The Best and Worst of 2025

[scyrene]

I more or less expected a "Canon über alles"

I'm not sure why, this site has long been critical of a lot of Canon products and commercial decisions.

 

[scyrene]

as long as they fire the dude that decided the 75-300 was a good idea.

If they can make money for essentially no outlay, I would think whoever made that decision would get a promotion.

 

[Del Paso]

I'm not sure why, this site has long been critical of a lot of Canon products and commercial decisions.

This is absolutely correct. Yet, that so many non-Canon products got praise, was a bit surprising to me.
A huge difference between this forum and many other ones...

 

[justaCanonuser]

I made my wife gift with a Nikon Z5 II and the Nikkor 600mm f/6.3 to give her a little, gentle push from the her Nikon DSLRs into the ML age . But it turned out that the Z5 II has a too long EVF blackout even with the fastest fps setting to really track flying birds - my wife is a very experienced photographer, so the problem is IN the camera, not behind it. Plus, Nikon's object detection isn't up to Canon's, despite they offer even a special bird mode. The problem: eye recognition can't be switched off separately like e.g. with the R7, and it get's easily distracted by bright spots within the frame which aren't eyes. Overall, the Z5 II is a nice camera with a big, very bright viewfinder given its price, but I wouldn't really recommend it for wildlife/birding, in particular for BIF.

 

[Walrus]

I'd say the 45 f1.2 is definitely the worst of 2025

 

[Mekos]

Best "compact"? For sure the Fujifilm X-E5 !!!

 

[m4ndr4ke]

It's difficult to make a very good ultra-wide, especially one that is considerably faster than 2.8. The 20mm VCM was such a generational leap for Canon; arguably, it's the best f1.4 ultra wide made.

The MTF is exceptional, and it's very well chromatically corrected.

It is very good indeed, it's currently the most tempting lens to me, and I'm still biting my nails because I didn't buy it last week for €1429 here in Portugal; however I'd lean towards the Sigmas 135mm f/1.4 or 300-600mm f/4 for runner ups in this recognition, since 20mm f/1.4 lenses have already been made a few times, while the other two are truly groundbreaking.

Best "compact"? For sure the Fujifilm X-E5 !!!

That's an ILC

 

[erader]

I kind of agree, while the 20mm 1.4L is probably a great lens (haven't tried it), it's just one piece on a whole line of VCM lenses, which I wouldn't count as "great", just a good "mid"-L lens. Nothing groundbreaking there

that 20 might be the perfect astro lens

 

[Zadak]

that 20 might be the perfect astro lens

Shouldn't a "perfect" astro lens be wider than 20?

 

[Brown]

What's so great about the Sony 100mm macro compared to the RF equivalent?
Is it just the ability to use teleconverters?

 

[Zadak]

What's so great about the Sony 100mm macro compared to the RF equivalent?
Is it just the ability to use teleconverters?

I would think so, Canon screwed up the 100mm by giving it that useless SA control. Who approved that feature...

 

[Nemorino]

by giving it that useless SA control

I love the SAC!!!!

 

[neuroanatomist]

I love the SAC!!!!

I use it, as well. Those who don’t want to can lock it in the zero position. Others can choose to whine about it on the internet, even if they don’t own the lens.

 

[Zadak]

I use it, as well. Those who don’t want to can lock it in the zero position. Others can choose to whine about it on the internet, even if they don’t own the lens.

I own it and many other L series RF lenses, and I think it's useless

I would take a 1.4x compatibility any day over it

 

[neuroanatomist]

I own it and many other L series RF lenses, and I think it's useless

I would take a 1.4x compatibility any day over it

Fair. Canon felt differently.

 

[Richard CR]

What's so great about the Sony 100mm macro compared to the RF equivalent?
Is it just the ability to use teleconverters?

1.4x macro down to 2,8x macro with tc's, it's amazingly fast to focus, includes all the gadgets, focus limiter, FOUR focus motors - and its MTF is near perfect. for a pure macro you really can't do much better than that lens.

 

[Bob Howland]

I own it and many other L series RF lenses, and I think it's useless

I would take a 1.4x compatibility any day over it

And if a lot of people feel that way, then Canon will have made a mistake. They could replace the current lens with another lacking the SA control or, my guess, introduce an additional lens without it. My solution to the issue is to continue using my EF lens. The adapter doesn't bother me.

 

[Richard CR]

And if a lot of people feel that way, then Canon will have made a mistake. They could replace the current lens with another lacking the SA control or, my guess, introduce an additional lens without it. My solution to the issue is to continue using my EF lens. The adapter doesn't bother me.

Canon has experimented with going past 1.0x maybe from their feedback it just wasn't something that people were clamouring for.

 

[Del Paso]

I would think so, Canon screwed up the 100mm by giving it that useless SA control. Who approved that feature...

I did!

 

[Del Paso]

And if a lot of people feel that way, then Canon will have made a mistake. They could replace the current lens with another lacking the SA control or, my guess, introduce an additional lens without it. My solution to the issue is to continue using my EF lens. The adapter doesn't bother me.

After having compared the EF and the RF 100 macros, I didn't hesitate one single second and put the EF on sale. This was already my 3rd. EF version, the first ones were even inferior , and it was still far inferior to the RF for landscapes. Don't you please tell me macros aren't for landscapes too, many use them in a more universal way, unless you want to always carry 2 100mm lenses.
The RF is just a full class above the EF. You don't want SA control? Don't use it, I do.
My 2 centimes of an Euro.