Stock Notice: Canon RF 24 f/1.4L VCM and RF 50 f/1.4L VCM

#4
I'm still furious it wasn't a 35mm f/1.0. I suppose I'm not furious enough to go buy a Sony to use the Sigma 35/1.0 though.

Canon had a 50/0.95 for the 35mm rangefinder in the 70s or even 60s so I still hold out hope they make an RF 35mm f/0.95.
 
Upvote 0
#7
I have a 50/1.4 on order from Bic Camera, who knows when it will ever show up, but I basically plan on just proving to myself that the 50/1.8 in practice is just as good and selling the 1.4 on.

Basically I want a lens on the camera that lets me have it in the backpack always, like I did with my Yashica T5*, Contax G2+45/2, or maybe Leica M6+35/1.4 (though that was too heavy to carry around always, it was at least small). The 50/1.4 seems just too big for this role.

I also wonder if it will be sharper in real-world hand-holding. If not, I don't need it. I realize it's technically far superior MTF, but the 1.8 seems to be able to get 60lp/mm lines with acceptable contrast (specifically 2-pixel-wide lines on the R5) and I don't need more and this is the limit of the sensor anyway. (A pattern of 1-pixel lines, if rendered with infinite clarity, but 50% misaligned with the pixels, will result in uniform grey.)

Since I have software to automatically rate contrast on such test diagrams in a manner I'm happy with, I'll do some more of those tests both hand-held and on a tripod. But again I THINK the 1.4 won't be superior. And if it is, I'll keep it knowing exactly what I'm getting.

Meanwhile my old rant is that with today's far bigger images, and the far lower noise from sensors, and lower camera shake from IS, a 27mm aperture actually is "enough" bokeh to get subjects to pop acceptably. The only win of f/1.4 is that they could do so just a bit further away.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
#8
Canon Rumors said:
I used to own it, it's remarkable. It was just $3000 that didn't leave the shelf very often.
Click to expand...
I already know it won’t get a lot of use, neither did my EF 85/1.2L but I will be shooting some portraits over the next few years, and the 85 DS is the lens for it. Helps that I paid far less (even less than a refurb 85L non-DS is going for…though more than the $1500 nadir that hit on Black Friday for the 1.3 seconds it was available).
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
#9
neuroanatomist said:
If only these lenses interested me... I was recently tempted by the 85/1.2 DS.
Click to expand...
I would've been tempted too, if I had been in the states during the Black Friday deals...
I loved the 85mm F2 on the EOS R, it worked it really well. It works well on the R5, but its weakness are starting to show... makes a longing for just a little more. But the regular pricing on the F1.2 version makes me appreciate what I have :) Maybe, either one day I'll strike a really good deal for the f1.2 or perhaps a decent F1.4 appears.
 
Upvote 0
#10
I got mine in the mail this morning and I've had very little time to handle the lens, but I was curious to see how it compared to the RF 50mm f/1.2L and the 50mm f/1.8 STM. So that was the first thing I tested!

I love the 50 f/1.2L, but was curious for a quicker autofocus and lighter weight. Enter the RF 50mm f/1.4L VCM. Just a quick summary; it tackles those attributes well.

First Impressions:

CONS:
  • the f/1.4L's minimum focusing distance is the worst of the three. (exaggerated by the magnification/focus breathing of the other lenses)
  • the f/1.4L's bokeh is sadly showing "onion rings" that is somewhat noticeable depending on the light source that's being blurred out. The f/1.2L is nearly perfect in its reproduction of bokeh blobs.
  • almost every prime lens Canon makes suffers from oblong football bokeh - this lens is certainly no different.
NEUTRAL
  • the f/1.8 and especially the f/1.2L exhibit focus breathing which actually increase the focal length as you zoom in so it's hard to get an apples to apples comparison of bokeh/minimum focusing distance. The new f/1.4L always appears shorter in focal length and it contributes to less magnification at minimum focus distance. I can go either way here. On one hand, I appreciate the true focal length being maintained. On the other hand, I love having some extra magnification for isolation of details when shooting images. Technically, the f/1.4L is superior to the other two lenses because of having such finely controlled behavior.
PROS:
  • the bokeh falloff is very similar to the f/1.2L, but is cleaner in lateral CA.
  • this is the best 50mm from Canon in terms of Chromatic Aberration control.
  • while there are "onion rings" in the bokeh, the spheres don't have a soap bubble appearance like the f/1.8.
  • this is noticeably and very obviously the sharpest 50mm lens Canon makes now.
  • the autofocus is just as expected - virtually instant.

I have travel photography this week so I'm happy the lens came in before that. Also, next Friday, I'll be shooting my final race of the year. I'm a DIE HARD 50mm photographer, so I will be using this thing a lot over the next week. Please let me know if there is anything your'e curious about or would like me to test. As of right now, these are the only 2 negative things I can find using the new lens versus the other two options and I'm sure I may find more. But for me, this resolves my want/need for quicker autofocus and lighter weight. It's hard to beat the size/weight/price of the "nifty fifty" as a fun lens...but wow, it was painfully obvious how soft that lens was when it was put up against the L-series lenses.


Samples I tried to frame at the exact same subject framing...was a little off, but as close as I could get. The focus breathing on the f/1.2L is insane. I never really noticed how significant it was, but it throws everything off. It's great for creating isolated details, but terrible for video focus racking.

RF 50mm f/1.2L USM50mm12a.jpg

RF 50mm f/1.4L VCM
50mm14a.jpg

RF 50mm f/1.8 STM
50mm18a.jpg

RF 50mm f/1.2L USM (100% Crop)
50mm12b.jpg

RF 50mm f/1.4 VCM (100% Crop)
50mm14b.jpg

RF 50mm f/1.8 STM (100% Crop)
50mm18b.jpg
 
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: 8 users
Upvote 0
#11
LSXPhotog said:
I got mine in the mail this morning and I've had very little time to handle the lens, but I was curious to see how it compared to the RF 50mm f/1.2L and the 50mm f/1.8 STM. So that was the first thing I tested!

I love the 50 f/1.2L, but was curious for a quicker autofocus and lighter weight. Enter the RF 50mm f/1.4L VCM. Just a quick summary; it tackles those attributes well.

First Impressions:

CONS:
  • the f/1.4L's minimum focusing distance is the worst of the three. (exaggerated by the magnification/focus breathing of the other lenses)
  • the f/1.4L's bokeh is sadly showing "onion rings" that is somewhat noticeable depending on the light source that's being blurred out. The f/1.2L is nearly perfect in its reproduction of bokeh blobs.
  • almost every prime lens Canon makes suffers from oblong football bokeh - this lens is certainly no different.
NEUTRAL
  • the f/1.8 and especially the f/1.2L exhibit focus breathing which actually increase the focal length as you zoom in so it's hard to get an apples to apples comparison of bokeh/minimum focusing distance. The new f/1.4L always appears shorter in focal length and it contributes to less magnification at minimum focus distance. I can go either way here. On one hand, I appreciate the true focal length being maintained. On the other hand, I love having some extra magnification for isolation of details when shooting images. Technically, the f/1.4L is superior to the other two lenses because of having such finely controlled behavior.
PROS:
  • the bokeh falloff is very similar to the f/1.2L, but is cleaner in lateral CA.
  • this is the best 50mm from Canon in terms of Chromatic Aberration control.
  • while there are "onion rings" in the bokeh, the spheres don't have a soap bubble appearance like the f/1.8.
  • this is noticeably and very obviously the sharpest 50mm lens Canon makes now.
  • the autofocus is just as expected - virtually instant.

I have travel photography this week so I'm happy the lens came in before that. Also, next Friday, I'll be shooting my final race of the year. I'm a DIE HARD 50mm photographer, so I will be using this thing a lot over the next week. Please let me know if there is anything your'e curious about or would like me to test. As of right now, these are the only 2 negative things I can find using the new lens versus the other two options and I'm sure I may find more. But for me, this resolves my want/need for quicker autofocus and lighter weight. It's hard to beat the size/weight/price of the "nifty fifty" as a fun lens...but wow, it was painfully obvious how soft that lens was when it was put up against the L-series lenses.


Samples I tried to frame at the exact same subject framing...was a little off, but as close as I could get. The focus breathing on the f/1.2L is insane. I never really noticed how significant it was, but it throws everything off. It's great for creating isolated details, but terrible for video focus racking.

RF 50mm f/1.2L USMView attachment 221381

RF 50mm f/1.4L VCM
View attachment 221382

RF 50mm f/1.8 STM
View attachment 221383

RF 50mm f/1.2L USM (100% Crop)
View attachment 221384

RF 50mm f/1.4 VCM (100% Crop)
View attachment 221385

RF 50mm f/1.8 STM (100% Crop)
View attachment 221386
Click to expand...

Everything new is lemon bokeh now it seems. Luckily, we're the only ones that notice or care.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
#12
SwissFrank said:
I'm still furious it wasn't a 35mm f/1.0. I suppose I'm not furious enough to go buy a Sony to use the Sigma 35/1.0 though.

Canon had a 50/0.95 for the 35mm rangefinder in the 70s or even 60s so I still hold out hope they make an RF 35mm f/0.95.
Click to expand...

Just buy the Laowa 35 f/0.95. Sure it's manual focus, but it's not like autofocus would really critically hit all that often anyway.

I can sell you my 50mm f/1.0L... $4500 cool? You can also adapt the Canon 50mm f/0.95 to RF. There's also the RF mount Nokton 50 f/1 which is pretty good.

You have so many options!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0
#13
SwissFrank said:
I'm still furious it wasn't a 35mm f/1.0. I suppose I'm not furious enough to go buy a Sony to use the Sigma 35/1.0 though.

Canon had a 50/0.95 for the 35mm rangefinder in the 70s or even 60s so I still hold out hope they make an RF 35mm f/0.95.
Click to expand...
Do you mean the Sigma 35 1.2?

I'm not sure Canon will ever do a lens like that again; it's a lot more difficult to do those lenses when you have digital sensors and the ability to magnify images in the digital era, unlike film.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
#14
LSXPhotog said:
I got mine in the mail this morning and I've had very little time to handle the lens, but I was curious to see how it compared to the RF 50mm f/1.2L and the 50mm f/1.8 STM. So that was the first thing I tested!

I love the 50 f/1.2L, but was curious for a quicker autofocus and lighter weight. Enter the RF 50mm f/1.4L VCM. Just a quick summary; it tackles those attributes well.

First Impressions:

CONS:
  • the f/1.4L's minimum focusing distance is the worst of the three. (exaggerated by the magnification/focus breathing of the other lenses)
  • the f/1.4L's bokeh is sadly showing "onion rings" that is somewhat noticeable depending on the light source that's being blurred out. The f/1.2L is nearly perfect in its reproduction of bokeh blobs.
  • almost every prime lens Canon makes suffers from oblong football bokeh - this lens is certainly no different.
NEUTRAL
  • the f/1.8 and especially the f/1.2L exhibit focus breathing which actually increase the focal length as you zoom in so it's hard to get an apples to apples comparison of bokeh/minimum focusing distance. The new f/1.4L always appears shorter in focal length and it contributes to less magnification at minimum focus distance. I can go either way here. On one hand, I appreciate the true focal length being maintained. On the other hand, I love having some extra magnification for isolation of details when shooting images. Technically, the f/1.4L is superior to the other two lenses because of having such finely controlled behavior.
PROS:
  • the bokeh falloff is very similar to the f/1.2L, but is cleaner in lateral CA.
  • this is the best 50mm from Canon in terms of Chromatic Aberration control.
  • while there are "onion rings" in the bokeh, the spheres don't have a soap bubble appearance like the f/1.8.
  • this is noticeably and very obviously the sharpest 50mm lens Canon makes now.
  • the autofocus is just as expected - virtually instant.

I have travel photography this week so I'm happy the lens came in before that. Also, next Friday, I'll be shooting my final race of the year. I'm a DIE HARD 50mm photographer, so I will be using this thing a lot over the next week. Please let me know if there is anything your'e curious about or would like me to test. As of right now, these are the only 2 negative things I can find using the new lens versus the other two options and I'm sure I may find more. But for me, this resolves my want/need for quicker autofocus and lighter weight. It's hard to beat the size/weight/price of the "nifty fifty" as a fun lens...but wow, it was painfully obvious how soft that lens was when it was put up against the L-series lenses.


Samples I tried to frame at the exact same subject framing...was a little off, but as close as I could get. The focus breathing on the f/1.2L is insane. I never really noticed how significant it was, but it throws everything off. It's great for creating isolated details, but terrible for video focus racking.

RF 50mm f/1.2L USMView attachment 221381

RF 50mm f/1.4L VCM
View attachment 221382

RF 50mm f/1.8 STM
View attachment 221383

RF 50mm f/1.2L USM (100% Crop)
View attachment 221384

RF 50mm f/1.4 VCM (100% Crop)
View attachment 221385

RF 50mm f/1.8 STM (100% Crop)
View attachment 221386
Click to expand...
Thanks for the quick assessment. All seem good to great. I have to admit being most impressed with the f/1.8 and f/1.2. The f/1.8 just because that is some great bokeh for the price it is at. The f/1.2 is the best rendered image, IMO, and the cat's eye bokeh holds off until closer to the edges. But it does have flaws. Not only do you see the cat's eye/lemon bokeh, but the ends of some of the lemons are clipped. I hadn't noticed that in other test images before. But the rendering I am liking is less about the lights and more about the door frame.

As for the causes of the clipping, I'd be curious if someone has a clear understanding. Mine is a bit rudimentary, but generally, light hitting the front element's center may be perfect circular, but two things can happen as you move to the side of the front element, 1) the view of the circle is not at a slight angle, which will make circles become ellipses and 2) this is made worse by a curved front element. Is that about right? The clipping tells me there is some physical object in the lens clipping the edges of the light at the widest apertures. That used to happen in mirror boxes of DSLRs, I am curious about on a mirrorless body.

Anyway, thanks again. BTW, I really do not think the onioning on the f/1.4 is all that bad. Certainly not as bad as some zooms's I've seen. 3 good lenses as far as I am concerned.

Edit: I found this write up on optical vignetting. It covers everything but the curve of the front element. B&H has a brief write up that attributes it to the degree of light being bent. I am thinking this has less to do about the front element which, thinking about it, that would bend the light in a way to point the light towards center, not perpendicular to center. So I struck that above.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
#15
LSXPhotog said:
I got mine in the mail this morning and I've had very little time to handle the lens, but I was curious to see how it compared to the RF 50mm f/1.2L and the 50mm f/1.8 STM. So that was the first thing I tested!

I love the 50 f/1.2L, but was curious for a quicker autofocus and lighter weight. Enter the RF 50mm f/1.4L VCM. Just a quick summary; it tackles those attributes well.

First Impressions:

CONS:
  • the f/1.4L's minimum focusing distance is the worst of the three. (exaggerated by the magnification/focus breathing of the other lenses)
  • the f/1.4L's bokeh is sadly showing "onion rings" that is somewhat noticeable depending on the light source that's being blurred out. The f/1.2L is nearly perfect in its reproduction of bokeh blobs.
  • almost every prime lens Canon makes suffers from oblong football bokeh - this lens is certainly no different.
NEUTRAL
  • the f/1.8 and especially the f/1.2L exhibit focus breathing which actually increase the focal length as you zoom in so it's hard to get an apples to apples comparison of bokeh/minimum focusing distance. The new f/1.4L always appears shorter in focal length and it contributes to less magnification at minimum focus distance. I can go either way here. On one hand, I appreciate the true focal length being maintained. On the other hand, I love having some extra magnification for isolation of details when shooting images. Technically, the f/1.4L is superior to the other two lenses because of having such finely controlled behavior.
PROS:
  • the bokeh falloff is very similar to the f/1.2L, but is cleaner in lateral CA.
  • this is the best 50mm from Canon in terms of Chromatic Aberration control.
  • while there are "onion rings" in the bokeh, the spheres don't have a soap bubble appearance like the f/1.8.
  • this is noticeably and very obviously the sharpest 50mm lens Canon makes now.
  • the autofocus is just as expected - virtually instant.

I have travel photography this week so I'm happy the lens came in before that. Also, next Friday, I'll be shooting my final race of the year. I'm a DIE HARD 50mm photographer, so I will be using this thing a lot over the next week. Please let me know if there is anything your'e curious about or would like me to test. As of right now, these are the only 2 negative things I can find using the new lens versus the other two options and I'm sure I may find more. But for me, this resolves my want/need for quicker autofocus and lighter weight. It's hard to beat the size/weight/price of the "nifty fifty" as a fun lens...but wow, it was painfully obvious how soft that lens was when it was put up against the L-series lenses.


Samples I tried to frame at the exact same subject framing...was a little off, but as close as I could get. The focus breathing on the f/1.2L is insane. I never really noticed how significant it was, but it throws everything off. It's great for creating isolated details, but terrible for video focus racking.

RF 50mm f/1.2L USMView attachment 221381

RF 50mm f/1.4L VCM
View attachment 221382

RF 50mm f/1.8 STM
View attachment 221383

RF 50mm f/1.2L USM (100% Crop)
View attachment 221384

RF 50mm f/1.4 VCM (100% Crop)
View attachment 221385

RF 50mm f/1.8 STM (100% Crop)
View attachment 221386
Click to expand...
I had the RF 50mm f/1.2L. I got spoiled by it. Amazing though, at least for web size, they all take good pics. The 1.2 does do far better in the bokeh department.
 
Upvote 0
#16
docsmith said:
Thanks for the quick assessment. All seem good to great. I have to admit being most impressed with the f/1.8 and f/1.2. The f/1.8 just because that is some great bokeh for the price it is at. The f/1.2 is the best rendered image, IMO, and the cat's eye bokeh holds off until closer to the edges. But it does have flaws. Not only do you see the cat's eye/lemon bokeh, but the ends of some of the lemons are clipped. I hadn't noticed that in other test images before. But the rendering I am liking is less about the lights and more about the door frame.

As for the causes of the clipping, I'd be curious if someone has a clear understanding. Mine is a bit rudimentary, but generally, light hitting the front element's center may be perfect circular, but two things can happen as you move to the side of the front element, 1) the view of the circle is not at a slight angle, which will make circles become ellipses and 2) this is made worse by a curved front element. Is that about right? The clipping tells me there is some physical object in the lens clipping the edges of the light at the widest apertures. That used to happen in mirror boxes of DSLRs, I am curious about on a mirrorless body.

Anyway, thanks again. BTW, I really do not think the onioning on the f/1.4 is all that bad. Certainly not as bad as some zooms's I've seen. 3 good lenses as far as I am concerned.

Edit: I found this write up on optical vignetting. It covers everything but the curve of the front element. B&H has a brief write up that attributes it to the degree of light being bent. I am thinking this has less to do about the front element which, thinking about it, that would bend the light in a way to point the light towards center, not perpendicular to center. So I struck that above.
Click to expand...
A lot of Canon’s newest lenses have football bokeh, but the clipping I think is only with close focusing distances. This is probably a result of the optical elements shifting to a point where some get cut off.

I do think it’s important to point out that I think the RF 50mm f/1.8 STM lens is grossly underrated by virtually everyone out there. Since the first day I picked up a DSLR, I’ve owned a “nifty fifty” and I’ve shot with 50mm as my preferred focal length for as long as I can remember. I personally believe it’s underrated and under appreciated that Canon offers a quality 50mm f/1.8 for under $180. Wide open, the lens is SOFT on the 45mp R5/R5II…but I actually like the rendering from the current generation and love how small it is - which makes it east to just toss into your camera bag.

The autofocus on both the 1.2L and 1.8 STM are pretty loud and very very slow. The bokeh differences are exaggerated by the focus breathing and working distance on the 1.2L and 1.8. The 1.4 remains a “true” 50mm and both other lenses zoom in and enhance the bokeh. This is both a weakness and a strength, depending on how you look at it. I’ll be traveling with the 1.4L for the next week, but I can do more direct comparisons at a later date if other people haven’t already made loads of YouTube videos and articles about the Canon 50’s.

For me, the new lens is possibly more useful than the 1.2L because I shoot motorsports, events, and video. I’m not sure if I’ll sell or keep all 3 lenses, but I would likely sell the 1.2L before I sold the 1.8 STM if I feel the 1.4L VCM lens can totally replace my 1.2L. It’s not possible to replace the 1.8 STM lens when it only weighs 160grams! Time will tell if I end up liking this lens more than the 1.2L. I can already tell that I like using it more because the AF is just INSTANT - the biggest weakness of the 1.2L.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
#17
Ozarker said:
I had the RF 50mm f/1.2L. I got spoiled by it. Amazing though, at least for web size, they all take good pics. The 1.2 does do far better in the bokeh department.
Click to expand...
It will spoil you and I love that lens. After I bought the 35mm VCM (a lens I really shouldn’t have bought because I seldom use 35mm) I was blown away with the autofocus performance. I shot multiple events with the 35 VCM and the 50 1.2L and ended up switching over to the 35 VCM because the autofocus performed so incredibly well in low light and it was zippy. I knew the moment this lens dropped I had to own it. Getting a nimble 50mm lens that can autofocus this fast was important for me. I’ll have to do more tests with bokeh at more normal working distances where focus breathing isn’t making the 1.2L look like an absolute monster (as it should be). I think that at more traditional working distances these lenses will be virtually identical in how they render.

If the 1.8 STM had weather sealing…boy, it would be hard to take that off the camera. I’m leaving for a trip that will have both snow and rain, leaving me no choice but to bring the 1.4 VCM lens. The 1.2 is WAYYYYY too heavy to bring with me on a vacation if I’m not getting paid work out of it. The 1.8 STM would just live int he bag because I wouldn’t want it to get wet.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
#19
Canon Rumors said:
Just buy the Laowa 35 f/0.95. Sure it's manual focus, but it's not like autofocus would really critically hit all that often anyway.

I can sell you my 50mm f/1.0L... $4500 cool? You can also adapt the Canon 50mm f/0.95 to RF. There's also the RF mount Nokton 50 f/1 which is pretty good.

You have so many options!
Click to expand...

I guess I mis-spelled "Zenit" as "Sigma," sorry guys. Speedmaster 35mm f/0.95 seems to be APS-C.

I sold my EF 50/1.0 around 2010 after 15 years, bought new in west Shinjuku mid 90s. On the M6 I never had the Noct though I borrowed one for a couple months. I actually only owned the 35/1.4 ASPH and 75/1.4.

I actually think R5 focus nails it. I haven't seen any misses. And the DOF of 35/1.0 is the same as 50/1.4, 70/2.0 or 100/2.8 (all 35mm apertures) and you'll agree the latter three don't sound at all challenging. In fact the place I missed most in the 90s was that I used to focus-recompose-shoot but the "plane" of focus isn't a perfect sphere, so it can't be really expected to work great. I got a lot better results with the EOS-3 than EOS-1N because I could use the eye-controlled focus on the 3 quite well and use all AF sensors. On the 1N and 1V I mostly stuck to the center AF sensor, because it took so much time to scroll around to the others.

Also, I'm a huge huge HUGE fan of the RF lenses. People are all, like, piss on the 24-105/4 or 50/1.8 because it's not an L, yet these seem to be producing at phenomenal images. And this is comparing them back to back. So my goal isn't to get a 1970 lens or third-party lens. Instead I'd like to see what Canon engineering can turn out with modern design tech.
 
Upvote 0
#20
Exploreshootshare said:
Maybe, either one day I'll strike a really good deal for the f1.2 or perhaps a decent F1.4 appears
Click to expand...
In my big shooting days, 95-2005, the Nikon 85/1.4 was the one lens I was envious of Nikon shooters for. I had the 85/1.2 and as much as I liked the images, in every other possible dimension it was the worst lens I ever owned.

I'd be happy in principle to buy the 85/1.2DS but I don't care for how the highlights are less than round in the corners. I'd prefer paying triple for something where most of the elements have 40% more area and it could actually produce a mostly round image into the corners.
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Canon Rumors
Stock Notice: Canon RF 35mm f/1.4L IS VCM
Replies
10
Views
684
koenkooi
koenkooi
Canon Rumors
The Canon RF 35mm f/1.4L VCM is in stock, deliveries to customers start June 27
Replies
73
Views
6K
vjlex
vjlex
Richard CR
Canon RF 35mm f/1.4L VCM Review
Replies
56
Views
6K
YuengLinger
YuengLinger
Canon Rumors
The RF 35 f/1.4L VCM aperture ring will work for photo work on Canon’s next generation cameras
Replies
44
Views
4K
padam
P
Canon Rumors
There will be more VCM hybrid prime lenses, but not anytime soon
Replies
83
Views
5K
P-visie
P-visie
Top Bottom
Back
Home
Forums
Media
Menu