Dutch Eddie said:

I have had the same problem with the 150 mm and my R10. Irix told me that they could not solve the problem because of the Canon ban of third party lenses.

Click to expand...

That’s Swiss for “We don’t support user upgradable firmware on our lenses and don’t want to have them sent in for us to
do it, let’s hope no one calls us on this bullshit excuse”

It shouldn’t be needed with lenses/bodies released in the last 10 years. As with anything: try it yourself to see if it works for your use case.

Bob Howland said:

And a small 15f/2 lens. The Sigma 16 f/1.4 is a bit too large and it isn't a Canon lens.

Update: I wonder about the marketing politics surrounding Canon's transition to mirrorless. When the M-system was first proposed, I would have expected a lively discussion within Canon about the best way to make the transition, resulting in a coherent long range marketing plan. That doesn't seem to have happened.

Click to expand...

Oh, I think it happened.

Then Fuji said, "You're going to completely phase out APS-C from serious cameras? Here, hold my beer!"

its a great camera for sports pandaexpress/feedback applebees happy hour

Royal Camera Service of Hanover Park, IL has informed me they cannot service this lens and cannot get parts

JTM-77 said:

Problem is you are using EF moutn lenses even with the EF-EOS-R adaptor and 3rd party lenses like the sigma (which is a really good brand of lens) just does not want to be compatible. Best to get RF mount lenses like I have the 24-105 F4 the RF 70-200 F2.8 the RF 85mm F1.2 and the F2.0 and the RF 100-500lense for my R7

Click to expand...

This is a bad take. I've used several Sigma lenses and Canon EF lenses with the Canon EF-RF adapter on the EOS R, RP, and R6 and had no problems with compatibility. In fact, some of these adapted lenses seem to focus better on the R cameras than they did on the EF-mount cameras.

SteveC said:

And just to be clear...I presume you mean YOUR body not the camera's!

Click to expand...

100% correct
Thank you for putting that straight

AcaPixus said:

The electronic protocol is obviously patentable, but may be best protected as a trade secret, as the patent application is also a publication and would have to describe the protocol in details to get granted.

Click to expand...

Given that multiple companies reverse engineered the RF autofocus protocols, it would seem that protecting them as a trade secret was not the best option for Canon.

Have they done so, a cease-and-desist letter (or whatever similar strategy they used) would not have been an option for them.

taleswilliam said:

I bought my Canon R6 thinking that all my lenses would work correctly on it using the adapter, but this is not the case for the Sigma Art 35mm. After already fixing known issues (disabling lens correction) a big vignette that I show below is left. I wonder if this is normal, because if it is, I won't be able to use this lens on this camera.

View attachment 199131

Click to expand...

I was looking a sigma Zoom for a Canon R 5 -it was a Canon EF Mount. Some EF lenses are for Compact Sensors only- You need to check it before hand. Only full Fram Sigma lenses work.

I've always shot with Canon body's, but have owned lots of 3rd party glass, which I really liked. Plenty of Canon glass too. Agree with everything that was said above. I prefer Sigma over Tamron, more for design and function over IQ which I fully acknowledge the G2's have. After moving to MILC, I thought I would transition slowly to RF. For still photography I think adapted EF glass works well, but I determined quickly that my Sigma lenses worked well, but not as good as native RF glass did. I also found out that AF on Tamron's 24~70 G2 didn't work at all in Cinema mode on the R5 C. Today I have fully embraced and am completely satisfied with my accelerated switch to RF.

Adapted glass can work, but in the end, RF glass with R body's is the way to go. I have the 150~600 C, but the 100~500 even at f7.1 is so hard to beat. Add a 1.4x TC (even if you can only use 300mm and above) is still worth it over the weight alone of the Sigma. On my wish list is a RF 100~500 mkII or introduction of the recently patented 200~500 with built in TC. We will see, but I would not hesitate going Canon RF over adapted Sigma. I think you will be more satisfied in the long term with this decision if your budget allows.

Hoping this means Canon will repeat what they did with the EF 200-400 and 400 DO II and have two lenses that get you to 500 f4, just with one being a compact, lightweight prime and the other being a big hefty (but extremely flexible) zoom. The integrated TC is really going to be the kicker here, if they don’t follow suit with what Nikon’s doing with their supertele’s that’s a huge mistake IMO. Not having to fumble around with caps, remove the body from the lens, or rebalance a gimbal would be incredible.

I received another lens from another shop and it was better than the first one.
I also received the adjusted lens back from the shop (no exchange, adjustment done by Canon Austria), and now this lens is noticably sharper than the other lens in the center wide open and about the same in the corner and edges.
At MFD and 105 it is still not as sharp as it s at 60cm or further away. But I won't use it at MFD anyway and I guess it won't get better with another copy.
So I'll keep the adjusted lens.

Czardoom said:

I don't think we will see any RF mark II version before 2030. And absolutely no reason to. My guess is that Lens sales are slower than projected, thus instant rebates. It worked for me, just bought an RF 14-35mm. Wouldn't have done so so without the $400 US rebate.

Click to expand...

I can proudly admit that I have made very good use of Canon's actions. See my signature... ;-)

ronseese said:

Canon recently has presented savings on many lenses. Is Canon adjusting to market pressures, or is this a precursor to MkII releases?

Click to expand...

I can proudly admit that I have made very good use of Canon's actions. See my signature... ;-)

GPA said:

intending to head over to La Push this spring/summer and hopefully capture the MW.

Click to expand...

Summer is better due to the MW timing and position. but if a good spot can be found that faces south east a bit, then late spring can work. I've now shot it at Second Beach, Ruby twice, Rialto, Flattery and Shi Shi . This was 9-2-21 at Second Beach. It's processed from a total of 15 in camera raw files, in HDR vivid.. and stitched . (5 shot landscape mode panorama, Rokinon 24 f/1.4) The camera did an acceptable job of aligning each of the HDR's..especially considering that the average exposure was 10 seconds.

You should join me, as I plan to spend at least two days at Shi Shi... I was only there for a few hours.. and needed to hike a good distance south to Point of the Arches. plan is to capture tidal pool images at low tide, sunsets and the MW

Do you think there will be new firmware with this feature for the RF prime lenses?

Ozarker said:

I can hardly wait to see some photos from those of you buying this lens.

I am surprised this lens doesn't get the BR for CA. Maybe it doesn't need it? I hope not. The IS is a great upgrade. The control ring too.

Click to expand...

Because they require more refractive power, wider angle lenses tend to suffer much more from CA than narrower angle lenses, all else being equal. The higher the refractive power, the more severe is the separation of the various wavelengths of visible light. Thus BR is more useful for wider angle lenses, like a 35mm f/1.4 prime, than longer lenses like a 135mm f/1.8.

koenkooi said:

How about powered tilt&shift? The body could have something similar to the focus bracketing feature, but instead of moving the focus, it shifts the lens. And when its done, give you a JPEG composite of the result.

Click to expand...

That's exactly what I've been thinking of, but imagine how expensive such a lens would be.
Nikon's TS 19mm costs about Euro 3800, without any motorization or AF...

SmallRig has announced new camera plates and other accessories with AirTag cavities. While mainstream camera makers are dragging their feet with security features 3rd part manufacturers are adding new accessories make tracking stolen/lost cameras easier.

Just spotted this now "-Spotmetering linked to focus point". Was asking a question about this earlier and Evaluative Metering was suggested.
Spotmetering linked / not linked to focus point would be a good option. With Eye tracking exposure can go all wrong on spot metering when the eye moves out of the centre of the image.

neuroanatomist said:

You may want to try evaluative metering, since that is weighted to the selected AF point. Spot metering on the R5 will always be the center of the field, as stated in the full specifications:



Note that the same is true for the R3 (although the center spot is a little tighter). For Canon DSLRs, AF point-linked spot metering was solely found in 1-series bodies (and was a feature I frequently used on mine). So far, none of the Canon MILCs have spot metering linked to the AF point. Maybe on the R1, time will tell.

Click to expand...

Thanks for that. I will try that next time out. I've probably tried everything in the past but got stuck on spot metering (before I had eye focus). I didn't know evaluative was weighted on the selected AF point (which previously has been the centre point).

Nemorino said:

I posted this one in the flower thread as an example.
Handheld focus bracketing using the R5 and the Sigma 105 2.8 macro @ f/3.5

Yes, I know, some ugly artefacts.

Click to expand...

Very nice picture!
I‘ve never tried focus stacking. I think I should.

My workflow is the use DXO Photolabs for all RAW conversions and image manipulations. I then use Topaz AI if I want to sharpen or resize the image. Honestly, I tend not to do a lot of manipulation to my files and therefore do not use Photoshop.

I clicked because I thought "ass" was a poorly written acronym for a special lens coating.

Of the choices I would pick the Canon 24-105 mm f4 L lens. I own both the 24-105 mm L f4 and the 24-70 mm f2.8. I use the 24-70 mm indoors for sports and would use the 24-105 mm for outdoors. The two lenses do have different uses. The 24-105 mm is smaller and weighs less which can also be a factor when traveling.

Michael Clark said:

The fins on that flounder look almost like feathers on a wing!

Click to expand...

Merry Christmas Michael! The 7DII + 100-400mm II was, and still is, a wickedly good set up for the opportunistic nature photographer.