There are 4 wide-angle L prime lenses coming in the next 12 months [CR2]

[Michael Clark]

The EF 17-40 is a very old lens, introduced in 2003. I think it was intended partly as a high end standard lens for APC-C cameras. The EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 was introduced three years later.

2003 was a time when a lot of rank & file newspapers were finally beginning to move from film to digital.

The EOS 1D was a 1.3X APS-H 4 MP camera on which the 17-40mm translates to a 22-52mm AoV in 135 format. The EF 17-40mm f/4 L IQ was "good enough" for newsprint and the 4 MP resolution of the 1D. Its construction was rugged enough to stand up to the rigors of daily abuse by working PJs. With a spin-on filter it was considered "weather sealed" by Canon.

Most newspapers chose to go with the 4 MP APS-H 1D rather than FF 1Ds bodies. They did this mostly due to the cost difference, not only of the camera bodies themselves but also the higher storage and "wire" transmission cost of those "huge" 11 MP images output by the 1Ds! Nikon didn't even offer a FF digital body until the D3 in 2007.

The EF 17-40mm f/4 L gave PJs with a 1.3X crop 1D a usable WA lens at reasonable cost. For normal and longer focal lengths, their existing inventory of EF lenses they were already using on their EOS film cameras could be used easily with the 1.3X crop factor. They even got more "reach" out of the telephoto lenses.

 

[Michael Clark]

What makes you think that was their intention to ever support that? Even though it works the amount of modification necessary suggests they were not trying to enable that use case really.



It works with any EF lens. I've tried stacking EF + RF 2x with the Sigma 150-600 to create a 600-2400, it is surprisingly usable though obviously a bit soft at f/25. When composing shots at 2400 I also have to use a 10 sec timer to null the vibration in the image after pressing the shutter even on a tripod.

 

[Michael Clark]

It will be 24 and 35 for me, when and if they finally show up. Don't see much sense in 28 - if it was 1.2, then maybe it'd be worth considering.

The 12mm seems interesting, but it's too exotic to make a decision now. I'm worried it might be incredibly bulky, considering that prime RF L lenses are huge as it is. Can't imagine how large a 12mm will be.

Still not a single RF-TS lens available. Guess it will be a long wait for those... I recently completed the whole TS-E set, grabbing the last TS 17mm that BHphoto had in store.

I'm guessing the nomenclature will be something like TS-R 24mm f/3.5 L USM. Maybe TS-RF 24mm f/3.5 L USM. Then again, if they're AF capable, they may just be named RF 24mm f/3.5 L USM Tilt-Shift (similar to the way Macro lenses are named). And, yes, rumors say they will be AF capable.

 

[Michael Clark]

Higher spec gear is definitely an advantage in low light - I'd be using F2.8 glass all the time for wildlife photography if I could afford it and if I could tolerate the weight. The budget lenses really come into play when it's important to save weight - such as when hiking with 2 or 3 lenses in a rucksack, or when travelling in small aircraft.

The need to use quite high ISO is reduced somewhat due to the excellent stabilisation, and is counteracted by the amazing abilities of modern editing software to reduce noise without affecting sharpness. Topaz DeNoise AI is superb, and I can't wait to try the new Topaz Photo AI which promises to be even better, combining the masking abilities of Lightroom with the noise-reduction and sharpening of DeNoise.

Most of my work involves subjects with high levels of detail - in landscapes I want to see every detail in foliage, tree bark, grass and sand. With insects I want to see every scale on a butterfly's wings, and with birds and animals I want to see the fine detail of fur and feathers, even in images that are heavily cropped. Hence my preference for the highest quality quality L glass.

But for less critical subjects such as sport, where fine detail rendition isn't as important, I see no reason not to recommend the RF 100-400mm.

Shooting sports doesn't allow one to trade IS/IBIS for slow Tv. The subject motion is the same, with or without stabilization.

Stabilization is helpful to reduce the effect of small camera movements, but does nothing for subject motion. Due to the weight of lenses and the duration of the sporting events, most of us are using monopods anyway. We're doing so as much to reduce back and shoulder pain/fatigue as because we need the stabilization for a single handheld shot. It's the fact that we need to keep shooting almost non-stop for a couple of hours or more. But the Tv still needs to be somewhere around 1/1000 or shorter if at all possible. 1/2000 is even better, but a pipe dream in many youth/high school/small college settings.

 

[koenkooi]

View attachment 206241

For shots like that I have started preferring to use my phone + Camera Connect app as bluetooth remote. As a bonus, it allows me to step inside during those super/blood/blue/harvest moon shots during windy nights. But it is a lot more work to setup and just plugging in a remote. I wish all R bodies would've kept working with the IR remotes!

 

[neuroanatomist]

But it is a lot more work to setup and just plugging in a remote. I wish all R bodies would've kept working with the IR remotes!

 

[entoman]

Shooting sports doesn't allow one to trade IS/IBIS for slow Tv. The subject motion is the same, with or without stabilization.

Stabilization is helpful to reduce the effect of small camera movements, but does nothing for subject motion. Due to the weight of lenses and the duration of the sporting events, most of us are using monopods anyway. We're doing so as much to reduce back and shoulder pain/fatigue as because we need the stabilization for a single handheld shot. It's the fact that we need to keep shooting almost non-stop for a couple of hours or more. But the Tv still needs to be somewhere around 1/1000 or shorter if at all possible. 1/2000 is even better, but a pipe dream in many youth/high school/small college settings.

Of course, in many cases freezing subject movement requires a shutter speed that negates the need for stabilised gear. But even in those instances, stabilisation keeps the view in the EVF more stable, which is easier on the eyes and allows me to concentrate better on framing and composition. And there are many examples (in wildlife photography) where the subject is relatively static, and stabilisation is then advantageous.

I photograph a lot of wildlife from a safari jeep or from a birding hide. In these cases (often in poor light) I use my RF100-500mm. But I find it tiresome to hand hold or carry around for long periods, and my arms quickly get tired when using it for BIF. I have 3 monopods and 2 tripods, but while they are fine for static subjects, I find them cumbersome for wildlife action.

Recently, I had the opportunity to borrow (followed swiftly by a purchase) a RF100-400mm and was amazed how light and easy it is to use. The AF is at least as fast as with the RF100-500mm, the stabilisation is possibly even better, it focuses closer for "semi-macro" shots, and is very nearly as sharp (at F8-11) as the RF100-500mm.

So in bright conditions, or when I need to keep weight down for flights in light aircraft, I take the RF100-400mm, but when I need wide apertures and I'm photographing from vehicles or hides, I take the RF100-500mm.

For sports photography the RF100-500mm is a better choice due to the wider max aperture, but for my work I like the flexibility of having both options available.

 

[AlanF]

Of course, in many cases freezing subject movement requires a shutter speed that negates the need for stabilised gear. But even in those instances, stabilisation keeps the view in the EVF more stable, which is easier on the eyes and allows me to concentrate better on framing and composition. And there are many examples (in wildlife photography) where the subject is relatively static, and stabilisation is then advantageous.

I photograph a lot of wildlife from a safari jeep or from a birding hide. In these cases (often in poor light) I use my RF100-500mm. But I find it tiresome to hand hold or carry around for long periods, and my arms quickly get tired when using it for BIF. I have 3 monopods and 2 tripods, but while they are fine for static subjects, I find them cumbersome for wildlife action.

Recently, I had the opportunity to borrow (followed swiftly by a purchase) a RF100-400mm and was amazed how light and easy it is to use. The AF is at least as fast as with the RF100-500mm, the stabilisation is possibly even better, it focuses closer for "semi-macro" shots, and is very nearly as sharp (at F8-11) as the RF100-500mm.

So in bright conditions, or when I need to keep weight down for flights in light aircraft, I take the RF100-400mm, but when I need wide apertures and I'm photographing from vehicles or hides, I take the RF100-500mm.

For sports photography the RF100-500mm is a better choice due to the wider max aperture, but for my work I like the flexibility of having both options available.

As I once wrote here: everyone with an R should have an RF 100-400mm, it's the biggest bargain of a lens - very cheap, light, sharp, fast AF, and I have two of them. I must admit that although the 100-400mm is a joy to carry on a long walk or inconspicuous around town, I don't get tired carrying the RF 100-500mm for BIF.

 

[neuroanatomist]

But the Tv still needs to be somewhere around 1/1000 or shorter if at all possible. 1/2000 is even better, but a pipe dream in many youth/high school/small college settings.

Not sure it's a pipe dream, with current cameras shooting RAW and using good NR software (e.g. DxO PL), ISO settings can be used today that were a pipe dream a few years ago. I posted a 1/1600 s, ISO 10,000 shot of high school football earlier in this thread (but I needed an f/2.8 lens to get it).

 

[Michael Clark]

Of course, in many cases freezing subject movement requires a shutter speed that negates the need for stabilised gear. But even in those instances, stabilisation keeps the view in the EVF more stable, which is easier on the eyes and allows me to concentrate better on framing and composition. And there are many examples (in wildlife photography) where the subject is relatively static, and stabilisation is then advantageous.

I photograph a lot of wildlife from a safari jeep or from a birding hide. In these cases (often in poor light) I use my RF100-500mm. But I find it tiresome to hand hold or carry around for long periods, and my arms quickly get tired when using it for BIF. I have 3 monopods and 2 tripods, but while they are fine for static subjects, I find them cumbersome for wildlife action.

Recently, I had the opportunity to borrow (followed swiftly by a purchase) a RF100-400mm and was amazed how light and easy it is to use. The AF is at least as fast as with the RF100-500mm, the stabilisation is possibly even better, it focuses closer for "semi-macro" shots, and is very nearly as sharp (at F8-11) as the RF100-500mm.

So in bright conditions, or when I need to keep weight down for flights in light aircraft, I take the RF100-400mm, but when I need wide apertures and I'm photographing from vehicles or hides, I take the RF100-500mm.

For sports photography the RF100-500mm is a better choice due to the wider max aperture, but for my work I like the flexibility of having both options available.

Neither one is much use for sports photography under artificial lighting. Even the 100-500 at 500mm is f/7.1. That's just under three stops slower than f/2.8 and only 1/3 stop faster than the 100-400 at f/8.

 

[Michael Clark]

Not sure it's a pipe dream, with current cameras shooting RAW and using good NR software (e.g. DxO PL), ISO settings can be used today that were a pipe dream a few years ago. I posted a 1/1600 s, ISO 10,000 shot of high school football earlier in this thread (but I needed an f/2.8 lens to get it).

There's also the consideration of turnaround time and how that affects the ability to even shoot raw, much less have time to use DxO, Capture One, etc. before a hard deadline. Didn't you also shoot that one before the sky was completely dark? It also looks like you were shooting from the stands, which is always a handicap, though not in terms of ISO vs. Tv.

 

[Michael Clark]

Possibly they may just have a large supply of STM motors to use up, or may be tied into a long contract with whoever manufactures those motors. Another possibility is that some lens (mostly older) designs may just work better with STM, due to weight/momentum of lens elements, distance of focus-throw, torque requirements, or some mechanical restrictions that we don't know about. I'd imagine that Canon have very good reasons, either technical or business-related, for choosing STM in certain circumstances.

Canon wouldn't just happen to "have a large supply of STM motors to use up." Not all of Canon's STM motors are the same part number. The STM motor in one lens model is not usually interchangeable with an STM motor in another lens model any more than the alternator for one vehicle would fit every other vehicle from the same manufacturer.

 

[Michael Clark]

Diffraction is independent of the sensor, its pixel density, the angles of which the light rays hit the sensor etc, but depends only on the size and shape of the aperture of the lens. For a perfectly circular aperture - see:

Diffraction, Airy Disks and implications

Two points of light are clearly resolved when they are separated by distances that are much larger than the radius of the disk. As the separation decreases, the disks start overlapping and the resolution decreases. When the separation is the same as the radius, the disks have coalesced. Closer...

www.canonrumors.com

Detectable diffraction is dependent upon the resolution of the sensor and the resolution limits of the parts of the lens between the aperture and the sensor. If the amount of blur caused by diffraction is less than the resolution limit of the sensor, it's not detectable using that sensor. Only when the size of blur caused by diffraction is larger than the resolution limit of the sensor will the additional blur be noticeable, compared to removing or enlarging the aperture's size.

 

[Michael Clark]

Yes, and I've recommended exactly that approach to others here in past threads. But, I think most people would prefer a native RF lens rather than have to use an adaptor, and it's also worth getting RF versions because they are almost invariably sharper, and have significantly better stabilisation.

It's only "worth" it if you have use for the higher resolution or better stabilization.

 

[entoman]

It's only "worth" it if you have use for the higher resolution or better stabilization.

I'm pretty sure that most people, other than perhaps sports photographers, find better stabilisation invaluable.

But you're probably correct about the higher resolution, which will only be noticed/needed by a small percentage of users.

RF lenses do also seem to AF a little faster, and are generally better specified than nearest EF equivalents.

The question potential purchasers need to ask, is whether or not the advantages will make a significant difference to their own particular genres of photography, and whether RF lenses are worth the expense compared to adapted EF glass.

 

[entoman]

There's also the consideration of turnaround time and how that affects the ability to even shoot raw, much less have time to use DxO, Capture One, etc. before a hard deadline.

That really depends on whether one is shooting professionally or as an enthusiast/hobbyist. The latter generally will have more time to spend on attempting to perfect an image to their tastes. Also it's possible to batch process with some noise reduction software, saving a lot of time.

I use Topaz DeNoise AI on all my images these days (I'm a retired industrial photographer, now photographing wildlife as a hobby), but I prefer to fine-tune the DeNoise settings for each image, which is of course far too time consuming for pros (with the exception of fine art photographers).

 

[Michael Clark]

The question potential purchasers need to ask, is whether or not the advantages will make a significant difference to their own particular genres of photography, and whether RF lenses are worth the expense compared to adapted EF glass.

For most of us here. the question is whether RF lenses are worth the expense compared to adapting EF glass we already own.

 

[Michael Clark]

That really depends on whether one is shooting professionally or as an enthusiast/hobbyist. The latter generally will have more time to spend on attempting to perfect an image to their tastes. Also it's possible to batch process with some noise reduction software, saving a lot of time.

I use Topaz DeNoise AI on all my images these days (I'm a retired industrial photographer, now photographing wildlife as a hobby), but I prefer to fine-tune the DeNoise settings for each image, which is of course far too time consuming for pros (with the exception of fine art photographers).

Even batch processing can be a bit too much when you're going from camera to tablet/phone and transmitting during every time the game pauses for a TV break. That's not me, but it is for most of the full time pros I know shooting college sports.

 

[koenkooi]

That really depends on whether one is shooting professionally or as an enthusiast/hobbyist. The latter generally will have more time to spend on attempting to perfect an image to their tastes. Also it's possible to batch process with some noise reduction software, saving a lot of time.

I use Topaz DeNoise AI on all my images these days (I'm a retired industrial photographer, now photographing wildlife as a hobby), but I prefer to fine-tune the DeNoise settings for each image, which is of course far too time consuming for pros (with the exception of fine art photographers).

DxO DeepPrime takes about a minute per R5 CR3 on my 2020 Macbook Pro (Intel CPU). I haven't tried Topaz lately, but it has always been slower than DxO for me. That's a lot of processing time, even for hobbyists with time to spare like me.

The good news is that it only takes 6 seconds per R5 CR3 on my Mac Studio

Related to all this, Canon has said they have reworked the 'connection' menu on the R6II and they did release an update to the phone companion app. I hope future Canon bodies will make connecting and transferring a lot easier and faster, it is very frustrating currently. Having a few seconds between each time you have to push the "OK" button is bad, but having the timeout be only a few seconds more is worse.
The original M50 had a dedicated button on the side, you'd push that and it would connect to your wifi. It took a minute or two, but no need to press buttons.

It's hard to beat the speed of taking out the CFe and using your laptop, but big improvements can be made in this area. I'm not asking for native S3 support for uploading straight to the Amazon cloud, but something like that would be useful.