The Best and Worst of 2025
- Thread starter Richard CR
- Start date
Considering the number of Sigma lenses I've purchased in the last two years, I'd have to agree. Now if they would just introduce a 50 to 135-140 APS-C lens, I'd buy it. A 120-300 f/2.8 Sport lens would be nice as well but only if they can make it in RF mount.
Upvote
0
I don't consider any prime lens to be remotely "universal." I made a trip to the local zoo recently with a Black Rapid double harness, an R6-2 with an adapted 100 Macro on one hip and a 16-300 Sigma on an R7 on the other. I've used an adapted EF24-105 f/4 in the past instead of the 16-300 but the extra reach proved handy for animals at unpredictable distances.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.
Upvote
0
it is funny to compare CanonRumors and SonyAlphaRumors. When I check this article quickly, it looks like an anti-Canon website. Best camera is Nikon, best lens is Sony, worst camera and lens is Canon 
And then I check SonyAlphaRumors and they brag that Sony leads with the largest booth at CP+
And then I check SonyAlphaRumors and they brag that Sony leads with the largest booth at CP+
Upvote
0
it is funny to compare CanonRumors and SonyAlphaRumors. When I check this article quickly, it looks like an anti-Canon website. Best camera is Nikon, best lens is Sony, worst camera and lens is Canon
And then I check SonyAlphaRumors and they brag that Sony leads with the largest booth at CP+
They need the help.
Upvote
0
I love the SAC!!!!
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.
Folks,
I'm very curious to know how you guys make use of the SA Control. A bit of negative to smooth out the background a bit more? Creative effect? I tried it a bit when I first got the lens, but couldn't get much use of the feature and just locked the ring in place and forgot about it.
It was so out of my mind that it bit me in the rear end. I was shooting a work event (informally, I am an engineer and photography is a hobby) and had two cameras, R3 + 28-70 F2 and R5 + RF 135mm. Put the RF 100 on the R5 to take some closeup shots, but the images were coming off completly weird. I had bumped the lock and turned the ring all the way +, but didn't noticed and on the spot it didn't even cross my mind that the lens had an SAC ring. So I just went back to the 135mm for the shots and changed what I had in mind. Oops!
. Now this was an issue of me forgetting about the features of my lens, more than anything (it would have taken me less than 10 seconds to fix the issue if I had remembered).BTW, I love the RF 100! Though, I should say that I like the EF 180mm F3.5 even better! I'm looking forward to an RF version with IS, better AF and sharpness at the level of the RF 100.
At any rate, I made a mental note to come back and learn to use the SA and this thread remined me of it. I am really curious to see how others have put that feature to good use.
Upvote
0
Being fair isn’t being a hater. Canon Rumors actually has decent writers, not merely blind fanboys.
I often find that Canon Rumors (CR) writes better than Sony Alpha Rumors (SAR) even for Sony gear, which is commendable for CR and laughable for SAR. Heck, a friend of mine, who is a Sony user, enjoys more reading this website than theirs, because the writing is clearly more responsible and mature here.
For this article, specifically, I think Sigma deserved a few recognitions, but that’s all I have to say.
Upvote
0
Post in thread 'Wildflower Photos' https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/threads/wildflower-photos.37056/post-991839
Post in thread 'Flowers and other Flora' https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/threads/flowers-and-other-flora.22225/post-985165
Post in thread 'Autumn/Fall 2022' https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/threads/autumn-fall-2022.41806/post-947024
Upvote
0
I thought it was Roby NOT approving it. They do the opposite of everything he wants.
Upvote
0
I think that in the context of Canon's current default-approach of software correction it's fine to call-out any such afflicted lens for awards. I mean, it is clear by now that Canon decided that a singular lens is a combination of its hardware + post-shot-enhancements. A lot of people here seem feel the same way, although I assume mostly due to an acceptance of lack of options for the Canon-supplied, in-production lens catalog.
I personally still prefer to evaluate everyone's lenses on their physical characteristics. I see the software-corrections / enhancements / visual-sugar to be an early-stage post-processing trick that, while surely convenient, is still a trick and not a lens.
That stated, I also use the R6's built-in digital optimizer for making better JPEGs for quick shares with family/friends. Or I use the digital optimizer in Digital Photo Professional for more serious work as a RAW-based refinement precursor to Adobe or Affinity edits. Edits are edits in that regard, especially when just accounting for light physics.
But there is something about that olympian goal of pure performance based on physics. High quality glass / plastic combinations within a price point should always been the community pressure on vendors, in my mind, and that alone is where I'd like to see the mount open up to competitors: to curb design laziness on Canon's part.
Upvote
0
Not for me. I'm not bothered by the need for digital corrections because I understand that 'pure performance based on physics' also requires compromises. I see no reason (or evidence) that optical correction is inherently superior to digital correction. They are different means to the same end.
My opinion was crystalized when I empirically tested the RF 14-35/4L (which requires digital distortion correction to 'fill the corners') against the EF 11-24/4L. At 14mm, the latter has essentially zero geometric distortion, yet the corrected corners of the 14-35 were just as good.
I hear echos of the argument that film is better than digital because it’s analog and therefore ‘pure’.
Incidentally, Canon was certainly not the first lens manufacturer to require digital correction of distortion in MILC lens designs.
Upvote
0
I think that's a fine perspective. Just different.
Canon's software correction requires a Canon pipeline -- right? Unless I'm mistaken, you can't take the raw image straight to Photoshop or Affinity photo and get Canon's special sauce applied; either the HEIF or JPEG needs the in-camera adjustment, or Digital Photo is needed for a raw adjustment combined with export to, say, TIFF — only then can I edit the image with the adjustment somewhere else.
If my understanding remains current, then I'd have to say Canon's solution is still pretty janky and unique to them among a sea of camera and lens options. I'd say that the original lens performance still matters if other software pipelines are desired -- say, for custom agentic LLM architectures ingesting images for medical or other scientific purpose. And there are many teams out there who can easily grab a camera and do advanced imaging plus analytics vs those who can afford to spend all of their research money on a big, dedicated box with 240v mains supply.
I think that's actually quite different from film. For film, one develops and then scans and then carries on like normal. Digital built the "scan" in, but the convenience is entirely within the camera and the scan-equivalent (i.e., raw) is good to go on export from the camera. (Except Canon just broke that with some of its modern lenses.)
So in that regard I agree that in a context for some people, such as yourself, it's OK to consider the physical material and the Canon processing pipeline to equal a lens in practice; but I'd say there's plenty of use cases beyond wall photos by which optimizing the physical aspects to whatever price point context is appropriate remains an important desire, if not goal. Will imperfection remain? Probably. But as an example the EF 50mm 1.2 makes some pretty usable shots with no special sauce on any camera you can mount it to, where as RF successors require a little extra push to get the result out the door. Pick any other L EF lens and we can have essentially the same discussion. That little extra push can be a big deal in many contexts.
So I'm not saying the current approach is unusable or doesn't make great final images. I'm just saying hedging to the physical probably yields more flexible, if not ultimately better, outcomes than hedging to the software. Glad it's working for you, though.
Upvote
0
Though I very subjectively tend to prefer optically corrected lenses, the latest Canon primes prove that which way is chosen has no incidence on the result. The RF 20mm is a stunning lens, and I doubt it would /could be better with optical correction.
And, frankly, I don't care, what I saw when I checked this lens fully convinced me. Visibly better than the Zeiss 21mm, and an f/1,4!
Did you ever talk to optical lens developers about the tricks they used when "physically" designing lenses? What about asphericals?
Upvote
0
If you want to use Canon's Digital Lens Optimizer, then yes you need to take JPGs from the camera or use Canon's DPP for RAW conversions. But 3rd party RAW converters have profiles for RF lenses that require digital correction, and they work just fine. Personally, I view using Canon's DPP with the same affection that I view getting a Norovirus infection. I use DxO PhotoLab for RAW conversions, which is what I did for the aforementioned RF 14-35/4 vs. EF 11-24/4 comparison, though I also included camera JPGs along with DPP and Adobe RAW conversions for completeness.
It's not. I see no reason to use Canon's software to process Canon RAWs. DxO, Adobe, Affinity, CaptureOne, and a bunch of others seem to manage just fine (as they do with RAW files from Nikon, Sony, Fuji, etc.). IMO, DxO handles noise reduction much better than Canon's DPP, for example. No reason a software pipeline couldn't run demosaicing and image corrections if properly coded, just as 3rd party RAW converters do.
The film analogy was broader – it's about resistance to change. People (at the time, not now) argued that film was analog and pure while digital was 'fake' and 'computer trickery'. The only 'true' workflow was negative to print or slide film to projection. Your suggestion of scanning the developed film would not satisfy those folks, that's just more digital trickery. Interesting that you used that same word about digital corrections.
Also worth noting that RAW images from the camera are never 'good to go'. At a minimum, they require demosaicing / color interpolation.
The EF 50/1.2L has 1.5% barrel distortion (enough to be noticeable, almost as much as the 1.7% of the EF 14/2.8L II), strong axial CA and significant focus shift...it can produce lovely, dreamy images but as example of what can be achieved with pure performance based on physics it leaves much to be desired. OTOH, the RF 50/1.2L has a native 0.2% barrel distortion and requires no digital correction, it has very little axial CA (especially for an f/1.2 lens), no focus shift and is very sharp.
Leaving that aside, for your 'pick any other L EF lens challenge, I pick the EF 17-40mm f/4L. Convince me that the physics-based optical corrections are doing the job there. Unless you like the fisheye-esque look, that lens desperately needs 'a little push' to correct the ~4% barrel distortion, as does the EF 11-24/4L.
Sorry, I disagree with your conclusion that 'any other' L EF lenses is 'good to go' without some digital correction applied. Unless you're shooting in-camera JPGs or are happy with distorted images with visible chromatic aberration, most images benefit from digital correction even if they don't strictly require it.
I'm definitely results oriented. I can promise you that the 0.6 kg RF 10-20/4L that I pack for a trip will deliver significantly better flexibility and outcomes than the 1.2 kg EF 11-24/4L that I would often leave at home.So I'm not saying the current approach is unusable or doesn't make great final images. I'm just saying hedging to the physical probably yields more flexible, if not ultimately better, outcomes than hedging to the software. Glad it's working for you, though.
Upvote
0
Totally fair!
But… the aspherical elements don’t require additional software. They distort all on their own.
I expect lens designers to use all of the material engineering tricks. I expect those tricks to fall short of perfection, although I wish they didn’t.
I guess the question is how much balance is OK? For me personally, I see some value in software but prefer it to be tweaks and not essential. For me scientifically, I’d hate to have to through in digital photo as part of an automated pipeline.
For you? Your workflow seems good with it and you’re obviously very happy. So for you, Canon’s strategy seems like a win!
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Similar threads
