with the proximity sensor or the flip-out screen, and I have a Newswear long lens rain cover. It was a neoprene opening that slides over the eye cup. It stays on the Kiwifoto eye cup, it doesn't stay on the Canon eye cup.

AlanF said:

I meant a specific problem with a RF 100-500mm and your body. But, if they are problematic with two bodies, then it is the lens.

View attachment 213190

Click to expand...

AlanF, agreed, however the same problem is common to both bodies which indicates the problem is with the lens I think. I’ll give it a thorough test tomorrow.

AutoMatters said:

Since I was not previously a Canon shooter, I do not have, nor will I buy, any EF lenses and the necessary EF-RF adapter

Click to expand...

Shocking to hear a professional make a statement like that.

Most professionals I know mostly care about: how much can I earn, for an outlay of how much money and how much time?

I can see a professional saying: "I do not have, nor will I buy, any equipment upon that will cost $X to own and operate unless I can earn $Y/year with it for Z years."

If you buy this 28-300L and an adapter used, and sell them used, $X is going to be a really small number. If you're a good buyer, you might be able to buy it for less than you can sell it.

The question of being a Canon shooter previously shouldn't enter into it.

AlanF said:

I would advise against giving two fingers to a Brit as you might not get what you expect.

Click to expand...

Ah, yes, "two great countries separated by a common language". It does appear that it is important to note which way the palm is facing. Sometimes there is a bit more subtlety to British language than there is to American language.

Re: Currently I use the Canon consumer-grade 24-240mm

In the center, the 24-240 nearly matches the L-quality. I don’t shoot in the rain without a cover. L- lenses, IMO, are for professionals who do not have time to spend in the digital darkroom, and need to get their stuff out quickly. But, also IMO, when printing to 13 x 19 and viewing on a wall from 2-3 feet away, no non-photographer can tell the difference between a lens like the RF 24-240 and some L variant. And I HAVE THE time in the digital darkroom to fix anything that is a deficiency in the lens.

Dragon said:

The phones are using quad Bayer arrays and extracting hi-res images (in spite of the tiny pixels), so it seems that a full decoded 45MP QPAF sensor would produce a similar increase (i.e. 180MP) in resolution with larger pixels. The resulting color resolution would probably be much like video with 4:2:0 coding, but that is the standard for a majority of video. At this point, LR classic even knows how to manage a 48MP RAW from the new iPhones, so not a huge stretch to see something similar on a Canon. The 3x3 shift in the high res mode recently introduced to the R5 also suggests that Canon my be exploring that path, since that shift pattern is very different from what others have been doing for high res modes.

Click to expand...

To begin, the colors of typical CFAs are not the same colors emitted by our RGB screens, nor are they the same colors used by our CMYK printers. Further, the filters in a CFA are not so strong as to eliminate all but a narrow band of wavelengths from passing through. There's a lot of overlap between what is allowed to pass through the three different filters, just as there is a lot of overlap between our S-cones, M-cones, and L-cones to various wavelengths. If there was not this overlap, we couldn't use the results from our cameras to mimic the brain and create the perception of color.

Canon is at it again with this form factor and finding more ways to combat the most obscure heat problems you can imagine. Why heat is an issue, is aptly described in this part of the patent application. When a user takes a picture while holding a digital camera, image blur may occur in the

See full article...

When I see a celebrity advertising a product, I wonder if it is less than mediocre. If you know almost nothing then you see the celebrity and think it must be good.