The Best and Worst of 2025

[Richard CR]

We are getting closer to the end of 2025, and I decided to assemble my list of the best and worst in 2025. Initially, I was going to limit it to Canon, but then I thought I should expand it further. Maybe not the worst, though, because that baby is all Canon. The Best Camera […]

See full article...

 

[Brown]

Why does the article text alternate between the R6 Mark II and Mark III?

 

[Chig]

I would argue that the RF 45mm f/1.2 STM is a freakishly good lens for the money giving amazing bokeh and fabulous portrait possabilities for a very affordable price.
I bought one and I love it

 

[mimbu]

We are getting closer to the end of 2025, and I decided to assemble my list of the best and worst in 2025. Initially, I was going to limit it to Canon, but then I thought I should expand it further. Maybe not the worst, though, because that baby is all Canon. The Best Camera […]

A few errors jump out in this one...

"There were 27 cameras announced in 2025, with Canon releasing 4 of them, from the do-it-all R6 Mark II"
"it’s hard to argue that the Nikon Z5II delivers an excellent camera"
"Runner-Up for Best Camera of 2025 – Canon EOS R6 Mark II"

 

[mimbu]

That Sony 50-150/2GM is a staggeringly good lens, and just 1340g. The 16-28/2GM is coming soon to complete the trio, hopefully it matches up to the other two f2GM zooms.

The Sigma 200/2 with it's hyper-fast AF, incredible image quality, and excellent stabilization is worth a mention. If only Sony didn't cripple 3rd party glass with that 15fps limit, or if Panasonic had AF that was able to track fast moving subjects. Or if Canon & Nikon weren't terrified of Sigma. This lens deserves better cameras to be mounted on.

Laowa's incredible T/S lenses are another highlight of the year. Superb performance at bargain (for T/S glass!) prices. Being MF only, they are available for RF, too.

 

[Richard CR]

A few errors jump out in this one...

"There were 27 cameras announced in 2025, with Canon releasing 4 of them, from the do-it-all R6 Mark II"
"it’s hard to argue that the Nikon Z5II delivers an excellent camera"
"Runner-Up for Best Camera of 2025 – Canon EOS R6 Mark II"

thanks!

After a while it gets so laggy on editing that I miss things when proofing and of course, after staring at the document for 2 days, my eyes glass over.

 

[Richard CR]

Why does the article text alternate between the R6 Mark II and Mark III?

because that typo will haunt me until the end of days, or until the R5 Mark III comes out. 5D mark II vs R5 Mark II is another one, i think both Craig and I have made that one.

 

[Richard CR]

That Sony 50-150/2GM is a staggeringly good lens, and just 1340g. The 16-28/2GM is coming soon to complete the trio, hopefully it matches up to the other two f2GM zooms.

The Sigma 200/2 with it's hyper-fast AF, incredible image quality, and excellent stabilization is worth a mention. If only Sony didn't cripple 3rd party glass with that 15fps limit, or if Panasonic had AF that was able to track fast moving subjects. Or if Canon & Nikon weren't terrified of Sigma. This lens deserves better cameras to be mounted on.

Laowa's incredible T/S lenses are another highlight of the year. Superb performance at bargain (for T/S glass!) prices. Being MF only, they are available for RF, too.

I'm not a fan of sony cameras, but they really do hit it out of the park for lenses. overall, it was a great year for lenses.

 

[Del Paso]

What I liked most about this post is its objectivity.
I more or less expected a "Canon über alles", this was fortunately not the case.
As a German saying goes: "Other mothers also have beautiful daughters."

 

[Exploreshootshare]

If the Nikon Z5iii gets the nod over the Canon R6iii because of ones favors "value for money" over "overall specs with all the whistles and bells" that premise should be applied to lenses as well. In that case, the 45mm F1.2 should be favored over the Sony 50-150mm f/2 GM. Don't get me wrong, the Sony lens is absolutely great, but I just don't get why in one case "value for money instead of overall specs" makes the decision and in the other category it is the opposite.

The 45mm F1.2 brought together two things that I´ve never seen put together: F1.2 and cheap (or at least affordable). That imo is an absolute game-changer and easily the best "value for money" this year concerning lenses.

 

[Zadak]

If the Nikon Z5iii gets the nod over the Canon R6iii because of ones favors "value for money" over "overall specs with all the whistles and bells" that premise should be applied to lenses as well. In that case, the 45mm F1.2 should be favored over the Sony 50-150mm f/2 GM. Don't get me wrong, the Sony lens is absolutely great, but I just don't get why in one case "value for money instead of overall specs" makes the decision and in the other category it is the opposite.

The 45mm F1.2 brought together two things that I´ve never seen put together: F1.2 and cheap (or at least affordable). That imo is an absolute game-changer and easily the best "value for money" this year concerning lenses.

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

 

[EricN]

What I liked most about this post is its objectivity.
I more or less expected a "Canon über alles", this was fortunately not the case.
As a German saying goes: "Other mothers also have beautiful daughters."

Really? I'm absolutely incensed neither Sigma or Tamron were mentioned.

 

[mimbu]

I'm not a fan of sony cameras, but they really do hit it out of the park for lenses. overall, it was a great year for lenses.

I've owned Canon, Nikon, and Sony ILCs as my main kit at various times over the past 30 years. It's just a matter of being willing to adapt and learn a new system.

overall, it was a great year for lenses.

It was! Sony also brought out the 100/2.8 GM 1.5:1 Macro, which can take TCs. Pretty cool lens, but at a price.

Sigma had an epic year with a TON of great releases. I hope they carry that momentum into 2026.

 

[mimbu]

Really? I'm absolutely incensed neither Sigma or Tamron were mentioned.

I realize your comment was very much tongue in cheek, but Sigma did have a number of excellent releases in 2025. There's just so much going on (and that Sony 50-150/2GM is such a groundbreaking lens) that it's hard to mention everything.

This year (on the high end of things!) Sigma released the 35/1.2 II ART, 135/1.4 ART, 200/2 SPORTS, 300-600/4 SPORTS for FF lenses, and the 18-40/1.8 ART for APS-C. On the more pedestrian side, the 20-200/3.5-6.3 Contemporary (FF) has also been very well received, and they released a 16-300/3.5-6.7 for APS-C.

If nothing else, 2025 finally brought a few Sigma lenses onto RF-S. Would be lovely to see that extended onto FF RF, but I'm not holding my breath.

I think Sigma had a pretty epic year, and I hope 2026 brings stuff like a 28/1.4 ART, 40/1.4 ART, and maybe a 105/1.2 ART.

 

[m4ndr4ke]

Really? I'm absolutely incensed neither Sigma or Tamron were mentioned.

The 300-600mm f/4 and the 135mm f/1.4 would definitely be good contenders, but the crown has to go to the 50-150mm f/2.
I wouldn't award the 20mm f/1.4 VCM. It's probably the best 20mm f/1.4 lens currently in the market, but there's several options already, while the other two Sigma lenses are still high end offerings and truly innovative.

I would argue that the RF 45mm f/1.2 STM is a freakishly good lens for the money giving extreme compression and amazing portrait possabilities for a very affordable price.

The 45 could almost win simultaneously best and worse lens prizes
Compression is unrelated to aperture, though. A 45mm lens on full-frame is no big deal in terms of background compression, in fact, it's as neutral as it can get, by being the closest to the 43mm diagonal we've ever been on Canon.

EDIT: to be completely accurate, and before someone kills me in the replies, background compression isn't even dependant on focal length, but I mean that the perspective of 45mm is close to the most neutral we can get for a full-frame camera, therefore providing an unaltered view.

 

[Richard CR]

If the Nikon Z5iii gets the nod over the Canon R6iii because of ones favors "value for money" over "overall specs with all the whistles and bells" that premise should be applied to lenses as well. In that case, the 45mm F1.2 should be favored over the Sony 50-150mm f/2 GM. Don't get me wrong, the Sony lens is absolutely great, but I just don't get why in one case "value for money instead of overall specs" makes the decision and in the other category it is the opposite.

The 45mm F1.2 brought together two things that I´ve never seen put together: F1.2 and cheap (or at least affordable). That imo is an absolute game-changer and easily the best "value for money" this year concerning lenses.

meh, sorry, i didn't like the 45mm f1.2 - it's a very specialized lens that you have to like the look out of the lens. if you don't, then it's dead to you. Not everyone wants a lens with that yes, it's a f/1.2, but it's a f/1.2 because they are allowing a literal dump truck of aberrations to exist.

And the Sony 50-150 is a lens that has never been done before, and it's optically, mechanically, everything, excellent.

if the 50-150 didn't make the cut as the best, then there's tons of others I would choose over the 45mm even if I had to take into account "bang for buck" - ie: the Sigma 200/2, or the freakishly incredible Sony 100mm Macro. there's just way too many amazing lenses out there this year, that in my mind would be above the 45mm.

I do like Canon making bang for the buck lenses that will have their followings - much like the EF mount, so it's all a good thing. as long as they fire the dude that decided the 75-300 was a good idea.

 

[Richard CR]

Really? I'm absolutely incensed neither Sigma or Tamron were mentioned.

I was tempted to put in the Sigma 200/2 - it was close as the runner up.

 

[Richard CR]

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

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.

 

[Del Paso]

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.

And just let the usual whiners criticise it's a software corrected lens.
I tested one, and must say it is visibly better than my beloved Zeiss Classic 21mm f/2,8 in EF mount!

 

[Richard CR]

And just let the usual whiners criticise it's a software corrected lens.
I tested one, and must say it is visibly better than my beloved Zeiss Classic 21mm f/2,8 in EF mount!

Any lens that surpasses the legendary Zeiss 21mm is a total win.