Year in Review: My thoughts on all things Canon in 2024.

#21
"There has been a lot of nonsense things written about the EOS R1, and it's all based around pixel count. One of the latest published comments about the EOS R1 that caused a headshake was in regards to print size. Yes, you can print 60″ wide with a 24MP file no problem, period."

I made a comment in another thread about 24MP and a 20" x 30" print and got a lot of flak. On the other hand, I have two waterfall (plus forest) prints over my sofa, 20" x 30" and taken with a 12.8MP 5D. They look just fine but the minimum viewing distance is about 3 feet. A 20" x 30" race car print taken with a 40D (and an EF 300 f/2.8 and 2X teleconverter) looks pretty good but a race car is all smooth surfaces. I guess I'm a failure as a pixel peeper.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Upvote 0
#22
bn5fg said:
Not good for landscapes I suppose. But I use it for lightweight portraiture and I'm happy with it. Tele-end is razor sharp so I can crop it like no tomorrow for facial closeups. Rented studios can be pricey and there is no time to rotate 50-85/135.
And 28-end is okayish for group photos.
Click to expand...
Just what I meant, in my opinion, absolutely unsuited for landscapes at 28mm, sides lacking sharpness while corners are mushy. From 35 to 70mm, this lens is very usable, even for landscapes.
But for the present moment, I won't certainly replace the 24-70mm f/2,8 or any prime with it, and wait for the 28-70 II or a 24-70 f/2.
 
Upvote 0
#23
I'm still on the fence about the RF50 f/1.4L VCM, it ticks the boxes I want but I'm unsure if it's worth the money over the 50STM I have. I like the FoV of 50mm equivalents, but the ones I have show a few issues:

The AF on the M6II+EF-M32 combination is not good enough for wide open shooting, it tends to mis-focus slightly or pick the back eye. A new M body with digic X would fix that :)

I don't know what's causing it, but the RF50STM on the R5 and R5II tends to give me lots of motion blur (1/250s, ES), on the R8 with the same settings it is pin sharp. My guess is that the IBIS overcompensates for how I hold the camera, but it only seems to affect this lens. So the 50L VCM would get used on the R8 if it triggers the same IBIS behaviour, which feels a bit like a waste. Apologies for the 24MP-is-not-enough snobbery :)

The RF24-105 performs quite well at 50mm, but is only f/4 and I tend to move it to 80-ish mm, even when I really should make the composition a bit wider.

The RF85STM is the lens I actually want to use, but I routinely run out of room to manoeuvre, especially at home. On family trips it is also hard to include the background properly, 50mm makes that a bit easier.

And finally, the RF28-70STM. That one might be a better fit, even if it 'only' opens up to f/2.8, but it covers (obviously) 28 to 70mm!
 
Upvote 0
#24
koenkooi said:
I'm still on the fence about the RF50 f/1.4L VCM, it ticks the boxes I want but I'm unsure if it's worth the money over the 50STM I have. I like the FoV of 50mm equivalents, but the ones I have show a few issues:

The AF on the M6II+EF-M32 combination is not good enough for wide open shooting, it tends to mis-focus slightly or pick the back eye. A new M body with digic X would fix that :)

I don't know what's causing it, but the RF50STM on the R5 and R5II tends to give me lots of motion blur (1/250s, ES), on the R8 with the same settings it is pin sharp. My guess is that the IBIS overcompensates for how I hold the camera, but it only seems to affect this lens. So the 50L VCM would get used on the R8 if it triggers the same IBIS behaviour, which feels a bit like a waste. Apologies for the 24MP-is-not-enough snobbery :)

The RF24-105 performs quite well at 50mm, but is only f/4 and I tend to move it to 80-ish mm, even when I really should make the composition a bit wider.

The RF85STM is the lens I actually want to use, but I routinely run out of room to manoeuvre, especially at home. On family trips it is also hard to include the background properly, 50mm makes that a bit easier.

And finally, the RF28-70STM. That one might be a better fit, even if it 'only' opens up to f/2.8, but it covers (obviously) 28 to 70mm!
Click to expand...

I have that one pre-ordered because I'm in dire need of a lens that doesn't weigh a ton. I'm currently renting the 50 1.2 from time to time.

I'd be surprised if 50mm would have the same level of distortion as the 35. Again, I'm not sure if I care about that yet or not.
 
Upvote 0
#25
Canon Rumors Guy said:
I have that one pre-ordered because I'm in dire need of a lens that doesn't weigh a ton. I'm currently renting the 50 1.2 from time to time.
Click to expand...
I'm not in dire need, but I'd also like a better-than-50STM lens that is smaller and lighter than the f/1.2L that I also rent from time to time.
Canon Rumors Guy said:
I'd be surprised if 50mm would have the same level of distortion as the 35. Again, I'm not sure if I care about that yet or not.
Click to expand...
I've stopped caring about it after noticing that the 16STM runs circles around the 17-40L for corner sharpness. It helps that I almost never put something in the extreme corners with 50mm or equivalent lenses, both LR and DxO are doing an excellent job so far.
But I can understand why people don't like it in L lenses.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0
#26
koenkooi said:
I'm still on the fence about the RF50 f/1.4L VCM, it ticks the boxes I want but I'm unsure if it's worth the money over the 50STM I have. I like the FoV of 50mm equivalents, but the ones I have show a few issues:

The AF on the M6II+EF-M32 combination is not good enough for wide open shooting, it tends to mis-focus slightly or pick the back eye. A new M body with digic X would fix that :)

I don't know what's causing it, but the RF50STM on the R5 and R5II tends to give me lots of motion blur (1/250s, ES), on the R8 with the same settings it is pin sharp. My guess is that the IBIS overcompensates for how I hold the camera, but it only seems to affect this lens. So the 50L VCM would get used on the R8 if it triggers the same IBIS behaviour, which feels a bit like a waste. Apologies for the 24MP-is-not-enough snobbery :)

The RF24-105 performs quite well at 50mm, but is only f/4 and I tend to move it to 80-ish mm, even when I really should make the composition a bit wider.

The RF85STM is the lens I actually want to use, but I routinely run out of room to manoeuvre, especially at home. On family trips it is also hard to include the background properly, 50mm makes that a bit easier.

And finally, the RF28-70STM. That one might be a better fit, even if it 'only' opens up to f/2.8, but it covers (obviously) 28 to 70mm!
Click to expand...
I'm using the 50 STM quite often on the R5 II (ES exclusively) and R (mechanical or ES). Motion blur? None at all, even at 1/250 or far below .
Strange ...
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
#27
Del Paso said:
I'm using the 50n STM quite often on the R5 II (ES exclusively) and R (mechanical or ES). Motion blur? None at all, even at 1/250 or far below .
Strange ...
Click to expand...
It’s very likely a bad interaction between how unsteady I hold the camera and IBIS. The original R5 had a bug where IBIS would twist the sensor in anticipation of people rotating the body when pressing the shutter. A firmware update fixed that, that was a noticeable improvement.

It’s fine on the R8, which is a better choice for candids anyway :)
 
Upvote 0
#28
If I had to make a few wishes for 2025, I would like :

- A 600mm F4 DO lens (RF and if possible EF)
- A camera body using the technology of the R5 MK II but transposed onto a 5D MK V camera body
- That the next R5 MK III camera body, which will be released in x years, has a sensor of at least 75 Mp
- A price drop would also be welcome

I know I'm asking a lot of Santa, but you have to have dreams... :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0
#32
Del Paso said:
Just what I meant, in my opinion, absolutely unsuited for landscapes at 28mm, sides lacking sharpness while corners are mushy. From 35 to 70mm, this lens is very usable, even for landscapes.
But for the present moment, I won't certainly replace the 24-70mm f/2,8 or any prime with it, and wait for the 28-70 II or a 24-70 f/2.
Click to expand...
Not trying to chase you around the thread, but I'm curious what you're talking about. I downloaded sample RAWs at 28mm @ f/2.8 and they're similar to the RF 24-70/2.8 L IS USM. Reviewers like Christopher Frost have also commented that the lens is nice and sharp from corner to corner at 28mm and shown how it performs on his test chart.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
#33
It's great that Canon is coming out with a (latest tech) RF 50 f1.4L, and that it matches (almost) the size & weight of the other 2 wider 1.4L lenses for those with gimbals. In the near future, I hope that they extend that group of lenses with a 70 f1.4L and/or a 85 f1.4L with the same great technology. A 85 f1.4L might start to get a bit large and heavy, but would probably be the most desired choice of the two. The 70 f1.4L would be closer in weight & size to the wider lenses and that might make enough reason to make it instead. Also, at 85mm it would be nice to have IS but that would make it even bigger & heavier, so maybe not having IS for it is the best choice to keep it worth building & buying?

All in all, '24 was a very good year if you're into Canon equipment. Finally a R5m2, and R1 with cross-green AF sensor - oh yeah!
 
Upvote 0
#34
navastronia said:
Not trying to chase you around the thread, but I'm curious what you're talking about. I downloaded sample RAWs at 28mm @ f/2.8 and they're similar to the RF 24-70/2.8 L IS USM. Reviewers like Christopher Frost have also commented that the lens is nice and sharp from corner to corner at 28mm and shown how it performs on his test chart.
Click to expand...
OK, very interesting!
I did refer to:
-TDP (Image quality tests,where the 28-70 doesn't shine at all, especially at 28mm)
-My own (short!) testing in a city, where I took pictures of a castle. The sides were unsharp, even at 28mm f/8...
Since it wasn't a real rental, but a brand new sample, I couldn't proceed to extensive testing. Yet, since it seems that many on this forum really like this zoom, I'll give it another try as soon as I can "officially" rent one. The one I got was kind of courtesy from my favorite dealer...
As we say in France: Il n'y a que les idiots qui ne changent pas d'avis (only idiots don't change their mind). :)#
Sample variations could be the answer...
 
Last edited:
  • Love
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
#37
Del Paso said:
Just what I meant, in my opinion, absolutely unsuited for landscapes at 28mm, sides lacking sharpness while corners are mushy. From 35 to 70mm, this lens is very usable, even for landscapes.
But for the present moment, I won't certainly replace the 24-70mm f/2,8 or any prime with it, and wait for the 28-70 II or a 24-70 f/2.
Click to expand...
How would you compare it to the RF 24-105mm F4 L IS USM? I know there are "clinical" test, but I really don´t care for them. I by far prefer real world testing and the experience of fellow photographers. I wanted to sell my RF 24-105mm but apparently it is banged up a bit too much for a good value with a reselling company. There offer was to low, so I kept it. Initially, I wanted to swap the 24-105mm for the 28-70mm, so I´m really interested in your opinion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
#39
antonio_s said:
The RF lineup is looking more or less "complete." There will be more, but it's not like the early days where Canon was still coming out with new lenses that had previously only existed in EF. There are no obvious holes.
Click to expand...
There are fewer holes, but there still are some left:
- T&S lenses
- fast UWA prime like a 14mm F1.8
- light 24-70mm F4 L
- a second macro (180mm or 60mm) and maybe something with a higher magnification.
- complete the f1.4 set (20mm, 28mm, 85mm)
- RF 200-500mm F4 zoom

Other than that, the line-up should be set. Canon could focus on mkii versions of some lenses. I'd expect a RF 28-70mm F2mkii to be released sooner than later. Also, most lenses released prior to the RF 100-500mm could benefit in some way from a mkii, especially the RF 24-105mm (sharpness, weight or maybe focal length on the long end)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
Upvote 0
#40
Berowne said:
Indeed. And what do we have? We have a System which is more expensive.
Click to expand...
I don't think the RF transition resulted in a more expensive system, because it's still an extension of the EF system. It isn't that surprising that the prices went up a bit when the entire lineup was refreshed (with new optical designs, usually better). But excellent EF lenses can be had for a much lower price. For example, the modern EF 70-200/2.8 L IS II/III is now available for half the price it was just a few years ago.

EF lenses communicating natively with the passthrough adapter is one of the great advantages of the RF system over Sony and Nikon's offerings. My EF lenses work like a charm. By contrast, I've tried some active adapters on Sony cameras and I 100% get why people on that system developed a taste for native lenses.
GMCPhotographics said:
With my ef 70-200, I see very similar results to the new RF version, except for weight. The new lens is a lot lighter. I see camera bodies as a loss leader investment for 5-6 years, where I pay top dollar which slowly drops to nerly nothing by the 5th year. Where as lenses, I look at a 15-20 year investment and they seem to be worth nearly as much as i paid for them in the 5-10 year period. Lenses hold their value, camera bodies do not.
For me, my EF 135L is a bit long in the tooth and quite old and battered...it's getting time to side grade to the RF to unleash another 15-20 years of faithful service. My 70-200? it's not quite as long in the tooth yet so it's still got a few years of service in it before I side grade it for new and shiney.
Click to expand...
The main advantages to me to the new 70-200 are weight (the biggest reason for me not to carry my EF 70-200 on any given day) and sharpness with a TC. But these factors probably don't get me to buy one, at least not for some time.

Lenses definitely hold their value more than bodies. And it makes sense. A 5Diii is quite cheap today. But when I compare mine with the R5ii the differences are stark. But using a lens that came out a decade ago or even more is not a big leap at all.

The biggest issue for older lenses and IQ was the megapixel war. But I think that 45MP is going to be a place where we plateau for high-resolution FF cameras. And a lot of lenses made in the 2010s resolve well on 45MP sensors.

The 135/2 you have is an older lens. I have the Sigma 135/1.8. I don't imagine I will upgrade to Canon's 135/1.8 (which does have IS, but I find IBIS does the trick). The Sigma 135 is right up there with the RF 85/1.2 as one of the best optical lenses I've ever used.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Canon Rumors
The Canon RF 200-800mm F6.3-9 IS USM may not ship in quantity until August, 2024
Replies
6
Views
1K
YuengLinger
YuengLinger
Canon Rumors
The Canon EOS R6 Mark III is “definitely” coming in Q1 of 2025
Replies
160
Views
13K
Traveler
T
Canon Rumors
Canon RF 35mm f/1.2L USM Confirmed for 2024 [CR3]
Replies
223
Views
33K
scyrene
S
H
First Powder-Compressed all-Sapphire (Aluminum Oxide) Glass Lens Now Works Great!
Replies
2
Views
4K
HarryFilm
H
D
Chances of IBIS in next R>7?
Replies
6
Views
747
dr croubie
D
Top Bottom
Back
Home
Forums
Media
Menu