# Patent: Canon RF 35-135mm f/2.8 and other fast zoom lenses



## Canon Rumors Guy (Dec 10, 2020)

> Canon News has uncovered a patent showing optical formulas for fast RF zoom lenses, likely of the L variety. The purpose of the patent is to showcase a high-performance zoom lens design.
> Of the three embodiments in this patent, only the RF 35-135mm f/2.8 seems like a design that has a slight chance of becoming a consumer product.
> 
> Patent: Canon RF 35-135mm f/2.8
> ...



Continue reading...


----------



## marathonman (Dec 10, 2020)

Reserved for pending obligatory ******* comment....


----------



## amorse (Dec 10, 2020)

marathonman said:


> Reserved for pending obligatory ******* comment....


f/4 is *******? You've really cornered the market on doom lately!


----------



## usern4cr (Dec 10, 2020)

A 35-135 f2.8L lens would sell very well as a great high-IQ general purpose lens with full "portrait" zoom reach. Pair it with a 15-35 f4L(or f2.8L) and maybe 100-500 f4.5-7.1L and you'd have a great setup.


----------



## Hyperion (Dec 10, 2020)

Wow! It’s getting real hard to choose a system nowadays...


----------



## vjlex (Dec 10, 2020)

that would probably be an RF lens I would be interested in. right now, the RF trinity offerings aren't significantly better than my EF trinity.


----------



## csibra (Dec 10, 2020)

Hyperion said:


> Wow! It’s getting real hard to choose a system nowadays...


It's no better time to choose a system: buy R5 and RF lenses, and sell every other digital equipment before they get worthless


----------



## bbasiaga (Dec 10, 2020)

So what do you think? Same price as the 28-70F2?

-Brian


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 10, 2020)

csibra said:


> It's no better time to choose a system: buy R5 and RF lenses, and sell every other digital equipment before they get worthless


Not such a great idea when the comparative costs are actually given. You can get a 5D IV and 2.8 zoom trinity for peanuts compared to an R5 and 2.8 zoom trinity, and I haven’t seen a single image one could take and the other couldn’t. 

Are you a tech head or a photographer is more to the point, tech heads will always be seduced by the newest shiniest toy, photographers will take pictures with whatever they can afford (or borrow).


----------



## mclaren777 (Dec 10, 2020)

70-135mm f/2

Come on, Canon, make it happen!


----------



## Hyperion (Dec 10, 2020)

csibra said:


> It's no better time to choose a system: buy R5 and RF lenses, and sell every other digital equipment before they get worthless



I like R5, but I also like 28mm lenses... and don’t have money for R5 (yet?). I actually almost sold everything, and now I stuck between options. Sony has nice 28mm and compact 35 1.4 is coming... but 35-135 2.8 is my dream zoom.
Anyway, I need more money, so I have time to see what’s coming.


----------



## Hyperion (Dec 10, 2020)

privatebydesign said:


> Not such a great idea when the comparative costs are actually given. You can get a 5D IV and 2.8 zoom trinity for peanuts compared to an R5 and 2.8 zoom trinity, and I haven’t seen a single image one could take and the other couldn’t.
> 
> Are you a tech head or a photographer is more to the point, tech heads will always be seduced by the newest shiniest toy, photographers will take pictures with whatever they can afford (or borrow).


Yep. If I was only photographer - I’d go with 5Dmk4 and 35+85 1.4 combo. But my tech part insist to be modern and go mirrorless)


----------



## [email protected] (Dec 10, 2020)

usern4cr said:


> A 35-135 f2.8L lens would sell very well as a great high-IQ general purpose lens with full "portrait" zoom reach. Pair it with a 15-35 f4L(or f2.8L) and maybe 100-500 f4.5-7.1L and you'd have a great setup.


The cost, weight and size will be quite expensive.


----------



## Del Paso (Dec 10, 2020)

Hyperion said:


> Yep. If I was only photographer - I’d go with 5Dmk4 and 35+85 1.4 combo. But my tech part insist to be modern and go mirrorless)


This is a case of photographic schizophrenia .
I'd suggest a quick visit to Dr. Canon, only he can help in desperate cases like yours.


----------



## Del Paso (Dec 10, 2020)

Canon L zooms are getting closer, but still can't match the quality of most L prime lenses.
It could be even harder for such an "extreme" zoom lens.
I know zooms are very useful, using them often. But, does it really make sense to buy a 90 MP Rs, without using the sharpest possible lenses?


----------



## usern4cr (Dec 10, 2020)

[email protected] said:


> The cost, weight and size will be quite expensive.


I'll guess it'll be between the size/weight/cost of the 24-70 f2.8L and 70-200 f2.8L. And I'll also guess that it will be a fantastic lens if they make it!


----------



## usern4cr (Dec 10, 2020)

Del Paso said:


> Canon L zooms are getting closer, but still can't match the quality of most L prime lenses.
> It could be even harder for such an "extreme" zoom lens.
> I know zooms are very useful, using them often. But, does it really make sense to buy a 90 MP Rs, without using the sharpest possible lenses?


I share the same concern. If you use RF L primes and L zooms then you're doing about as good as you can do for IQ, no matter what the difference is. The other RF lenses will be lighter & less expensive and probably won't see any difference between them. If the R5s is anywhere similar in cost to the R5 then you might as well get it as it will be at least as good or maybe better in IQ with the same lenses. It may have other various improvements due to a later design & manufacture. Be sure to use compressed raw for the best quality without totally drowning you computer in needed storage.


----------



## amorse (Dec 10, 2020)

usern4cr said:


> ...Be sure to use compressed raw for the best quality without totally drowning you computer in needed storage.


I actually ordered a NAS system this week in preparation for that very challenge!


----------



## Stu (Dec 10, 2020)

vjlex said:


> that would probably be an RF lens I would be interested in. right now, the RF trinity offerings aren't significantly better than my EF trinity.



Where do you get your data? Bryan Carnathan for one competent reviewer would disagree. I would as well. My EF L lenses were very good but the RF lenses are definitely better. The RF24-105/4 is remarkably better than any previous EF version, just as one example. The redesigned mount is part of that difference. The R5 demands extremely good glass & the RF series works extremely well with it. If your concern is money why don't you write them off your taxes as a business expense as many of us do? The cheaper is better arguments are irrelevant. We are talking about various lens characteristics that lend themselves to better files.

Stu


----------



## Ozarker (Dec 10, 2020)

privatebydesign said:


> Not such a great idea when the comparative costs are actually given. You can get a 5D IV and 2.8 zoom trinity for peanuts compared to an R5 and 2.8 zoom trinity, and I haven’t seen a single image one could take and the other couldn’t.
> 
> Are you a tech head or a photographer is more to the point, tech heads will always be seduced by the newest shiniest toy, photographers will take pictures with whatever they can afford (or borrow).


And then some photographers are tech heads at the same time.


----------



## wsmith96 (Dec 10, 2020)

I think a 35-135 lens, either f/2.8 or f/4 would make a great everyday lens. If they can keep the image quality good throughout the zoom range, that lens could replace both the 24-70 and 70-200 for a lot of people.


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 10, 2020)

CanonFanBoy said:


> And then some photographers are tech heads at the same time.


Indeed, but an infinitesimally small percentage. Some people, like AlanF have a very deep understanding of gear and the best way of getting the optimal result in his very narrow niche speciality, just like Arash Hazeghi. Others I deeply respect have broader knowledge of lighting and camera formats and lenses and fully understand the technical aspects of how to achieve the images they have in mind, people like Gregory Heisler and Joe McNally. But there are many many more who produce stunning images regularly that seemingly have no technical understand at all, they just use whatever they have to it’s best advantage, people like Steve McCurry spring to mind, but there are countless examples everywhere from the top Instagram images and commercial photographers, to your local camera club.


----------



## David - Sydney (Dec 10, 2020)

privatebydesign said:


> Not such a great idea when the comparative costs are actually given. You can get a 5D IV and 2.8 zoom trinity for peanuts compared to an R5 and 2.8 zoom trinity, and I haven’t seen a single image one could take and the other couldn’t.
> 
> Are you a tech head or a photographer is more to the point, tech heads will always be seduced by the newest shiniest toy, photographers will take pictures with whatever they can afford (or borrow).


I would disagree based a specific use case for me last weekend. I shoot indoor karate black belt gradings including sparring. Given the covid restrictions in Australia (pretty good relative to the rest of the world at the time and now basically unlimited but I disgress), I was much closer to the action than I would normally be as they were spread out but in a limited size hall. I couldn't use my RF70-200mm and had to use my EF24-105mm/4. The R5's croppability was fantastic with still lots of pixels with heavy cropping, the high frame rate got me better action shots on burst and the eye-AF was frankly amazing in the light conditions. I believe that IBIS also assisted getting sharper shots as the camera is consistently moving to find targets and blurry shots were rare. My keeper rate (even with more shots on burst) was much higher than with my 5Div setup. Even with the older glass, the shots were more than acceptably sharp. I didn't need to use cRAW. ~2100 shots on 128GB cards was fine.

Tech makes a difference - at least for me. The R5 is a giant leap forward in being able to reliably take amazing shots. I don't have a RF50 or 85mm/1.2 but I hear that the keeper rate with eye-AF @ f1.2 is much higher than with the equivalent 5Div/EF lenses. You can definitely (and I have) take great shots with the 5Div/EF lenses but with less certainty of making the shot. Let the tech do the work and allows the tog to work on the creative stuff.

I did have to change battery once whereas my 5Div would have not used 1 battery. 
The other downside was that the processing time was longer due to the bigger file sizes. Can't wait for a new 16" MBPro/M chip to keep me going for the next many years.


----------



## csibra (Dec 10, 2020)

privatebydesign said:


> Not such a great idea when the comparative costs are actually given. You can get a 5D IV and 2.8 zoom trinity for peanuts compared to an R5 and 2.8 zoom trinity, and I haven’t seen a single image one could take and the other couldn’t.
> 
> Are you a tech head or a photographer is more to the point, tech heads will always be seduced by the newest shiniest toy, photographers will take pictures with whatever they can afford (or borrow).


Well, I'm a techhead yes. But I have a 70D with a 18-135 IS STM, and I happy with them. I shoot film with a very old yashica and a more older flexaret camera, but when this new R system becomes cheaper, my plans are an R6 with some fixes.


----------



## Ozarker (Dec 10, 2020)

privatebydesign said:


> Indeed, but an infinitesimally small percentage. Some people, like AlanF have a very deep understanding of gear and the best way of getting the optimal result in his very narrow niche speciality, just like Arash Hazeghi. Others I deeply respect have broader knowledge of lighting and camera formats and lenses and fully understand the technical aspects of how to achieve the images they have in mind, people like Gregory Heisler and Joe McNally. But there are many many more who produce stunning images regularly that seemingly have no technical understand at all, they just use whatever they have to it’s best advantage, people like Steve McCurry spring to mind, but there are countless examples everywhere from the top Instagram images and commercial photographers, to your local camera club.


Maybe infinitesimally small, yes, but I have no idea how one would measure that. Your guess is as good as mine.  I've never interviewed anyone as to their technical knowledge, so how the heck would I know what my neighbor does and does not know?


----------



## NKD (Dec 10, 2020)

Have dreamt about a zoom Tilt Shift lens 
35 - 135mmTS w/ AF (IS would be a dream too)


----------



## AJ (Dec 10, 2020)

This would be a very useful lens for weddings and events. Put a 16-35 on a second body and you're all set to go.


----------



## vjlex (Dec 11, 2020)

Stu said:


> Where do you get your data? Bryan Carnathan for one competent reviewer would disagree. I would as well. My EF L lenses were very good but the RF lenses are definitely better. The RF24-105/4 is remarkably better than any previous EF version, just as one example. The redesigned mount is part of that difference. The R5 demands extremely good glass & the RF series works extremely well with it. If your concern is money why don't you write them off your taxes as a business expense as many of us do? The cheaper is better arguments are irrelevant. We are talking about various lens characteristics that lend themselves to better files.
> 
> Stu


I'm sure Canon would be happy to know their marketing has been effective in convincing people like you that there is a significant leap in image quality between the RF vs EF 2.8L zoom trinity. I thank you for your patronage. Makes it easier for me to get my hands on those terrible, terrible EF lenses everybody is throwing away in the dustbins since they suddenly stopped being excellent lenses when the RF came out.

RF primes are one thing. RF 2.8L zooms- meh.


----------



## Czardoom (Dec 11, 2020)

Stu said:


> Where do you get your data? Bryan Carnathan for one competent reviewer would disagree. I would as well. My EF L lenses were very good but the RF lenses are definitely better. The RF24-105/4 is remarkably better than any previous EF version, just as one example. The redesigned mount is part of that difference. The R5 demands extremely good glass & the RF series works extremely well with it. If your concern is money why don't you write them off your taxes as a business expense as many of us do? The cheaper is better arguments are irrelevant. We are talking about various lens characteristics that lend themselves to better files.
> 
> Stu



Well, the poster said "significantly better" so I guess it is all interpretation of language, but I would agree that whatever improvements have been made to any RF lens compared to it's EF counterpart, the improvements have been small at best. Yes, my RF 24-105mm f/4 is better than my EF versions, but I would say that "remarkably" is an overstatement. Slightly better, even if you are a pixel peeper, would be more accurate, in my opinion. For most "L" lenses, I would imagine we are talking about going from a grade of "A" to perhaps "A+". I know it's a forum, but let's not go overboard.


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 11, 2020)

SwissFrank said:


> Well let's see, far superior AF (can shoot 20/20 hits on the eye of a seagull flying against an urban background at 200/2.8. Can hit 20/20 on 50/1.2 on the eye of my 5yo running around within 3m, though granted you're talking about 2.8 trinity zooms.)
> 
> Then you have IS and IBIS.
> 
> If you haven't seen such an image, then perhaps you view exclusively images of photographers who work with slow subjects, such as landscape or something.


Show me an image that was taken this year that couldn’t have been taken, or wasn’t taken, last year.


----------



## Robolon (Dec 11, 2020)

bbasiaga said:


> So what do you think? Same price as the 28-70F2?
> 
> -Brian



Well, this would prabably be a lens I would get, regardless of the price (so long it isn't like 10.000€ or more).


----------



## Bennymiata (Dec 11, 2020)

Sounds nice, but I'll keep using my 24-240 for photographing my cats.


----------



## Darecinema (Dec 11, 2020)

privatebydesign said:


> Show me an image that was taken this year that couldn’t have been taken, or wasn’t taken, last year.


Hey PBD, I believe he is just saying that the system is allowing him to get more shots he gets paid for easier with the new system. I still have my 5D Mark IV and my EF 85 1.4 and I can tell you that it can be a real hassle to get tack sharp eyes when wide open and as the sun is falling below the horizon. I always take enough photos to ensure I get THE shot I need but it’s frustrating how many shots are off by a few millimeters, so his point of having far more keepers with Eye AF could definitely be a real differentiator.

anyways I don’t think the point is anything for us to get into a dispute over. Let’s be happy we have such amazing gear in this day and age and that new gear is making slightly older, but still incredible, gear more affordable for others as well! It’s a win win.

I certainly would like to have the new RFsystem as soon as I can afford it and it makes sense for my business, but in the meantime my EF system and L glass is continuing to make me money and I’m never planning on selling this glass as it will always work great as b-cam glass whenever I do the eventual upgrade to R and RF system.


----------



## rwvaughn (Dec 11, 2020)

mclaren777 said:


> 70-135mm f/2
> 
> Come on, Canon, make it happen!



I'd much rather see a 50-135mm f/2


----------



## tron (Dec 11, 2020)

I do like my 5DIV and L lenses but also got a R5 with the 2.8 trinity (well the 3rd one hasn't been shipped yet) to take advantage of IBIS and IS on the lenses which didn't have before (their EF counterparts). So My limit for 24-70 now Is 1/3 sec at 70mm which is huge for interior shooting (now if only I could go...  )


----------



## bbasiaga (Dec 11, 2020)

privatebydesign said:


> Show me an image that was taken this year that couldn’t have been taken, or wasn’t taken, last year.


Your point is technically correct. There is no image taken today that couldn't have been taken last year, or 10 years ago for that matter. Just watch one of those youtube videos where the pros do a portrait shoot with a cheap rig - in the end, the results look the same. 

The difference though is the PROBABILITY you'll get 'the shot', especially in dynamic scenarios, has gone up significantly with the newer cameras and lenses doing things faster, better and more accurately than they did in the past. 

I've never been upset with the performance of my 5D3. But I can say in the time I had access to an R6 it was quickly obvious that it was a far better camera for sports. Higher frame rate, subject tracking, eye AF...all combined to a keeper rate much higher than the 5D3. There were a lot of shots the 5D3 could have gotten, but the R6 actually got. 5D3 Is a great camera, and always will be. But as with anything else technology based it is being surpassed by time. 
-Brian


----------



## AccipiterQ (Dec 11, 2020)

This would be great...I have a 24-70 and a 70-200 but my use-case seems to always be between ~50 and 100 which means I need to bring two lenses or miss shots.


----------



## Wilfried Flitser (Dec 11, 2020)

R5 + 35-135 f/2,8 = dream combo


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 11, 2020)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Maybe infinitesimally small, yes, but I have no idea how one would measure that. Your guess is as good as mine.  I've never interviewed anyone as to their technical knowledge, so how the heck would I know what my neighbor does and does not know?


You can get a very good idea of peoples technical understand just in forums. Also I am a mentor at two camera clubs so speak to people about their photography knowledge more than most. I'd rate the number of people that understand the physics of what is going on as a tiny percentage of the people I speak to, even those that appear knowledgable invariably parrot some 'influencer' bullshit that doesn't actually make sense.


----------



## Mr Majestyk (Dec 12, 2020)

vjlex said:


> that would probably be an RF lens I would be interested in. right now, the RF trinity offerings aren't significantly better than my EF trinity.


At the large price premium and loss of ability to use TC's in the 70-200 f/2.8, worse overall IMO. Only trhe 24-70 f/2.8L IS interests me in the least.


----------



## Kiton (Dec 12, 2020)

Hyperion said:


> I like R5, but I also like 28mm lenses... and don’t have money for R5 (yet?). I actually almost sold everything, and now I stuck between options. Sony has nice 28mm and compact 35 1.4 is coming... but 35-135 2.8 is my dream zoom.
> Anyway, I need more money, so I have time to see what’s coming.



Like you, I like 28mm and really want a good 28 f2 prime.
I started the switch, had an A9, really did not love a few things about Sony, and really loved a few other things.
Much the same as with Canon.
What I dislike the most about Canon is the way the company is run!

If you shoot a lot of portraits, borrow or rent a Sony before going down that path!

I read brief post by an AP fotog in LA who said he overcame Sony's shitty skin tones by using Fuji profiles, but by the time I heard about this I had dumped Sony already so I have no idea how it works or how well it works. But judging by his studio and red carpet pix, he has it together!

Canon could own the market if they just were a bit better of a company to deal with!


----------



## Lucas Tingley (Dec 12, 2020)

where is our 24-105 f2.8!!


----------



## Exploreshootshare (Dec 13, 2020)

Wow, 
RF 35-135mm sounds very, very tempting. I love my 24-105mm as a walk-around/ always-on lens but at times I miss some range. Not often enough to justify buying an expensive 70-200mm or pack my 100-400mm as well, so a 35-135mm would be a dream, although I'd have to sell my 24-105mm.

When reading the comments here (and elsewhere) I have a hard time imaging Canon would actually make this lense because they´d cannibalise other lense sales such as 24-105mm/ 24-70mm/ 70-200mm and some primes. Sounds like they'd be risking a lot.


----------



## dilbert (Dec 13, 2020)

Darecinema said:


> Hey PBD, I believe he is just saying that the system is allowing him to get more shots he gets paid for easier with the new system. I still have my 5D Mark IV and my EF 85 1.4 and I can tell you that it can be a real hassle to get tack sharp eyes when wide open and as the sun is falling below the horizon. I always take enough photos to ensure I get THE shot I need but it’s frustrating how many shots are off by a few millimeters, so his point of having far more keepers with Eye AF could definitely be a real differentiator.



Or in other words, you're looking to the camera to make up for a lack of skill on your behalf. To some extent this will work but I'm glad I'm not the one paying you for your photography.

Sorry to be blunt, but that's how your comments read.


----------



## Fischer (Dec 13, 2020)

privatebydesign said:


> Not such a great idea when the comparative costs are actually given. You can get a 5D IV and 2.8 zoom trinity for peanuts compared to an R5 and 2.8 zoom trinity, and I haven’t seen a single image one could take and the other couldn’t.


Depends on your needs. Lots of shots available now that the AF of the 5DIV has no chance of delivering.


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 13, 2020)

Fischer said:


> Depends on your needs. Lots of shots available now that the AF of the 5DIV has no chance of delivering.


And are you able to point me to a single one?


----------



## Fischer (Dec 13, 2020)

privatebydesign said:


> And are you able to point me to a single one?


Easily. I take a lot of action shots and the AF of the 5DIV can’t always keep up with fast subjects movning towards you slightly missing sharp head/eye focus in around 50% of your shots, while the R5 - and even the R to some extent - can make track sharps head shots one after the other. (I have made controlled tests comparing the AF in exactly this situation - and it is also what several other testers have found).


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 14, 2020)

Fischer said:


> Easily. I take a lot of action shots and the AF of the 5DIV can’t always keep up with fast subjects movning towards you slightly missing sharp head/eye focus in around 50% of your shots, while the R5 - and even the R to some extent - can make track sharps head shots one after the other. (I have made controlled tests comparing the AF in exactly this situation - and it is also what several other testers have found).


And yet you fail to show one image that has been taken with an R5 that has not already been taken with another camera.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Dec 14, 2020)

usern4cr said:


> A 35-135 f2.8L lens would sell very well as a great high-IQ general purpose lens with full "portrait" zoom reach. Pair it with a 15-35 f4L(or f2.8L) and maybe 100-500 f4.5-7.1L and you'd have a great setup.


Many photojournalists have used an f2.8 x3 lens (and 3 camera) line up for years. A lot of press guys also lug about a 300mm f2.8 as a 4th lens too, but often that sits in the car boot, only taken out when they need it. 
Canon built a prototype of this lens type years ago, the problem was that it was as big as a 70-200 f2.8 and felt unnecessarily large for the zoom range when compared to a 24-70 which was already covering their 3 lens range. 
In my opinion, 35mm isn't really wide enough for versatile shooting, however mated to a 15-35 that's less of an issue. At the 135mm end, it's nice for portraiture and the extra reach over a 24-70 will make a nice "walk-about" lens. The short wide end at 35mm again makes it ideal for portraiture...no one wants to shoot unflattering 24/28mm portraits. So I'm guessing that this lens is intended for wedding photographers as a "most used" / centre piece lens. If it's got good MFD and magnification then yes...wedding work would be ideal.


----------



## Fischer (Dec 14, 2020)

privatebydesign said:


> And yet you fail to show one image that has been taken with an R5 that has not already been taken with another camera.


Suit yourself. I gave a very well known and documented example. No need to delve further into a futile argument.


----------



## SpaceGhost (Dec 14, 2020)

My "Dream Lens" is the RF 24-135 f2.8 L IS... so we're seemingly getting close. To be honest, I wish the RF 24-105 f4L IS had a 2.8 variant. I guess that means my dream lens is not seemingly close.


----------



## Lucas Tingley (Dec 15, 2020)

Exploreshootshare said:


> Wow,
> RF 35-135mm sounds very, very tempting. I love my 24-105mm as a walk-around/ always-on lens but at times I miss some range. Not often enough to justify buying an expensive 70-200mm or pack my 100-400mm as well, so a 35-135mm would be a dream, although I'd have to sell my 24-105mm.
> 
> When reading the comments here (and elsewhere) I have a hard time imaging Canon would actually make this lense because they´d cannibalise other lense sales such as 24-105mm/ 24-70mm/ 70-200mm and some primes. Sounds like they'd be risking a lot.


maybe 28-100mm f2.8

and also the 24-105 f4 could be like the EF 16-35 f4, a budget version

My only problem with a 35-135 is it doesn't go wide enough for me to use it as my standard zoom.

I cant pay for it anyway so it doesn't matter.


----------



## Ph0t0 (Dec 15, 2020)

privatebydesign said:


> Not such a great idea when the comparative costs are actually given. You can get a 5D IV and 2.8 zoom trinity for peanuts compared to an R5 and 2.8 zoom trinity, and I haven’t seen a single image one could take and the other couldn’t.
> 
> Are you a tech head or a photographer is more to the point, tech heads will always be seduced by the newest shiniest toy, photographers will take pictures with whatever they can afford (or borrow).


 You haven't seen a photo that one could take and the other couldn't? 
Well I'm more of a photographer then a tech head and I can say that Canon mirrorless cameras have definitly helped me to take a lot of photos that I couldn't take with their DSLR cameras. I do a lot of photo shoots with models and with canon Eye focus it is a lot easier to shoot. I can concentrate on composition and the camera will find the eye. Auto focus is also more reliable with mirrorless. I basically don't have any shots with missed focus. I don't have the need for constant chimping and I don't have to retake shots. Which is a big deal because when I'm working on commercial shoots we always have a time limit . So lately I usually end up with 2x to 4x more keepers than I did when I was shooting with 5D IV and 5dsr. 
IBIS also makes a big difference when shooting in low light. 

Eye AF is also very usefull when shooting wildlife (especially with nice landscape in the background) when the subject is moving and I don't have to struggle with AF points and recomposing the shot. The camera finds the eye very fast. 
Also shooting moving subjects with manual focus lenses is a lot easier with focus peaking and magnification in the view finder.
As well as working with tilt and shift lenses. 

True I don't see any real advantages when shooting landscapes or architecture from a tripod... but otherwise Eye focus and focus peaking in EVF and IBIS it definitely helped me to capture a lot of shots that I would have missed entirely when working with a DSLR and then it also helped me capture shots that would have been unsharp, sharp at wrong places or too noisy.


----------



## privatebydesign (Dec 15, 2020)

Ph0t0 said:


> You haven't seen a photo that one could take and the other couldn't?
> Well I'm more of a photographer then a tech head and I can say that Canon mirrorless cameras have definitly helped me to take a lot of photos that I couldn't take with their DSLR cameras. I do a lot of photo shoots with models and with canon Eye focus it is a lot easier to shoot. I can concentrate on composition and the camera will find the eye. Auto focus is also more reliable with mirrorless. I basically don't have any shots with missed focus. I don't have the need for constant chimping and I don't have to retake shots. Which is a big deal because when I'm working on commercial shoots we always have a time limit . So lately I usually end up with 2x to 4x more keepers than I did when I was shooting with 5D IV and 5dsr.
> IBIS also makes a big difference when shooting in low light.
> 
> ...


I don't know if you and a few others are being intentionally obtuse but you are certainly misrepresenting or misunderstanding what I am getting at. What I am saying is new photographers or those thinking they need to upgrade but don't necessarily have the money to should not feel left out, yes in some situations some people might get more keepers with newer AF (and I have been very open about saying that already) but that doesn't mean you *need* to buy the latest and greatest because there is not one single image that has been taken with an R5 that hasn't been taken before with much more modest equipment.

Or, nobody should let their inability to pay over $11,000 for a body and three 2.8 zooms limit your creativity their because MILC are the 'thing' at the moment.


----------



## Joules (Dec 15, 2020)

privatebydesign said:


> there is not one single image that has been taken with an R5 that hasn't been taken before with much more modest equipment.
> 
> Or, nobody should let their inability to pay over $11,000 for a body and three 2.8 zooms limit your creativity their because MILC are the 'thing' at the moment.


Maybe you could make your claim a little less absolute and less people would take issue with it.

You make a 'for all' statement, and since of course the R5 has the highest dynamic range of any current FF camera, your statement is flat out wrong as nobody will have taken a 45 MP image with 11.85 stops of PDR in a single shot with more modest equipment.

I know that is entirely not what you are claiming though! But the way you phrase it gives the appearance of belittling the improvement people see in their own experiences with the R5.

Or maybe you have to explain better what it means for an image to not be 'take-able'. With a lower framerates, the odds of getting the most desired image in a fast action sequence drop. So, for this most desired image to be taken, luck is required. So it absolutely is possible to take that image, just not as likely as with a higher framerate body.

Similarly, better AF and better lenses give the modern RF system bodies and edge in probability compared to older gear. Comparing a 5D IV with the EF 50 mm 1.2 vs R5 with the RF 50 mm 1.2 for example, it is probably possible to get a sharp image from a moving subject with the EF combination, but it is less likely than with the RF.

Which is what you are saying by acknowledging the keeper rate. I think here it simply comes down to how you define being able to take an image differently than others. If the R5 produces more keepers than an older model, that necessarily has to mean the older model was unable to take as many pictures that qualify as worthy pictures. So the older one was unable to take some.

I think what you really are asking for is a new type of photography that was not just made easier through newer gear, but straight up made possible, right? One may argue that hand held long exposure photography is maybe an example for this, but even here you could always get lucky with in-lens IS only in the past and get nicely blurred waterfalls or light trails with a wide angle lens hand held.

I don't think you'll find many people claiming that newer bodies pave the road to types of photography that were impossible to capture previously.


----------



## SteveC (Dec 15, 2020)

I'm going to be a complete smart-aleck and point out that without the R5 I'd have been unable to take full frame pictures at all.  

Of course my subsequent purchase of a dirt-cheap refurb RP would have helped out...eventually.


----------



## Darecinema (Dec 15, 2020)

dilbert said:


> Or in other words, you're looking to the camera to make up for a lack of skill on your behalf. To some extent this will work but I'm glad I'm not the one paying you for your photography.
> 
> Sorry to be blunt, but that's how your comments read.


Actually you aren’t being blunt, just arrogant


----------



## Darecinema (Dec 15, 2020)

dilbert said:


> Or in other words, you're looking to the camera to make up for a lack of skill on your behalf. To some extent this will work but I'm glad I'm not the one paying you for your photography.
> 
> Sorry to be blunt, but that's how your comments read.


Also, I’m really glad you aren’t the one paying me as well so we can both agree on that. You sound like a pantry full of sweet cakes to work with.
My entire point was that new technology enables photographers to work faster and get more complicated shots in different lighting conditions and environments, how you construed that into me being a poor photographer is rude, insulting and poor manners. Please avoid ad hominem attacks in the future, it would be appreciated and conducive to constructive conversations.


----------



## Ph0t0 (Dec 15, 2020)

privatebydesign said:


> I don't know if you and a few others are being intentionally obtuse but you are certainly misrepresenting or misunderstanding what I am getting at. What I am saying is new photographers or those thinking they need to upgrade but don't necessarily have the money to should not feel left out, yes in some situations some people might get more keepers with newer AF (and I have been very open about saying that already) but that doesn't mean you *need* to buy the latest and greatest because there is not one single image that has been taken with an R5 that hasn't been taken before with much more modest equipment.
> 
> Or, nobody should let their inability to pay over $11,000 for a body and three 2.8 zooms limit your creativity their because MILC are the 'thing' at the moment.



Yeah I really really doubt that people are just quitting photography because they can't spring 11.000 for a brand new kit all at once.
I think you would have to be intentionally obtuse to think that others are saying "Go in 11.000 or go home". And that is not was I was saying either.
In the end everyone has a budget and we all have to work within that and make compromises. 

But there are many scenarios where the new cameras can be useful, and if people are thinking about upgrading their systems because I would say that R5 is a worthwhile upgrade
If someone is a new photographer interested in portraiture, fashion, reportage and can invest a few more buck into a mirrorless system, then I would also say: Go for it, you won't regret it. It will likely help you speed up the process and get more keepers - especially in difficult circumstances.

Also this statement "there is not one single image that has been taken with an R5 that hasn't been taken before with much more modest equipment" is just laughable.
Like I said: I get 2x-3x time more keepers, because of the faster workflow, the IBIS really helps keep the ISO down in low light situations, AF is spot on and wifi transfer is also improved so it is easier for an assistant to preview images on location. So yeah I end up with a lot of good images that get used by my clients that I didn't/wouldn't get with my older gear. 
And sure you can make an argument that I could have taken most of the images I take now even with a old AE-1. But one thing is theory the other thing is working on location and under pressure with limited time. And while I can look at individual shots and say: Yeah I could have done that with AE-1, the reality is just that I had many misses and fails when working with that camera and that I was nowhere as productive as I am today with better gear. And there were plenty of shots that got away because I was to slow with setting up my gear.


----------



## Lucas Tingley (Dec 15, 2020)

dilbert said:


> Or in other words, you're looking to the camera to make up for a lack of skill on your behalf. To some extent this will work but I'm glad I'm not the one paying you for your photography.
> 
> Sorry to be blunt, but that's how your comments read.



Or thats the way you interpret it. and tell me, what lenses are you using with your CANON EOS M50 that gives you the right to be rude to him. I'm sure he is a great photographer, and cheers to his success!


----------



## TAF (Dec 16, 2020)

SpaceGhost said:


> My "Dream Lens" is the RF 24-135 f2.8 L IS... so we're seemingly getting close. To be honest, I wish the RF 24-105 f4L IS had a 2.8 variant. I guess that means my dream lens is not seemingly close.



I’ll second that!


----------



## Lucas Tingley (Dec 16, 2020)

SpaceGhost said:


> My "Dream Lens" is the RF 24-135 f2.8 L IS... so we're seemingly getting close. To be honest, I wish the RF 24-105 f4L IS had a 2.8 variant. I guess that means my dream lens is not seemingly close.


 
just make it huge, and its possible


----------



## SimonH (Dec 16, 2020)

I’d buy this Lens


----------



## Joules (Dec 16, 2020)

Lucas Tingley said:


> Or thats the way you interpret it. and tell me, what lenses are you using with your CANON EOS M50 that gives you the right to be rude to him. I'm sure he is a great photographer, and cheers to his success!


The camera displayed under a user's name is not the equipment they use, but an indication of how many posts they have. You automatically get assigned a better camera the more you post.


----------



## SteveC (Dec 16, 2020)

Joules said:


> The camera displayed under a user's name is not the equipment they use, but an indication of how many posts they have. You automatically get assigned a better camera the more you post.



You can also change it yourself (I did). Right click on your name on the banner at the top of the window, open in new tab, and on that tab, right below the picture of your avatar is "Custom Title." Change it.


----------



## Lucas Tingley (Dec 16, 2020)

Joules said:


> The camera displayed under a user's name is not the equipment they use, but an indication of how many posts they have. You automatically get assigned a better camera the more you post.


my bad

im a freshmen in high school, what do i know


----------



## SilverBox (Dec 17, 2020)

This would be an ideal lens for me for shooting live events, throw a 20mm on a second body and you've got most of your bases covered!


----------



## Bdbtoys (Dec 18, 2020)

SteveC said:


> You can also change it yourself (I did). Right click on your name on the banner at the top of the window, open in new tab, and on that tab, right below the picture of your avatar is "Custom Title." Change it.



Although, I think you can only do that if you have x-number of posts. Speaking of which, I should ditch this automated RP title.


----------



## dilbert (Dec 19, 2020)

Darecinema said:


> My entire point was that new technology enables photographers to work faster and get more complicated shots in different lighting conditions and environments, how you construed that into me being a poor photographer is rude, insulting and poor manners.



See other posts along the lines of "Show me a photo that hasn't been taken before." See also other posts that post about "the limit on the quality of the photo is the photographer, not the camera."


----------



## Lucas Tingley (Dec 19, 2020)

Bdbtoys said:


> Although, I think you can only do that if you have x-number of posts. Speaking of which, I should ditch this automated RP title.


i changed mine on the first day i signed on, when i had 5 posts

thats why i though that was the actual thing he owned


----------

