|
Has there been any news on third party stuff since they that announcement where they just kinda said "we'd be willing to look at applications for RF licensing"? I'm really not holding out on any third party lenses being allowed on RF other than a few nonstandard ones that don't directly compete with any Canon lenses Of course, that Tamron 35-150 is probably the one I'm most interested in so maybe I'll get lucky there
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2023 14:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 30, 2024 18:47 |
|
|
gschmidl posted:
This is such a wild thing to say when the Canon RF lineup already has all the standards in the best versions of those lenses we’ve ever seen by a mile (compare the EF 85 1.2 to the RF) but also entirely new lenses that were impossible with old mounts (28-70 f2, 100-300 2.8, 24-105 2.8, etc). RF is already the best digital lens line that’s ever existed and it’s only getting better from here. It was a slow start sure, but they have absolutely killed it in the last few years.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2023 14:57
|
|
|
Bottom Liner posted:RF is already the best digital lens line that’s ever existed and it’s only getting better from here. It was a slow start sure, but they have absolutely killed it in the last few years. Here's the ones I use, with their closest RF equivalents: Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8: €1449 Canon RF 10-20mm f/4: €2699 Sigma 150-600mm f/5-6.3: €949 Canon RF 100-500mm F4.5-7.1L € 3.145 Sigma 20mm f/1.4 €799 ...not sure which one to compare this to. There's great RF lenses, but way not enough of them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2023 15:09
|
|
|
There is also a 15-35 2.8 for RF that’s about $1800. The 24 1.8 IS is also killer and cheap at 400-500. But I see your issue, you said “better” when what you meant was “cheaper”.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2023 15:28
|
|
|
Bottom Liner posted:There is also a 15-35 2.8 for RF that’s about $1800. The 24 1.8 IS is also killer and cheap at 400-500. They don't necessarily need to be cheaper, but worse aperture at twice the price is a bit of a killer. I realize this is very much a coming-from-preference  thing and I wouldn't see it that way if I didn't already own the Sigmas.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2023 15:32
|
|
|
xzzy posted:Now you can go from 10mm to 800mm with four lenses and zero overlap in focal length. Gonna be a heavy expensive bag but you'll be prepared for everything! If it’s aimed at the people using adapted sigma / Tamron 150-600’s they are usually shooting at at least f/7.1 anyway, so f/9 isn’t going to be scary. And don’t forget how much ridicule Canon got for the 100-500 f/7.1 that actually ended up flying off the shelves.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2023 15:34
|
|
|
There's more to a lens than aperture and price though. Yeah there's a canon tax on buying anything with their name on it (gently caress off with the batteries already) but every RF lens they've made has fit well into a niche and reviewed extremely well.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2023 15:37
|
|
|
Hoo-boy, the upcoming 24-105 f2.8 really looks like the lens I could use to replace every other lens I have and just permanently use that one. https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1793385-REG/canon_rf_24_105mm_f_2_8_l.html Except of course for the fact that it weighs 3 pounds
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2023 14:32
|
|
|
Get the 24-105 f/4. Save a lot of money, save a lot of weight, 2.8 is just bragging rights anyways. We all shoot at f/8 all the time, right?
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2023 14:40
|
|
|
removed
blue squares fucked around with this message at 16:47 on Nov 3, 2023 |
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2023 14:52
|
|
|
Bottom Liner posted:24-105 2.8 L being a power zoom is a game changer for a lot of videographers. Also a great single lens choice for a ton of photo situations. That 24-105 f/2.8L is a goddamn siren song and I'm extremely tempted. I might see if I can trade in my EF 28-70 f/2.8L, EF 100 f/2.8L, and Sigma 24-35 f/2.0 to get the cost down to maybe only $1.5k. Ouch.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2023 18:45
|
|
|
Just decided to transform my photographing experience and traded in my 16mm, 35mm, 50mm, and 24-105 non L for the 24-105 L. Now I have one lens that I can permanently use that can do everything. Sure I don't have the 16mm but I didnt really like it, and I can't stop down to 1.8 but I never really liked doing that either. It's heavy! But as a plus, my total kit will be much lighter and I won't need to carry around multiple lenses unless I also know I need to bring my telephoto, which I only bust out for wildlife. This is a great day! edit: also returned two overly-expensive peak design bags I had picked up to carry all of those lenses (won't need them anymore + needed to return to make the cost work so it would be an even trade). I can just grab something cheaper and stuff it with padded bags/small organizing bags as needed blue squares fucked around with this message at 20:38 on Nov 3, 2023 |
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2023 20:03
|
|
|
just makes u stronger mate
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2023 20:12
|
|
|
How did you trade in a lens you don't have? Also I assume you got the 2.8L and not the 4L (there are now 3 RF 24-105 lenses, two of which are L)?
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2023 20:17
|
|
|
Bottom Liner posted:How did you trade in a lens you don't have? What? Do you mean the 16mm? I meant my new lens can't go that wide since I traded in the 16
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2023 20:18
|
|
|
blue squares posted:. Sure I don't have the 16mm but I didnt really like it, Yeah I read that as you didn't have the lens, not that you won't now have the focal length blue squares posted:
This is the way to do it regardless of loadout IMO. I use a padded cube insert from Incase in a regular bag and it holds more than a comparable Peak design bag with better protection and space for other stuff or a second cube. I like the PD straps but everything else I've tried from them has not held up or has serious design flaws. Bottom Liner fucked around with this message at 20:26 on Nov 3, 2023 |
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2023 20:21
|
|
|
Pretty much all dedicated camera bags have fatal flaws. Well, all backpacks eventually get annoying for one reason or another, but camera ones seem to take it a step further by being bad at everything. Scouring B&H's ICU selection for one that fits a normal backpack has given me much better results. At least I'm not feeling the need to replace my backpack every year to fix an annoyance.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2023 21:14
|
|
|
The rubber on the focus ring of my EF-S 18-55 STM has started to devulcanize. Should I look into replacing the ring myself? Taking it to a repair shop? Just living with it/powder it occasionally?
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2023 21:44
|
|
|
xzzy posted:Get the 24-105 f/4. Save a lot of money, save a lot of weight, 2.8 is just bragging rights anyways. We all shoot at f/8 all the time, right?  Don't ask what the effective f number is though.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2023 21:59
|
|
|
I found an EF 28-300mm f3.5-5.6L in a box at work and it seems like such a weird lens. It's also big and really heavy. I can't imagine ever wanting to buy one but I'm going to borrow it and give it a try just to see what Canon's superest (?) super zoom can do.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2023 01:46
|
|
|
sirbeefalot posted:The rubber on the focus ring of my EF-S 18-55 STM has started to devulcanize. Should I look into replacing the ring myself? Taking it to a repair shop? Just living with it/powder it occasionally? Seems like a good opportunity to upgrade to an F/2.8 lens. If you really want to stick with the Canon kit lens, it's almost certainly cheaper to just buy a replacement on the used market if you can't repair it cheaply yourself. I see them going for under $30 on eBay.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2023 19:56
|
|
|
Anyone had any good/bad experiences with the 'raw burst mode'? It's clearly a feature aimed straight at doing action where you can pre-capture and get the perfect moment after the fact. But it's weird in the way it saves a single CR3 for the whole burst and you later extract the best frame to a new CR3. It also limits you to electronic shutter. Just curious of people's experiences before I go out and try it on wild fuzzy things. Does it work better than traditional spray and pray?
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2023 23:17
|
|
|
I used it once and it was kind of a pain to work with the burst on my slightly aging computer. It would have been fine if DPP just let me dump every frame, but nope, gotta select individually. I think the major draw is the pre-burst function which is absolutely magical, yes. You do tend to get hit with the BUSY though, so you better hope you get it in one take. Personally, I'm good with regular burst.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2023 04:42
|
|
|
RIP The EF-M mount, but I've gone too far with it to sell everything because the cost to get into RF mount, IMO is really pricey So I have a second M50 Mk2 on order as a backup with a low shot count, and the EF-M 11-22 which I'm looking forward to using. I love the EF-M 22 prime lens, it's so good. I know I'm dumb as hell for embracing a dead system, but it takes such good images Dr.Smasher fucked around with this message at 08:53 on Nov 23, 2023 |
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2023 08:48
|
|
|
Dr.Smasher posted:I love the EF-M 22 prime lens, it's so good. It's really baffling to me that Canon didn't just re-release this lens on the RF-S mount when the mount was announced. I'm also going to be an EF-M user for the foreseeable future.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2023 08:54
|
|
|
so I got an ef50mmf/1.4 around the same time as a sigma 35mm and I defo think I enjoy the 50mm way more. been using it as a carry round lens to just capture whatever. the 35 can do the same but makes the photos more boring but it’s kinda soft. maybe it’s actually normal, the lens I am most used to, sigma 135mm, is very sharp (one review called it the sharpest lens they’d tested, even if thats not true it certainly points to it being sharp), so maybe it’s not a good comparison this lens almost seems like it has a weak black mist filter on it. and tbh the photos are fine if you don’t get too close lol but it makes me think maybe if I really can’t get to grips with the 35mm then I could sell both (and some other lenses) and finance a better 50mm… any suggestions? the RF looks good but also wtf at that price there’s not really anything between a 50 and 85 huh? I suspect an 85 would be too close to 135 (both achieving similar things) and if I am gonna have a second lens it should at least be different enough
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2023 00:42
|
|
|
If you're fine with using adapted EF glass, the sigma 50mm 1.4 art is great and is sharp, even on an R5
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2023 01:56
|
|
|
yeah my sigma 135mm is adapted and it works flawlessly might look into that one. read a few reviews comparing that and the canon 1.4 and said they were similar but the sigma sharper the canon has slightly weird bokeh at times too
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2023 04:35
|
|
|
echinopsis posted:this lens almost seems like it has a weak black mist filter on it. That sounds like it would make for a pretty sick portrait lens on crop. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2023 08:48
|
|
|
snipperino but we grabbed an R10 for my wife and holy poo poo is it small. I mean I don't have huge hands and she finds it comfortable, but wow. my 50D is huge compared to this. I'm glad I didn't go further bargain basement because I cannot fathom how small the R50 is.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2023 23:28
|
|
|
What is the point of the multi function hot shoe adapter? The guy at the store said I definitely need it to use my Godox flash or wireless trigger, but everything works fine without using this little $40 thingamajig. Why do I need it?
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2023 18:25
|
|
|
My understanding is it maintains weather sealing when used with some devices that otherwise breaks it
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2023 18:49
|
|
|
jarlywarly posted:My understanding is it maintains weather sealing when used with some devices that otherwise breaks it Does this also mean that when I am using my camera in the rain I should put the hot shoe cover on? I wonder if I can find mine… whoops edit: whew, I found it blue squares fucked around with this message at 18:58 on Nov 30, 2023 |
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2023 18:53
|
|
|
I took my a7Riii out in the snow and immediately regretted it. Snow got in the hot shoe and shorted the pins and I got the error on the screen that the accessory is not supported. Which ended my photo shooting for the night until it dried out.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2023 21:36
|
|
|
echinopsis posted:the RF looks good but also wtf at that price Just got mine for an absolute steal  Only tested it indoor with the dogs since it was delivered after sunset, but I can tell it's a ridiculous lens. All at f/1.2: Low light auto focus      even sharper than my RF 70-200 2.8, even at 1.2
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2023 00:53
|
|
|
Dog!
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2023 03:21
|
|
|
Bottom Liner posted:Just got mine for an absolute steal holy poo poo man
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2023 03:25
|
|
|
It better take amazing pictures if they're gonna ask you to lug around 2 pounds of glass.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2023 03:28
|
|
|
xzzy posted:It better take amazing pictures if they're gonna ask you to lug around 2 pounds of glass. Coming from EF L glass in the DSLR days this still feels nice. The balance is great. I was also surprised that the front element is so recessed and maybe half the size of the full diameter. I tend to like flare and won't keep the hood on much, so it's nice to not have to worry about a big chunk of exposed glass while shooting in some of the environments I work in.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2023 03:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 30, 2024 18:47 |
|
|
     RF 50 1.2 is a beautiful lens. The ring type USM is a slight downside but drat, that glass.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2023 21:09
|
|