|
As an early Christmas present to myself, I got the RF 28mm pancake yesterday to replace my EF-S 24mm and it's actually pretty impressive despite the underwhelming front element. It looks like it's keeping up with the R7's sensor almost corner-to-corner at wide open too which is impressive enough for any lens. I truly loved the 24mm on my 80D and I'll probably keep it a little while longer, but putting it on the chonky EF-RF adapter somewhat ruins the novelty of a pancake lens. The RF pancake loses a few cm in min. focus distance, but I'm sure I can bare to deal with it. I think if Canon ever brought out an RF-S analogous to the old 15-85mm I'd happily sell my adapter and move on.
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2023 06:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 18, 2024 11:05 |
|
|
Assuming this site is reputable, hell yeah! RF 35L finally coming. I will be buying this as my one prime. https://www.canonrumors.com/canon-rf-35mm-f-1-2l-usm-confirmed-for-2024-cr3/
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2023 20:59
|
|
|
  Though, this isn't even the first time canon rumors has said "we're really sure this time pinky promise" about the 35L. Until Canon says anything about it I'm not gonna believe it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2023 21:15
|
|
|
I’ve come across an EF85 f/1.8 for what seems like a good price any comments on the lens? ever since getting the EF 50mm f/1.4 I have become a bit skeptical of older lenses. the sigma lenses I have (EF mount) are both great wide open, and the 135mm was my only lens for so long, I had gotten used to just using it wide open, but the ef50mm is a bit of a mess until you get to like 2.2 or so and I’ve read this 85mm is real good above 2.8 but if I’m getting a 85mm which of course is gonna be 99.9% portrait .. I don’t wanna have to stop down to 2.8 just to make it acceptable maybe you get what you pay for. maybe if I want a deece 85mm a $300 lens from years ago may not be the way to go
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2023 22:09
|
|
|
I have a Helios 44-2 58mm from the 70s in my Sony mirrorless and I haven't taken it off my camera since I got it 18 months ago. And if I get the money I'm going to pick up a Helios 85mm. So, how old are you talking? haha
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2023 22:55
|
|
|
When I was looking at getting an 85 a few months back I think it seemed like in that price range you would be better off just getting the RF 85 f2 macro. But I ended up not buying either one in the hopes that either we eventually get sigma lenses or that I would find a decent deal on a used EF 85 f1.4 L
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2023 23:28
|
|
|
Viginti Septem posted:
 this is a photo idk how old
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2023 00:19
|
|
|
i reckon i’ll sell the sigma 35 1.4 it’s nice and sharp but drat I never enjoy using it lol so many people encouraged me to break out of my 135mm prison and there’s a local photographer who uses one and she does great and also encouraged me this 85mm is a bit more of an experiment to see if I want my second main lens to be 50 or 85 .. maybe 85 and 135 are too similar who knows it’s only money
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2023 00:28
|
|
|
echinopsis posted:i reckon i’ll sell the sigma 35 1.4 Sell it to me. How much
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2023 00:29
|
|
|
85 seems to be a strictly portrait lens. 50 is more multi purpose, in that you have a little reach for portrait compression and bokeh, but also covers a fairly good portion of the human eye FOV. Obviously 35 is more the human eye equivalent, but I find having just a little extra push in with the 50 adds a bit of drama beyond the 35mm. However, as more and more people are becoming familiar with cell phone photos which tend towards a wider field of view, an argument can be made that telephoto shots look less mainstream in general and thus have an edge in the masse of photos that populate our culture now. shrug
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2023 01:02
|
|
|
Viginti Septem posted:However, as more and more people are becoming familiar with cell phone photos which tend towards a wider field of view, an argument can be made that telephoto shots look less mainstream in general and thus have an edge in the masse of photos that populate our culture now. I have had those exact thoughts. if I want to stand out from phone photo going longer is the key. and so far that’s why I have primarily stuck with 135 because it takes photos that people don’t see on the daily
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2023 03:02
|
|
|
I used to have the 85 1.8, it's a great lens.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2023 05:05
|
|
|
three hundy seems like a bit of a steal about $190usd
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2023 05:18
|
|
|
it's a great lens, here's some decades old pics i've taken with it on my 5d   
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2023 05:45
|
|
|
 might do it
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2023 06:57
|
|
|
I've recently upgraded from a 7D to an RP. When I use my Tamron 2.8 70-200 G2 with a Canon EF adapter and a Canon 1.4x extender, the widest aperture shown for the lens is f5.6. I know using the extender costs a stop. Should the lens still go to 2.8 and I then have to take into account that the extender is costing a stop? It seems right to me that the lens should still be able to physically open to 2.8 regardless of the presence of an extender. Or does the lens take into account the presence of the extender and 'take out' a stop automatically? If so, why is it taking out two stops? Displayed aperture range for the lens without the extender is 2.8 - 22, and with the extender, 5.6-45, fwiw.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2024 03:57
|
|
|
joat mon posted:I've recently upgraded from a 7D to an RP. When I use my Tamron 2.8 70-200 G2 with a Canon EF adapter and a Canon 1.4x extender, the widest aperture shown for the lens is f5.6. Correct behavior should be to show a max aperture of f/4 with the extender on. Maybe there's some glitch with the combo of lens/extender/adapter/camera causing the extender to be read as a 2x. Can't really explain it if you look at the firmware updates that roll out sometimes they fix things like cameras improperly reading info like this.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2024 04:32
|
|
|
I assume it's from the extra distance the adapter adds to the mount? Big rumor that's been gaining traction is that Canon is announcing an RF 70-200 2.8 II with all internal zooming, which would probably also open it up to the extenders (current model doesn't work with them). I fit's not much larger than the I unzoomed, that's a big practical upgrade for me. Bottom Liner fucked around with this message at 04:43 on Jan 4, 2024 |
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2024 04:40
|
|
|
That sounds like a rad update but I'd really like them to shave some weight off it and make an f4 version. I get that everyone loves them big apertures but I almost never go bigger than f8 so it's kinda wasted on me. But perhaps it's better they didn't so I don't feel tempted to buy more gear.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2024 04:56
|
|
|
xzzy posted:That sounds like a rad update but I'd really like them to shave some weight off it and make an f4 version. I get that everyone loves them big apertures but I almost never go bigger than f8 so it's kinda wasted on me. Do you mean an internal zooming F4? Cause you do know they make a regular RF 70-200 f4 already right?
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2024 05:01
|
|
|
Yeah sorry, internal zoom. I guess they'll do it someday assuming this 2.8 happens but I wanna get stuff now!
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2024 05:10
|
|
|
joat mon posted:Displayed aperture range for the lens without the extender is 2.8 - 22, and with the extender, 5.6-45, fwiw. Yeah this just sounds like a bug with the extender + tamron lens. When I use the adapter + 1.4x TC + canon EF 70-200 f2.8 L it shows as f4 wide open on both my R and R5 (and with the 2x TC it shows as f5.6 as you would expect) If they do make an RF 70-200 that takes TC's it'd probably get me to finally sell my EF version, but honestly what I really want for RF mount is a small 300 f4 prime so I could just go with the existing small RF 70-200 plus that instead of bothering with TC's. Basically something like the 300 f4 PF that nikon had for their dslr mount (where there was never a canon EF equivalent)
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2024 05:11
|
|
|
I'd maybe get that RF 70-200 F4 but I hate that it is white
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2024 14:07
|
|
|
google is showing other people have had the same issue with the Tamron + Canon Extender probably something Canon would need to fix, but they're obviously dicks about third party lenses I imagine the only solution would be using a Tamron EF extender
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2024 15:54
|
|
|
Fellatio del Toro posted:
They’ve opened the RF mount up to third parties as of this past Fall. Curious to see what Sigma does
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2024 16:01
|
|
|
They didn't open it, only said that they were willing to accept applications for licensing the mount I would not hold my breath on them approving anything other than a few weird third party lenses that don't undercut their lineup (hopefully that Tamron 35-150)
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2024 16:09
|
|
|
blue squares posted:I'd maybe get that RF 70-200 F4 but I hate that it is white  I'm kind of itching to upgrade from my M50 and a bunch of EF and EF-M glass but uhh that's almost too much  As I posted in the gear thread though I'll be in Japan soon so maybe playing around with the stuff in person (and with lower than EU prices) will get me over the edge.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2024 14:55
|
|
|
I got it and I love it 
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2024 15:04
|
|
|
 I got sick of futzing with the RF rear lens caps in dark photo pits where I need to swap lenses quickly so I came up with this solution. The white area lines up with the contacts which are infinitely easier to see from the top in any situation instead of the dark red dot on the side and black on black line. I can’t believe no one has made a better one yet (even a 3d printed one?)
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2024 02:05
|
|
|
I discovered recently that EF rear caps fit on RF lenses in two of three possible positions. It's not perfect, it snags a little bit too much trying to get it off, but it's very close to being perfect. Which says to me canon could have made a lens cap that works from any position, they just chose not to because they're jerks. RF caps work just fine on EF lenses too. I have considered designing a better cap and 3d printing it I just haven't gotten around to it. The mounting lobes aren't symmetrical like EF was but maybe if I made smaller lobes it would work just the same. It's not like the cap has to have a death grip to be useful.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2024 03:44
|
|
|
I was thinking of just finding some that slip on but don't twist. I had some on my Nikon kit and they were so much easier. I should try some like that made for EF.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2024 03:46
|
|
|
Just sat through a video about that new f/2.8 100-300 and dang what a bazooka.. just about double the weight of the 100-500. Expensive as gently caress but apparently it's even great with the 2x converter and if one were to sink their retirement fund on that setup they'd be set for life.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2024 02:07
|
|
|
The 24-105 2.8 + 100-300 2.8 replaces a lot of lenses for sports/photojournalist folks and probably comes out about equal in price and weight. Absolutely worth it for them though. Also crazy how the 24-105 2.8 is even better than the 24-70 at all ranges and wide open, about equal to the jump from the f/4 to the 2.8 at equivalent aperture/zoom.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2024 02:14
|
|
|
quote:Canon Patent Application: Ultra-wide RF 14-20mm F2.0 drat, that would be sick.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2024 18:12
|
|
|
Doesn't seem worth it to me unless you really want that f/2.. it only gives 10 extra degrees of view compared to the 16mm pancake. It's only 20 degrees angle of view difference from widest to narrowest. I'd probably aim at the 10-20 f/4. I guess the f/2 makes it attractive for milky way shots, assuming the corners are nice and sharp.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2024 20:07
|
|
|
Yeah for night shots and concerts/some specific sporting events it would immediately be the best lens ever made on the wide end (assuming typical L line quality) Would be an incredible video lens for the C70 too.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2024 20:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 18, 2024 11:05 |
|
|
Finally got out for a little walkaround with my new old EF 85mm 1.8 today and wow, disconcerting 1992 sounds aside, I can definitely see why Canon never bothered updating this thing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2024 08:36
|
|