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

[stillviking]

I am the only one missing a good RF 50 mm 1.4 USM? The old version is just ooooooooooooold.

 

[Del Paso]

I am the only one missing a good RF 50 mm 1.4 USM? The old version is just ooooooooooooold.

No!

 

[dolina]

I am the only one missing a good RF 50 mm 1.4 USM? The old version is just ooooooooooooold.

Within the next 4 years.

 

[entoman]

My experience with EF 17-40 L is that it has lots of chromatic aberration out of the center. I haven't really been happy with it's images even after lens distortion correction. I guess I chose poorly.

The EF 17-40mm F4L was one of Canon's more affordable L lenses at the time. We all make mistakes. The EF16-35mm F4L is a far superior lens.

 

[Bob Howland]

The EF 17-40mm F4L was one of Canon's more affordable L lenses at the time. We all make mistakes. The EF16-35mm F4L is a far superior lens.

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.

 

[twoheadedboy]

Prior to buying my RF 100-500mm, I used my EF 100-400mm plus Canon 1.4x iii extender plus Canon EF-RF adaptor, on my R5. There are no autofocus penalties, everything works and all AF zones and modes work perfectly with this setup. I'm not sure if the same applies when using a 2x extender though, or with third party adaptors.

Sorry, it's well known that EF extenders on EF lenses work with the mount adaptor, you can even stack a 2.0 and a 1.4 if they l're the MKII versions. I'm talking RF extenders prior to the mount adaptor with an EF lens.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I'm talking RF extenders prior to the mount adaptor with an EF lens.

I think I answered already but yes it's possible if you physically modify the mount adapter.

 

[chasingrealness]

That 12mm could double as an R7 vlogger lens, no? All the YouTubers will love it.

 

[Hector1970]

The EF 17-40mm F4L was one of Canon's more affordable L lenses at the time. We all make mistakes. The EF16-35mm F4L is a far superior lens.

I agree the 16-35 is better . I replaced it myself years ago . But I’d have to say the 17-40mm was a decent lens, I took many excellent shots with it. Probably good value second hand.

 

[snapshot]

I agree the 16-35 is better . I replaced it myself years ago . But I’d have to say the 17-40mm was a decent lens, I took many excellent shots with it. Probably good value second hand.

Maybe I can find a 16-35 f/4 IS to try out. Have tried the 17-40 for landscape and group photography. For landscape it seems like I prefer stitching shots from my 24-70. For groups, I was not happy at all with the rendering of the folks at the periphery. I tend to use 70-700 from a distance and have been much happier.

 

[snapshot]

I think I answered already but yes it's possible if you physically modify the mount adapter.

I wonder how long it will take commlite to fix their design to work with the rf extenders?
Also which EF lenses would we extend this way? I might try stacking extenders onto a 100-400.
I watched a video of somebody extending the 300 f/2.8

 

[entoman]

Sorry, it's well known that EF extenders on EF lenses work with the mount adaptor, you can even stack a 2.0 and a 1.4 if they l're the MKII versions. I'm talking RF extenders prior to the mount adaptor with an EF lens.

My fault, I misunderstood your question.

 

[jeffa4444]

Entoman was relaying what he read in reviews, which is consistent with the majority of reviews I've read, he stated that, and he's allowed to do that. Copy variation between lenses results in a bell graph normal distribution of performance.

You can't add detail in post that a lens isn't able to resolve and capture in the first place. I wish you could!

If you look at AlanF's tests, the sharpness most people are concerned about is what level of details a lens will resolve with a particular sensor. Depending on the intended use of a lens, it may or may not be sharp enough. In absolute terms, test results such as Imatest which measures actual image resolution as LW/PH will provide values that describe a lens' detail resolving capacity which can broadly be classified as excellent, good, average or poor. Most of the tests I've seen for the RF 100-400mm describe the sharpness as 'good'. The sample images show that the lens doesn't retain fine details such as feather detail in birds at 100% compared to the EF 100-400 II, which is an apples to oranges comparison as that's a different class of lens.

Looking at the TDP comparison test, the RF 100-400mm at its longest focal length and wide open which is arguably its sharpest aperture (400mm f/8) is not as sharp as my RF 24-105mm f/4 L at its longest focal length and wide open (105mm f/4), which is not its sharpest aperture. The 24-105L is a reasonably sharp lens, but by no means one of the sharper L lenses, and for me, that's the minimum level of sharpness I prefer to work with. YMMV.

Canon RF 100-400mm F5.6-8 IS USM Lens Image Quality

View the image quality delivered by the Canon RF 100-400mm F5.6-8 IS USM Lens using ISO 12233 Resolution Chart lab test results. Compare the image quality of this lens with other lenses.

www.the-digital-picture.com

I must be extremely lucky then because the RF 100-400mm I have is very sharp at 400mm wide open. Is it as good as the RF 100-500mm or the EF 100-400 MKII? No but then again it’s 1/4 of the price and 1/3 of the weight. When I go hiking I almost never take the RF 100-500 but the 100-400 is small and light enough to take and gets the job done. Moreover I did a test with the RF 24-105mm f4L, the RF 70-200mm f4L and the RF 100-400 all at 100mm all at f5.6 with fine detail in the subject and at 100% you really had to struggle to see a difference with corner detail being slightly softer and with more chromatic aberration. I didnt read articles I conducted tests and before anyone asks I worked for Panavision for 35years and know how to test lenses on a MTF bench, projector and test charts. In real world use those differences are minimal and I would be more concerned with defraction at beyond f11.

 

[jeffa4444]

Agreed. I see no need to ‘upgrade’ to the RF 85/1.2 (either of them). The EF 85/1.4 is sharp, has great bokeh, and focuses fast. Personally, I don’t see the need for the RF’s extra half-stop of aperture, and I speak from the experience of having had it with the EF 85/1.2L II.

The EF 85mm f1.4L IS USM is my favourite lens including the RF lenses I actually own. I’m lucky enough to have access to other RF lenses and no question the RF 85mm f1.2L is a really sharp lens with better bokeh than the f1.4L lens but it comes at a hefty weight premium and that bokeh difference is minimal.

 

[SteveC]

The EF 85mm f1.4L IS USM is my favourite lens including the RF lenses I actually own. I’m lucky enough to have access to other RF lenses and no question the RF 85mm f1.2L is a really sharp lens with better bokeh than the f1.4L lens but it comes at a hefty weight premium and that bokeh difference is minimal.

I'll agree partially. It's my favorite prime for anything other than macro work. (I get a fair amount of use out of my EF 100-400mm II L and my Tamron 18-200 for the EF-M mount, though the latter is more of a casual use thing.) It does seem like the RF 1.2s are notably better...but are they worth all of the extra cost? That, of course, depends on the individual.

 

[Johnw]

I wonder how long it will take commlite to fix their design to work with the rf extenders?

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.

Also which EF lenses would we extend this way? I might try stacking extenders onto a 100-400.

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.

 

[snapshot]

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.

I don't think it was their intention. But now that these modifications are getting some attention, surely they know it. If I were them and the design change is easy, maybe marketing a "Commlite Stackable Adapter" would do well. I might buy one but I am not sure if I want to dremell one out...
I like your 2400 idea. Were you targeting terrestrial or night sky objects?

 

[Johnw]

I don't think it was their intention. But now that these modifications are getting some attention, surely they know it. If I were them and the design change is easy, maybe marketing a "Commlite Stackable Adapter" would do well. I might buy one but I am not sure if I want to dremell one out...

Right, surely there is a market for that now that this is known, if not by them then someone else will probably come out with such an adapter eventually. Also, for the mod you actually don't need any power tools. I used a manual file and it only took about 30 min, I just adjusted the angle a few times to try and prevent too much ablated material from fouling up the contacts lol.

I like your 2400 idea. Were you targeting terrestrial or night sky objects?

I just started so far with indoor test shots like filling the frame with a label on a bag of cookies from a distance of 50 feet. I'm going to try some moon shots the next clear night though as I think that could be one of the best use cases.

 

[koenkooi]

[..]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.

The phone app works wonders for that, the dedicated bluetooth remote also works, but is a bit more annoying to set up. The terrace on my roof is made from thick concrete pavers on insulation + rubber, which flexes enough to make it seem like a waterbed with a telephoto lens on a tripod. With the phone app I can stay inside while having live view and shutter control.

 

[Drazen]

Continue reading...

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.