# Canon RF 85mm f/1.2L DS USM, RF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM and other accessories will be announced soon



## Canon Rumors Guy (Oct 8, 2019)

> It looks like Canon is on track to have both the RF 85mm f/1.2L DS USM and RF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM lenses ship before the end of the year.
> *These are the next products to be announced by Canon:*
> 
> Canon RF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM
> ...



Continue reading...


----------



## H. Jones (Oct 8, 2019)

The RF 70-200 can't come fast enough. At work we use shoulder bags, and the EF 70-200 just barely fits in upright. The RF will be the perfect size and it'll be so convenient to have a 24-70 sized 70-200.


----------



## fabao (Oct 8, 2019)

And yet, I have not seen anywhere how you will zoom on this new 70-200. Perhaps you will do it by extending the lens, but I found it intriguing that people who were able to handle this new lens were not able to demonstrate this.


----------



## RobbieHat (Oct 8, 2019)

Will love that 70-200 lens if it is smaller and internal zoom like current 70-200. Don’t want an extending zoom as they are magnets for dust and sand in landscape (especially dunes).


----------



## Tom W (Oct 8, 2019)

It'll be very interesting to see how they both perform. I would suspect that the 70-200 RF will perform much like its EF brother, which is to say excellent. The 85 also, though I want to see how that DS feature performs.


----------



## flip314 (Oct 8, 2019)

fabao said:


> And yet, I have not seen anywhere how you will zoom on this new 70-200. Perhaps you will do it by extending the lens, but I found it intriguing that people who were able to handle this new lens were not able to demonstrate this.



You can see the zoom lock switch in a lot of the photos, and ephotozine.com has already confirmed it is an extending design (see the remark from the editor in the comments section).


----------



## bryston (Oct 8, 2019)

RobbieHat said:


> Will love that 70-200 lens if it is smaller and internal zoom like current 70-200. Don’t want an extending zoom as they are magnets for dust and sand in landscape (especially dunes).



This will be internal focus, all pro 70-200 2.8 even from Nikon are IF lenses.


----------



## LensFungus (Oct 8, 2019)

The RF 70-200mm extends... my poverty.


----------



## flip314 (Oct 8, 2019)

bryston said:


> This will be internal focus, all pro 70-200 2.8 even from Nikon are IF lenses.



Do you have a source for this? I have seen absolutely no evidence that it is internal focus, and quite compelling evidence to the contrary.


----------



## H. Jones (Oct 8, 2019)

flip314 said:


> Do you have a source for this? I have seen absolutely no evidence that it is internal focus, and quite compelling evidence to the contrary.


Internal focus, not internal zoom. The zoom is external, the focus is internal. Very, very few L lenses externally focus, besides maybe the EF 85mm f/1.2.


----------



## Adelino (Oct 8, 2019)

I wish my wife could afford either lens as a Christmas gift for me.


----------



## Ozarker (Oct 8, 2019)

I'm gonna wait it out. Still dreaming of an RF 70-135mm f/2L zoom to match the RF 28-70mm f/2L.


----------



## Joepatbob (Oct 8, 2019)

My wallet is not prepared.


----------



## Ozarker (Oct 8, 2019)

Adelino said:


> I wish my wife could afford either lens as a Christmas gift for me.


Cut her off unless she pays for it.


----------



## Ozarker (Oct 8, 2019)

Tom W said:


> It'll be very interesting to see how they both perform. I would suspect that the 70-200 RF will perform much like its EF brother, which is to say excellent. The 85 also, though I want to see how that DS feature performs.


Be aware that the DS feature cannot be turned off and is effective at wide apertures only. DS is accomplished by adding a specially coated element to the glass already in the lens, so you lose about 1 stop.


----------



## [email protected] (Oct 8, 2019)

This is looking good Canon.


----------



## wockawocka (Oct 8, 2019)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Be aware that the DS feature cannot be turned off and is effective at wide apertures only. DS is accomplished by adding a specially coated element to the glass already in the lens, so you lose about 1 stop.



Has this fact been officially put out there by Canon? Just that it was something I was wondering about.


----------



## SecureGSM (Oct 8, 2019)

RobbieHat said:


> Will love that 70-200 lens if it is smaller and internal zoom like current 70-200. Don’t want an extending zoom as they are magnets for dust and sand in landscape (especially dunes).


1. It is an extending design
2. Canon 100-400 II L is an extending design but sealed pretty well, does not suffer from dust ingress, same with 24-70/2.8 II


----------



## gbc (Oct 8, 2019)

fabao said:


> And yet, I have not seen anywhere how you will zoom on this new 70-200. Perhaps you will do it by extending the lens, but I found it intriguing that people who were able to handle this new lens were not able to demonstrate this.


Have there actually been any hands-on reviews of this? Every "preview" of this lens I've seen noted that they just had the spec list and that the physical object they saw was a non-functioning mockup.


----------



## Ozarker (Oct 8, 2019)

wockawocka said:


> Has this fact been officially put out there by Canon? Just that it was something I was wondering about.


Yes. I f you go to their website, Rudy does a demonstration. It is actually 1.5 stops light transmission difference. I personally did not find the difference between the two to make a difference to me. In other words, I am happy with what I have. I won't be missing anything.


https://www.usa.canon.com/internet/...RF-85mm-F12-L-USM-vs-the-RF-86mm-F12-L-USM-DS


----------



## flip314 (Oct 8, 2019)

H. Jones said:


> Internal focus, not internal zoom. The zoom is external, the focus is internal. Very, very few L lenses externally focus, besides maybe the EF 85mm f/1.2.



Er, yes. Typo on my part, though the person I was replying to clearly meant internal zoom as well.


----------



## RPF (Oct 8, 2019)

fabao said:


> And yet, I have not seen anywhere how you will zoom on this new 70-200. Perhaps you will do it by extending the lens, but I found it intriguing that people who were able to handle this new lens were not able to demonstrate this.


Maybe the using condition is limited to release. Inner zooming impossible, a 160mm length optical system cannot provide well-corrected 200mm F/2.8 FF lens.


----------



## RPF (Oct 8, 2019)

flip314 said:


> Do you have a source for this? I have seen absolutely no evidence that it is internal focus, and quite compelling evidence to the contrary.


Newly released patent US2019302404A shows inner focus and extended zooming. Two individual lens groups move for focusing.


----------



## Michael Clark (Oct 9, 2019)

fabao said:


> And yet, I have not seen anywhere how you will zoom on this new 70-200. Perhaps you will do it by extending the lens, but I found it intriguing that people who were able to handle this new lens were not able to demonstrate this.





RobbieHat said:


> Will love that 70-200 lens if it is smaller and internal zoom like current 70-200. Don’t want an extending zoom as they are magnets for dust and sand in landscape (especially dunes).



A cursory look at the patent shows that it will be an extending zoom, internal focus lens.


----------



## dominic_siu (Oct 9, 2019)

I have been waiting for RF70-200 for long time, hope to get it soon


----------



## Berowne (Oct 9, 2019)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Yes. I f you go to there website, Rudy does a demonstration. It is actually 1.5 stops light transmission difference. I personally did not find the difference between the two to make a difference to me. In other words, I am happy with what I have. I won't be missing anything.
> 
> 
> https://www.usa.canon.com/internet/...RF-85mm-F12-L-USM-vs-the-RF-86mm-F12-L-USM-DS



Only one photo taken with the DS-Lens. Does the background realy look better with DS?


----------



## Ozarker (Oct 9, 2019)

Berowne said:


> Only one photo taken with the DS-Lens. Does the background realy look better with DS?


To me, no.


----------



## twoheadedboy (Oct 9, 2019)

Can't do the 70 - 200 until there are RF 1.4 and 2.0 teleconverters.


----------



## vjlex (Oct 9, 2019)

Waiting for the price to help me decide whether to go with the EF III or RF. Downside to RF, I won't be able to use it on my 5DIV. For some reason, this is my most anticipated lens... and I don't even own an R yet.


----------



## shawn (Oct 9, 2019)

Buying this 70-200 and unfortunately selling my Tamron 70-200 G2 which does not function very well on the EOS R. It is usable but has some annoying bugs, like jittery viewfinder and occasional super slow focusing in servo mode. It also tends to hunt for focus in low light & low contrast scenes though I have noticed that with many lenses on the R.


----------



## navastronia (Oct 9, 2019)

Berowne said:


> Only one photo taken with the DS-Lens. Does the background realy look better with DS?



I think "better" is subjective. Personally, I prefer the look of the regular edition.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Oct 9, 2019)

Berowne said:


> Only one photo taken with the DS-Lens. Does the background realy look better with DS?


To me the example photo has a much nicer background, out of focus highlites are rounder softer, and colors are muted rather than cat eye, the face has more depth of field. This caused one objectionable highlite on the model's left side, the others look better. The face looks more evenly illuminated, likely due to the greater depth of field. When you compare the two images there are a ton of tiny things that render differently, but the main effect is that the model seems to pop out with more separation from the background, and the background is smoother and muted.

If I were doing 95% portraits, I'd get the DS based on that photo, but we need to see more first.


----------



## vjlex (Oct 9, 2019)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Yes. I f you go to there website, Rudy does a demonstration. It is actually 1.5 stops light transmission difference. I personally did not find the difference between the two to make a difference to me. In other words, I am happy with what I have. I won't be missing anything.
> 
> 
> https://www.usa.canon.com/internet/...RF-85mm-F12-L-USM-vs-the-RF-86mm-F12-L-USM-DS



Does this mean the DS version is effectively an f1.8?? That doesn't sound like a very good trade-off to me. Not at an f1.2 price.


----------



## RayValdez360 (Oct 9, 2019)

The 85 DS is just like the Sony 100mm STM. Read up on it to find out what to expect from the Canon. The Sony is a 2.8 but since it is STM it let's in the same light as if it was 5.6 I think. It makes the Bokeh look different, SOme peopel dont like it , some people do. If you do portraits and you want a different look and the smoothest backgrounds get it if you can afford to sacrifice 1.5 stops.


----------



## mb66energy (Oct 9, 2019)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> To me the example photo has a much nicer background, out of focus highlites are rounder softer, and colors are muted rather than cat eye, the face has more depth of field. This caused one objectionable highlite on the model's left side, the others look better. The face looks more evenly illuminated, likely due to the greater depth of field. When you compare the two images there are a ton of tiny things that render differently, but the main effect is that the model seems to pop out with more separation from the background, and the background is smoother and muted.
> 
> If I were doing 95% portraits, I'd get the DS based on that photo, but we need to see more first.



I see some differences too, especially the much smoother bokeh and the rounder bokeh balls.

But I think the image of the DS version is
(1) a little bit brighter e.g. the bokeh ball centers and the beige cardigan (hopefully the right term)
(1a) or contrast is higher (maybe during post processing?)
(2) focus is at higher distance compared to the non-DS photo (maybe eye focus, face is a little bit smaller - more distance)
(3) the woman turned her face a little bit to the right side (relative to camera view) and lighting is slightly more modelling - more visual contrast.

So it would have been better to use a more static object as main subject to enhance comparability.

But I share your conclusion: For portraiture the DS avoids the "sharp" bokeh balls which might draw to much attention and shift the focus away from the person on the image!


----------



## Berowne (Oct 9, 2019)

How can this be?

*Depth-of-field is rendered differently*
_At wider lens apertures where the Defocus Smoothing effect is visible, for technical reasons, depth-of-field will appear deeper in shots taken with the DS lens, vs. identical shots taken with the RF 85mm F1.2 L USM lens. _

At the same focal length, Depth-of-field is dependend only on aperture.


----------



## mb66energy (Oct 9, 2019)

shunsai said:


> Does this mean the DS version is effectively an f1.8?? That doesn't sound like a very good trade-off to me. Not at an f1.2 price.



I think there are two answers:
(1) Bokeh wise it is more an f/1.2 lens because the aperture is 1.2 but apodization elements work like a gray filter with a clear center and increasing "grayness" to the edge of the filter.
(2) Exposure wise it is (if it has 1.5 stops transmission) more a f/1.4...1.8 lens because the mentioned gray filter absorbs light and you have to crank up the exposure a little bit.

For ultimate low light capabilty the non-DS version ist the better one IMO.


----------



## mb66energy (Oct 9, 2019)

Berowne said:


> How can this be?
> 
> *Depth-of-field is rendered differently*
> _At wider lens apertures where the Defocus Smoothing effect is visible, for technical reasons, depth-of-field will appear deeper in shots taken with the DS lens, vs. identical shots taken with the RF 85mm F1.2 L USM lens. _
> ...



Think of an aperture which is not a straight circle but made from a radially symmetric graduated gray filter - clear in the center, -2 stops on the outside. Light passing through the outer "large aperture region" is muted by the filter and hence it has a smaller effect on the final image. The center portion going through the clear part of the filter has more effect.
The combined effect is a little bit more DOF but the focus transition zones are smoother.

An example of such a filter with 25mm diameter @ 600 USD - so the DS lens is maybe cheaper than buying a similar filter of the right diameter for the non-DS lens while having it on the wrong place 





25mm OD1.0 Radially Variable ND Filter - [email protected] Density Filters-Optical Filters-Singapore Optics Shop


25mm OD1.0 Radially Variable ND Filter - [email protected],Neutral Density Filters,Optical Filters,Singapore Optics Shop



www.optics.sg


----------



## alejandrobox (Oct 9, 2019)

That lenses are excellent, like all the others RF lenses. But... When will release Canon a Eos R "Pro" with IBIS stabilization, 2 SD slots and 4K without crop????!!!!!????!!!!! That´s what every profesional photographer that I know are waiting for. And, by the way... what about a RF 35 mm 1.4 lens????????? 35mm is "The" lens. Come on Canon!!


----------



## navastronia (Oct 9, 2019)

alejandrobox said:


> That lenses are excellent, like all the others RF lenses. But... When will release Canon a Eos R "Pro" with IBIS stabilization, 2 SD slots and 4K without crop????!!!!!????!!!!! That´s what every profesional photographer that I know are waiting for. And, by the way... what about a RF 35 mm 1.4 lens????????? 35mm is "The" lens. Come on Canon!!



According to some rumors, we may actually get a 35/1.2


----------



## ozturert (Oct 9, 2019)

Announcing a lens hood... Interesting...


----------



## Viggo (Oct 9, 2019)

Berowne said:


> Only one photo taken with the DS-Lens. Does the background realy look better with DS?


A very important question. And to me, not at all. I like more blur, not better blur with less blur. And, I don’t know a lot about this, never had the interest, but how can it be a 1.2, when it’s not?


----------



## BurningPlatform (Oct 9, 2019)

Viggo said:


> ... And, I don’t know a lot about this, never had the interest, but how can it be a 1.2, when it’s not?



It is still 1.2, as the physical aperture is the same size as in the regular version. T-value, on the other hand, is another thing, as the transmittance is decreased "_up to 1.5 stops_,"


----------



## akiskev (Oct 9, 2019)

Exellent news. Hopefully the RF will make EF 70-200 2.8 more affordable.


----------



## YuengLinger (Oct 9, 2019)

H. Jones said:


> The RF 70-200 can't come fast enough. At work we use shoulder bags, and the EF 70-200 just barely fits in upright. The RF will be the perfect size and it'll be so convenient to have a 24-70 sized 70-200.


Not when we get mist or, especially, grit, on the zoom barrel. No thanks!


----------



## wockawocka (Oct 9, 2019)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Yes. I f you go to there website, Rudy does a demonstration. It is actually 1.5 stops light transmission difference. I personally did not find the difference between the two to make a difference to me. In other words, I am happy with what I have. I won't be missing anything.
> 
> 
> https://www.usa.canon.com/internet/...RF-85mm-F12-L-USM-vs-the-RF-86mm-F12-L-USM-DS



Thankoooooooo


----------



## Ozarker (Oct 9, 2019)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> To me the example photo has a much nicer background, out of focus highlites are rounder softer, and colors are muted rather than cat eye, the face has more depth of field. This caused one objectionable highlite on the model's left side, the others look better. The face looks more evenly illuminated, likely due to the greater depth of field. When you compare the two images there are a ton of tiny things that render differently, but the main effect is that the model seems to pop out with more separation from the background, and the background is smoother and muted.
> 
> If I were doing 95% portraits, I'd get the DS based on that photo, but we need to see more first.


You are right. The background is more subdued. One could say smoother. I'm wondering what the price difference will be? The real question for me is how it renders the backgrounds where no bokeh balls are present. The lens will probably be one of those rarities people will be seeking in 50 years.


----------



## koenkooi (Oct 9, 2019)

CanonFanBoy said:


> You are right. The background is more subdued. One could say smoother. I'm wondering what the price difference will be? The real question for me is how it renders the backgrounds where no bokeh balls are present. The lens will probably be one of those rarities people will be seeking in 50 years.



You can see some side by side examples here. And ways to fake it. I hope the local rental place will get one so I can try it myself


----------



## SteveC (Oct 9, 2019)

ozturert said:


> Announcing a lens hood... Interesting...



If I recall correctly they did patent some sort of collapsible lens hood that doubled as a lens cap when collapsed.


----------



## scyrene (Oct 9, 2019)

alejandrobox said:


> That lenses are excellent, like all the others RF lenses. But... When will release Canon a Eos R "Pro" with IBIS stabilization, 2 SD slots and 4K without crop????!!!!!????!!!!! That´s what every profesional photographer that I know are waiting for. And, by the way... what about a RF 35 mm 1.4 lens????????? 35mm is "The" lens. Come on Canon!!



You can't know many professionals then, I doubt very much they're *all* bothered about this. And it's a bit tiresome that every time anything else is announced, people pop up saying the same thing. Patience - Rome wasn't built in a day! The RF system is only just over a year old!


----------



## chrysoberyl (Oct 9, 2019)

YuengLinger said:


> Not when we get mist or, especially, grit, on the zoom barrel. No thanks!



Or just humidity which may condense later. And dust - that was a problem for the 'sealed' Milvus 100.

This lens is not for me.


----------



## Berowne (Oct 9, 2019)

mb66energy said:


> Think of an aperture which is not a straight circle but made from a radially symmetric graduated gray filter - clear in the center, -2 stops on the outside. Light passing through the outer "large aperture region" is muted by the filter and hence it has a smaller effect on the final image. The center portion going through the clear part of the filter has more effect.
> The combined effect is a little bit more DOF but the focus transition zones are smoother.
> 
> An example of such a filter with 25mm diameter @ 600 USD - so the DS lens is maybe cheaper than buying a similar filter of the right diameter for the non-DS lens while having it on the wrong place
> ...



Thanks for the explanation, I can imagine it. This filter may in some way function like an aperture. But is not the DS element _a radially symmetric graduated gray filter _which is not clear in the center, but rather dark in the center? And would a radially Variable ND Filter with a clear center not work like an aperture, producing an image similar to one stopped down, which means with a less pronounced bokeh?


----------



## Kit Lens Jockey (Oct 9, 2019)

I was curious about the 85 DS lens until I saw a little while ago that the coatings cause it to lose 1.5 stops of light transmittance. I'll never own this lens over the non-DS version because of this. A slightly nicer background absolutely isn't worth 1.5 stops of light to me. I'm surprised they even bothered making this lens for the few who will probably choose it over the normal version. But, good on them I guess.

Also really not interested in the extending 70-200. My 70-200 f2.8 II is a tank and works great on the R.


----------



## wockawocka (Oct 9, 2019)

alejandrobox said:


> And, by the way... what about a RF 35 mm 1.4 lens????????? 35mm is "The" lens. Come on Canon!!



TBH, the EF 35mm 1.4 mkii going to be hard to beat. It's cheaper and lighter to use that.


----------



## Kit Lens Jockey (Oct 9, 2019)

alejandrobox said:


> what about a RF 35 mm 1.4 lens????????? 35mm is "The" lens. Come on Canon!!


I'm sorry, you're mistaken. 50mm is "the" lens, and they've already released a good one of those.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Oct 9, 2019)

alejandrobox said:


> That lenses are excellent, like all the others RF lenses. But... When will release Canon a Eos R "Pro" with IBIS stabilization, 2 SD slots and 4K without crop????!!!!!????!!!!! That´s what every profesional photographer that I know are waiting for. And, by the way... what about a RF 35 mm 1.4 lens????????? 35mm is "The" lens. Come on Canon!!



They launched 10 amazing lenses in a year. I'm sure 24 and 35mm L lenses are also in development, just like a 100-400.
They cannot launch 50 lenses in a year, patience. In the meantime the EF 35mm works perfectly and it's quite amazing.


----------



## mb66energy (Oct 9, 2019)

Berowne said:


> Thanks for the explanation, I can imagine it. This filter may in some way function like an aperture. But is not the DS element _a radially symmetric graduated gray filter _which is not clear in the center, but rather dark in the center? And would a radially Variable ND Filter with a clear center not work like an aperture, producing an image similar to one stopped down, which means with a less pronounced bokeh?



EDIT Just read your question again: If you look at the sample images (link some posts above) you see that the DS lens makes smaller bokeh balls, but with a nicer (= missing) outline. /EDIT

The apodization filter works like an aperture but with a gradient - not a hard transition between 100% transmission and 0% transmission like a standard aperture. Usually bokeh balls are images from the aperture - at f/8 you can see very often the number of blades, wide open you see the aperture defined by the smallest "hole" in the light path. The apotization filter close to the aperture blades makes a soft transition of clear in the center to dark in the outside and the bokeh balls reflect (not optically) the softer transition from the bright center to the dimmed outer regions.

Another argument for "clear in the center" is the fact that stopped down the DS lens works like the non-DS lens. Here you use only the clear part of the "filter" hence there is no difference to other lenses.

If you want to experiment a little bit cut out a star shaped hole with the outer diameter of a bright short tele lens and put it on the lens front. Wide open you will see a star shaped bokeh, stopping down the effect is vanishing because the effective aperture is inside the star shaped hole. And if you do not like to bother with a star shape, use a flat rectangle to make rectangularish bokeh "balls" ... 

Here an example (I am trying to avoid some work I do not like to much ...

The pattern to hold in front of a lens (in my case the EF-M 32, f2/100mm would be better, diameter of the hole (external) ca. 20mm)




Now @ MFD & f/1.4 - star shaped bokeh "balls" - if I had opened the lens and put the paper in the aperture plane the outer stars wouldn't be so crippled, but I like that lens and disassembling is much easier than assembling 
The lowest "star-circle" bokeh structure ist partly limited by the star in front of the lens, partly by the builtin aperture)



And last image MFD and f/8 or f/11 (now DOF is so deep that you can see the pattern in front of the lens but the stars have vanished from the LEDs but you can see the 7-blade-heptagon (o.k. if you look with the knowledge that the EF-M has 7 pblades) on some "bokeh balls"


----------



## YuengLinger (Oct 9, 2019)

scyrene said:


> You can't know many professionals then, I doubt very much they're *all* bothered about this. And it's a bit tiresome that every time anything else is announced, people pop up saying the same thing. Patience - Rome wasn't built in a day! The RF system is only just over a year old!



Right, Scyrene. I've been reading about the crisis of a single card slot for months now, and hearing about it in youtube vids. I do prefer that second slot, JUST IN CASE. *But worrying about losing one card worth of shots out of thousands of cards full of shots means giving up ALL shots that COULD be taken with RF primes. Talk about a no-brainer choice!*

Yes, I understand that there are portions of weddings that must be captured and preserved to get paid and reduce lawsuits and ill will. Yes. But there are other parts of weddings that the best RF prime lenses can capture better than anything else available right now, parts that will not void contracts, etc. As said, details. Spontaneous portraits of groom, bride, and their key friends and family. Sure, it would be heartbreaking to lose, in that one out of a 1000 weddings, some of those beautiful extra shots, but not devastating. In fact, in the heat of the event, few members of the weddings would even remember being photographed in moments that were not directly related to the key narrative.

And for really careful photographers who do want to use these incredible primes right now, use 16GB SD cards and change 'em out more often. Or maybe 32GB is a better balance.

Point is, serious, results oriented photographers are going to grumble about the current limit of a single card slot, but I do know top notch wedding photographers who aren't giving up the creative and quality advantages of the RF primes just because of an extremely rare card failure issue. Phew, all the things to worry about? Physical damage to cameras, or theft, or, heaven forbid, accidents on the way to a venue or on the way home...Please. I think we are hearing the gnashing teeth of keyboard bound photographers who obsess over specs and features rather than get out and take photos.

And we might be hearing from those poor souls who believe that waiting until Canon produces a two-slot camera--holding out, withholding funds--is a way of speaking truth to power, of scolding those corporate scrooges. Fine. More power to you, honey. Leave the rf primes to those of us who say, "Damn the torpedoes!"

Just my opinions!


----------



## alejandrobox (Oct 9, 2019)

scyrene said:


> You can't know many professionals then, I doubt very much they're *all* bothered about this. And it's a bit tiresome that every time anything else is announced, people pop up saying the same thing. Patience - Rome wasn't built in a day! The RF system is only just over a year old!





scyrene said:


> You can't know many professionals then, I doubt very much they're *all* bothered about this. And it's a bit tiresome that every time anything else is announced, people pop up saying the same thing. Patience - Rome wasn't built in a day! The RF system is only just over a year old!


I know at least 200 wedding photographers and recently I was in a meeting with almost 50. No one want to spend money in a camera with just 1 slot. It´s ridiculous. What bothers me and I don't understand is why Canon do that. It´s not something that they can´t do. Rome was not built in a day but I am sure that the Colosseum began by having good foundations. Basic should be first. And double slot is something basic for professionals who are being paid to get something that cannot be repeated.


----------



## alejandrobox (Oct 9, 2019)

YuengLinger said:


> Right, Scyrene. I've been reading about the crisis of a single card slot for months now, and hearing about it in youtube vids. I do prefer that second slot, JUST IN CASE. *But worrying about losing one card worth of shots out of thousands of cards full of shots means giving up ALL shots that COULD be taken with RF primes. Talk about a no-brainer choice!*
> 
> Yes, I understand that there are portions of weddings that must be captured and preserved to get paid and reduce lawsuits and ill will. Yes. But there are other parts of weddings that the best RF prime lenses can capture better than anything else available right now, parts that will not void contracts, etc. As said, details. Spontaneous portraits of groom, bride, and their key friends and family. Sure, it would be heartbreaking to lose, in that one out of a 1000 weddings, some of those beautiful extra shots, but not devastating. In fact, in the heat of the event, few members of the weddings would even remember being photographed in moments that were not directly related to the key narrative.
> 
> ...



When a client is paying you to capture unique moments that cannot be repeated, to take risk is not an option. I have to buy a camera that I only should use for details like you said? It´s that a joke? To spend 2000 dollars in a camera with one slot is not an option if you are a wedding photographer and don´t want to take risk. Among other things, because my prestige (and my money should be in risk). And I don´t understand why Canon do it. 2 slot is something really basic in a profesional camera.


----------



## Ozarker (Oct 9, 2019)

navastronia said:


> According to some rumors, we may actually get a 35/1.2


And I am not so sure about a 35mm being "the" lens. I had the superlative EF 35mm f/1.4L II, a really really great lens. But for portraits if is very specialized and takes some skill to use it correctly. However, An RF 35mm f/1.2L would be very tempting with BR.


----------



## Ozarker (Oct 9, 2019)

wockawocka said:


> TBH, the EF 35mm 1.4 mkii going to be hard to beat. It's cheaper and lighter to use that.


And a very excellent lens too. Miss mine.


----------



## BillB (Oct 9, 2019)

CanonFanBoy said:


> And I am not so sure about a 35mm being "the" lens. I had the superlative EF 35mm f/1.4L II, a really really great lens. But for portraits if is very specialized and takes some skill to use it correctly. However, An RF 35mm f/1.2L would be very tempting with BR.


Well, you can always crop a 35 but you can't uncrop a 50


----------



## SteveC (Oct 9, 2019)

alejandrobox said:


> I know at least 200 wedding photographers and recently I was in a meeting with almost 50. No one want to spend money in a camera with just 1 slot. It´s ridiculous. What bothers me and I don't understand is why Canon do that. It´s not something that they can´t do. Rome was not built in a day but I am sure that the Colosseum began by having good foundations. Basic should be first. And double slot is something basic for professionals who are being paid to get something that cannot be repeated.



Side note: The Colosseum (technically, the "Flavian Amphitheater") was built around 70AD. It's actually situated on an almost-solid 40 foot thick slab of concrete, so you're absolutely correct about the foundation.


----------



## bhf3737 (Oct 9, 2019)

alejandrobox said:


> When a client is paying you to capture unique moments that cannot be repeated, to take risk is not an option. I have to buy a camera that I only should use for details like you said? It´s that a joke? To spend 2000 dollars in a camera with one slot is not an option if you are a wedding photographer and don´t want to take risk. Among other things, because my prestige (and my money should be in risk). And I don´t understand why Canon do it. 2 slot is something really basic in a profesional camera.


Talking about taking risk, which seems to be your concern. Did you know that based on failure-mode-and-effect-analysis (FMEA) the probability that the camera fails is several times higher than the probability of the card failiure? And a way to mitigate the risk is to add redundancy by using two or more cameras to start with! Every risk mitigation solution has a cost associated with it. Two cameras mean hiring an assistant and more cost to your business, but two card slot means additional cost for the camera maker to be passed to all customers evenly. Perhaps canon has decided to pass the cost to a small population of users (e.g. wedding businesses of low budget) but offering cheaper option to the most of the intented users of the R camera. Looking at it from another perspective: Why should one expect everyone who buys the R camera pay extra to compensate and support your business?!


----------



## YuengLinger (Oct 9, 2019)

alejandrobox said:


> When a client is paying you to capture unique moments that cannot be repeated, to take risk is not an option. I have to buy a camera that I only should use for details like you said? It´s that a joke? To spend 2000 dollars in a camera with one slot is not an option if you are a wedding photographer and don´t want to take risk. Among other things, because my prestige (and my money should be in risk). And I don´t understand why Canon do it. 2 slot is something really basic in a profesional camera.


Nobody, at least in my post, said you "have to buy." It's your decision to believe the minimal risks ( which I said _could_ be restricted to nonessential--but story _ enhancing_--shots) are worth keeping you and your clients from enjoying many, many beautiful moments shot with RF lenses.

Canon made a choice to put out what seems, to me, to be more of mid-level FF with a top-notch sensor, incredible AF, and an affordable price. I can't guess why they went initially with the single slot. It bugged me for a while after the R was released, but then I realized that _anxiety_ is a sad reason to miss out on what has turned out to be an amazing portrait camera. And spite, or pique, or just being ticked off because it ain't perfect, is an even sadder reason.

It's not the explanation of why one slot is too scary that made me post my opinions. It's the relentless anger at a company that didn't cater first to the photographers who demand two slots, IBIS, better DR, uncropped 4k, blah, blah, blah, and decide to remind us about those two slots even in lens threads. 

Plus I'm explaining why I chose to pair great lenses with a one-slot camera.


----------



## flip314 (Oct 9, 2019)

BillB said:


> Well, you can always crop a 35 but you can't uncrop a 50



It's probably only a matter of time before Adobe releases content-aware uncrop.


----------



## alejandrobox (Oct 9, 2019)

bhf3737 said:


> Talking about taking risk, which seems to be your concern. Did you know that based on failure-mode-and-effect-analysis (FMEA) the probability that the camera fails is several times higher than the probability of the card failiure? And a way to mitigate the risk is to add redundancy by using two or more cameras to start with! Every risk mitigation solution has a cost associated with it. Two cameras mean hiring an assistant and more cost to your business, but two card slot means additional cost for the camera maker to be passed to all customers evenly. Perhaps canon has decided to pass the cost to a small population of users (e.g. wedding businesses of low budget) but offering cheaper option to the most of the intented users of the R camera. Looking at it from another perspective: Why should one expect everyone who buys the R camera pay extra to compensate and support your business?!


It´s not only my business. It´s every one business. No one want to miss a shot. But professional photographers could have problems it something happens. Not only wedding photographers. Sports photographers. Event photographers. Photojournalist photographers... For amateurs or enthusiasts they have the M series. R is for professional, like RF lenses. Another reason to put it? Maybe because Sony have it? I am fan of Canon. Love Canon. But some decisions are difficut to understand.


----------



## alejandrobox (Oct 9, 2019)

bhf3737 said:


> Talking about taking risk, which seems to be your concern. Did you know that based on failure-mode-and-effect-analysis (FMEA) the probability that the camera fails is several times higher than the probability of the card failiure? And a way to mitigate the risk is to add redundancy by using two or more cameras to start with! Every risk mitigation solution has a cost associated with it. Two cameras mean hiring an assistant and more cost to your business, but two card slot means additional cost for the camera maker to be passed to all customers evenly. Perhaps canon has decided to pass the cost to a small population of users (e.g. wedding businesses of low budget) but offering cheaper option to the most of the intented users of the R camera. Looking at it from another perspective: Why should one expect everyone who buys the R camera pay extra to compensate and support your business?!


By the way, I always work with 2 cameras and second photographer.


----------



## Berowne (Oct 9, 2019)

mb66energy said:


> EDIT Just read your question again: If you look at the sample images (link some posts above) you see that the DS lens makes smaller bokeh balls, but with a nicer (= missing) outline. /EDIT
> 
> The apodization filter works like an aperture but with a gradient - not a hard transition between 100% transmission and 0% transmission like a standard aperture. Usually bokeh balls are images from the aperture - at f/8 you can see very often the number of blades, wide open you see the aperture defined by the smallest "hole" in the light path. The apotization filter close to the aperture blades makes a soft transition of clear in the center to dark in the outside and the bokeh balls reflect (not optically) the softer transition from the bright center to the dimmed outer regions.
> 
> ...



Great explanation, many thanks for your answer!


----------



## Ozarker (Oct 9, 2019)

BillB said:


> Well, you can always crop a 35 but you can't uncrop a 50


It is all about perspective. 35mm gives a completely different look to things. For long wide shots, not a problem. For portraits, if can be a big problem if not used properly. Even 50mm is not ideal for portraits, in my opinion, if there are vertical lines in the photo. However, distortion can ruin this in a close portrait. Below: 35mm done well x2 then 35mm not done well.

I don't know what is meant by not being able to uncrop a 50mm. One must be very careful of subject distortion with a 35mm. Same with a 50mm sometimes. Not so much st 85mm+.

Keep in mind I loved my EF 35mm f/1.4L II, but always had to be mindful of subject distortion when taking portraits with it.


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 9, 2019)

CanonFanBoy said:


> It is all about perspective. 35mm gives a completely different look to things. For long wide shots, not a problem. For portraits, if can be a big problem if not used properly. Even 50mm is not ideal for portraits, in my opinion, if there are vertical lines in the photo. However, distortion can ruin this in a close portrait. Below: 35mm done well x2 then 35mm not done well.
> 
> I don't know what is meant by not being able to uncrop a 50mm. One must be very careful of subject distortion with a 35mm. Same with a 50mm sometimes. Not so much st 85mm+.
> 
> Keep in mind I loved my EF 35mm f/1.4L II, but always had to be mindful of subject distortion when taking portraits with it.


The point is if you shoot from the same physical place with a 35 and a 50 you can crop the 35 shot to be exactly the same as the 50 shot, you can’t ‘uncrop’ the 50 shot to give you the fov of the 35. If you only have one you are generally better off with the wider lens as it will give you the same perspective as any longer lens if you have enough MP/detail to crop.


----------



## BillB (Oct 9, 2019)

privatebydesign said:


> The point is if you shoot from the same physical place with a 35 and a 50 you can crop the 35 shot to be exactly the same as the 50 shot, you can’t ‘uncrop’ the 50 shot to give you the fov of the 35. If you only have one you are generally better off with the wider lens as it will give you the same perspective as any longer lens if you have enough money/detail to crop.


yep.


----------



## Ozarker (Oct 9, 2019)

privatebydesign said:


> The point is if you shoot from the same physical place with a 35 and a 50 you can crop the 35 shot to be exactly the same as the 50 shot, you can’t ‘uncrop’ the 50 shot to give you the fov of the 35. If you only have one you are generally better off with the wider lens as it will give you the same perspective as any longer lens if you have enough MP/detail to crop.


As usual, the point is often lost on me.  Then again "zooming with one's feet" comes to mind, as mentioned here in the forum, so many times in reference to primes... which I did with the first two and not the third.  While I can see the perspective brought up in cramped indoor shots, I don't think is is an issue outdoors with more room to move. Hope that makes sense.


----------



## YuengLinger (Oct 9, 2019)

alejandrobox said:


> It´s not only my business. It´s every one business. No one want to miss a shot. But professional photographers could have problems it something happens. Not only wedding photographers. Sports photographers. Event photographers. Photojournalist photographers... For amateurs or enthusiasts they have the M series. R is for professional, like RF lenses. Another reason to put it? Maybe because Sony have it? I am fan of Canon. Love Canon. But some decisions are difficut to understand.



Yes, Canon makes decisions customers don't understand. But you seem to be lumping their first production model of mirrorless with ultra mission-critical bodies such as the 1DX...Canon might well be releasing a nuclear-strike hardened body in 2020 (and I'm hoping a 5D type of mirrorless in 2021). 

Since when did successful wedding photographers feel compelled to switch from 1DX bodies to mirrorless? And why does it frustrate you that Canon is not following your schedule? Is your business going to be threatened because you haven't switched to mirrorless? I'd sincerely care to hear your reasoning regarding this point.

Yes, a dual-slot pro body will be welcomed when it arrives, but why, in the meantime, are you seemingly continuing to be fascinated by the EOS R? Have you tried it?

And, please, tell us how many times you have had cards fail over how many years? And how many full and happy cards between failures?

Again, it comes down to the benefits of using the R and its lenses against the risk of a card failure at the worst possible moment. Your decision. Sorry I can't get too worked up about the issue at this point, though if it happened to me, I'd be right with you.


----------



## lawny13 (Oct 9, 2019)

fabao said:


> And yet, I have not seen anywhere how you will zoom on this new 70-200. Perhaps you will do it by extending the lens, but I found it intriguing that people who were able to handle this new lens were not able to demonstrate this.


Patent shows it to be extending.

And a mock-up lens don’t necessarily have moving parts. In fact it is unlikely to. Probably why they couldn’t so anything with it. 

We shouldn’t be too worried about it telescoping (assuming it does) cause the 100-400 does and there doesn’t seem to be any issues with it.


----------



## YuengLinger (Oct 9, 2019)

privatebydesign said:


> The point is if you shoot from the same physical place with a 35 and a 50 you can crop the 35 shot to be exactly the same as the 50 shot, you can’t ‘uncrop’ the 50 shot to give you the fov of the 35. If you only have one you are generally better off with the wider lens as it will give you the same perspective as any longer lens if you have enough MP/detail to crop.



Would we be better off all shooting with 11-24mm?  You can't uncrop 35mm either. (And maybe I should have bought a utility van instead of an SUV--there are times I'd like to bring home a dozen 15 gallon viburnum from the nursery! I can't uncrop the cargo space of my SUV!)


----------



## Ozarker (Oct 9, 2019)

YuengLinger said:


> Again, it comes down to the benefits of using the R and its lenses against the risk of a card failure at the worst possible moment. Your decision. Sorry I can't get too worked up about the issue at this point, though if it happened to me, I'd be right with you.


Even when I shot with a 5D Mark III (dual slots) I carried and individual (Cheap at 5 for $5) low GB card for each model with her name on it. My CF card carried the whole day's shooting, then an SD card for each model with her name on it. Cheap insurance. It also helped me remember who was who at processing time.  Probably overkill, bit it works. Every evening the cards would be loaded onto a WD Passport drive (Thanks for a wonderful idea PBD). The WD Passport keeps everything on itself and also uploads to the cloud.

For the single card slot R, I do the same. I just don't have the CF Card with everything on it from the day. Not a problem.  A wedding photographer could divided the day the same way. Avery sells removable labels for SD cards. 

That said, I have never had a card fail.


----------



## 6degrees (Oct 9, 2019)

I still prefer Canon RF 85mm F1.2 L.

I am waiting for:
- Sony a7rIV equivalent body
- Canon RF 35mm F1.2 L
- Canon RF 20mm F1.4 L or RF 14-21 F1.4 L or RF 16-28mm F2 L


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 9, 2019)

YuengLinger said:


> Would we be better off all shooting with 11-24mm?  You can't uncrop 35mm either. (And maybe I should have bought a utility van instead of an SUV--there are times I'd like to bring home a dozen 15 gallon viburnum from the nursery! I can't uncrop the cargo space of my SUV!)


No because the 11-24 is a zoom! 

I use a 35mm prime extensively and feel people that use a 35 and a 50 are being a little obtuse, with the MP we have few people couldn’t crop their 35mm shot to their desired 50mm shot just so long as they dont fall into the ‘fill the frame with the subject’ error that people make when conflating perspective and effective fov. Stand back and crop and the 35mm shot is identical to the 50mm image just fewer MP and fractionally different dof.

Anybody that says there is a massive difference between 35 and 50 just doesn’t get optics and perspective.


----------



## YuengLinger (Oct 9, 2019)

privatebydesign said:


> No because the 11-24 is a zoom!
> 
> I use a 35mm prime extensively and feel people that use a 35 and a 50 are being a little obtuse, with the MP we have few people couldn’t crop their 35mm shot to their desired 50mm shot just so long as they dont fall into the ‘fill the frame with the subject’ error that people make when conflating perspective and effective fov. Stand back and crop and the 35mm shot is identical to the 50mm image just fewer MP and fractionally different dof.
> 
> Anybody that says there is a massive difference between 35 and 50 just doesn’t get optics and perspective.



I agree with you 100%. But I couldn't help myself and now have both. You see, the kids, just growing out of the toddler phase, are running a little farther away now when they see the camera come out, and that extra 15mm makes all the difference.


----------



## SteveC (Oct 9, 2019)

YuengLinger said:


> I agree with you 100%. But I couldn't help myself and now have both. You see, the kids, just growing out of the toddler phase, are running a little farther away now when they see the camera come out, and that extra 15mm makes all the difference.



And of course your camera has to have sufficient resolution that the crop won't show its limitations when (if) you make a (large?) print.


----------



## flip314 (Oct 9, 2019)

CanonFanBoy said:


> As usual, the point is often lost on me.  Then again "zooming with one's feet" comes to mind, as mentioned here in the forum, so many times in reference to primes... which I did with the first two and not the third.  While I can see the perspective brought up in cramped indoor shots, I don't think is is an issue outdoors with more room to move. Hope that makes sense.



I've always hated the expression "zoom with your feet", because it's not zooming! Zooming does not change perspective, whereas walking does.

Besides that, for far away objects it can be impractical to get closer.


----------



## Ozarker (Oct 9, 2019)

flip314 said:


> I've always hated the expression "zoom with your feet", because it's not zooming! Zooming does not change perspective, whereas walking does.
> 
> Besides that, for far away objects it can be impractical to get closer.


True, but not when taking a portrait.  You have a point with the Grand Canyon of Eiffel Tower.


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 9, 2019)

YuengLinger said:


> I agree with you 100%. But I couldn't help myself and now have both. You see, the kids, just growing out of the toddler phase, are running a little farther away now when they see the camera come out, and that extra 15mm makes all the difference.


Indeed! I got the EF 50 1.4 as my first EF prime and still have it. I got the EF 35 f2 IS a few years ago and it basically lives on one of my bodies. If I know I am doing half portraits and head and shoulders etc its the 50, tighter and it is the 100 L Macro. But as a general lens I haven’t found anything to beat the combination of size and weight , features , image quality, and just all around usability than that modest little cheap EF 35 f2 IS. 

Indeed if I had to replace it all tomorrow, despite that fact that I own a good number of exotic specialized lenses, it would be the cheapest four I’d replace first, the 35 IS, the 100 L macro, the 15 fisheye and the 50 1.4.


----------



## Franklyok (Oct 9, 2019)

Wondering why "L" designation has been left out wgen ut comes to rf mount.


----------



## cellomaster27 (Oct 9, 2019)

Curious.. anyone think that the tripod collar mount is a little too big?? It looks ridiculous imo on the 70-200mm RF. on a side note.. I GET MY EOS R TODAY!!


----------



## Kit. (Oct 9, 2019)

privatebydesign said:


> The point is if you shoot from the same physical place with a 35 and a 50 you can crop the 35 shot to be exactly the same as the 50 shot,


...if for the 35 lens you use the same absolute aperture as for the 50 lens.

So, for 35/1.4 and 50/2.0 it would work.

For 50/1.2, you would need a 35/0.7.


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 9, 2019)

Kit. said:


> ...if for the 35 lens you use the same absolute aperture as for the 50 lens.
> 
> So, for 35/1.4 and 50/2.0 it would work.
> 
> For 50/1.2, you would need a 35/0.7.


That’s is why I said


privatebydesign said:


> Stand back and crop and the 35mm shot is identical to the 50mm image just fewer MP and *fractionally different dof.*
> [/QUOTE


----------



## flip314 (Oct 9, 2019)

CanonFanBoy said:


> True, but not when taking a portrait.  You have a point with the Grand Canyon of Eiffel Tower.



Or the moon, good luck zooming in on THAT with your feet.


----------



## wockawocka (Oct 9, 2019)

Poor man's DS filter for the EF 85mm 1.4 ( I should test this with a central focus rather than off side, will try again tomorrow in the daylight).






Update, central af point, at 1.4 with filter.



and without:


----------



## alejandrobox (Oct 9, 2019)

YuengLinger said:


> Yes, Canon makes decisions customers don't understand. But you seem to be lumping their first production model of mirrorless with ultra mission-critical bodies such as the 1DX...Canon might well be releasing a nuclear-strike hardened body in 2020 (and I'm hoping a 5D type of mirrorless in 2021).
> 
> Since when did successful wedding photographers feel compelled to switch from 1DX bodies to mirrorless? And why does it frustrate you that Canon is not following your schedule? Is your business going to be threatened because you haven't switched to mirrorless? I'd sincerely care to hear your reasoning regarding this point.
> 
> ...


"But you seem to be lumping their first production model of mirrorless with ultra mission-critical bodies such as the 1DX." It is not his first production model of mirrorless. They have a lot of experience with mirrorless. In fact, they are Nº 1 seller of mirrorless in Japan (before Eos R). And, I am not talking about "ultra mission-critical bodies as the 1DX". 5D Mark IV have 2 card slots. Canon 90D record in 4K without crop. 

"Since when did successful wedding photographers feel compelled to switch from 1DX bodies to mirrorless?" Who said nothing about that?? I have a 5D Mark IV and I am happy with it. But new RF lenses are obviously better in sharpness and performance with low light. That´s interesting to me. 

"And why does it frustrate you that Canon is not following your schedule?" Stupid question. Nothing to answer.

Is your business going to be threatened because you haven't switched to mirrorless? I think I did not say nothing about that. ¿?

And yes, I tried Canon Eos R. Good camera. Similar to 5D Mark IV in a lot of things. Better in low light. Not better in other things like burst. What´s the point of your question?

Nothing more to comment to you. I express myself because maybe someone could give me any idea about why Canon is doing some things. Instead of answer me, you tried to attack me with absurd questions. If you feel happy doing that, good for you. 

And final thougth, just hope you never have a problem with an SD card in a paid job.


----------



## Ozarker (Oct 9, 2019)

Mission critical = whatever is critical to one's mission. The R meets that level for me. A 1DX Mark III would not. The 1 DX Mark III is not the be all to end all for all people. For some, it is completely undesirable... and not just because of price. So all the hand wringing, especially from those who will never buy is a little silly. It matters not what camera "A" does when camera "B" does all one wants. Even if the 1DX series did everything I want, I wouldn't buy because it does too much for what I want.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Oct 9, 2019)

Franklyok said:


> Wondering why "L" designation has been left out wgen ut comes to rf mount.



What do you mean? Most of RF lenses are L lenses, apart from 2.


----------



## YuengLinger (Oct 9, 2019)

alejandrobox said:


> "But you seem to be lumping their first production model of mirrorless with ultra mission-critical bodies such as the 1DX." It is not his first production model of mirrorless. They have a lot of experience with mirrorless. In fact, they are Nº 1 seller of mirrorless in Japan (before Eos R). And, I am not talking about "ultra mission-critical bodies as the 1DX". 5D Mark IV have 2 card slots. Canon 90D record in 4K without crop.
> 
> "Since when did successful wedding photographers feel compelled to switch from 1DX bodies to mirrorless?" Who said nothing about that?? I have a 5D Mark IV and I am happy with it. But new RF lenses are obviously better in sharpness and performance with low light. That´s interesting to me.
> 
> ...



The tone of your posts suggested, to me, that Canon not having a dual-slot body available at this time was a threat to your standing in the wedding photography business. I sensed frustration. Sorry for making the assumption.

And, yes, you are right, Canon has been selling mirrorless bodies for years. I meant specifically full frame, which seems to be a favorite among wedding photographers.

Did you miss my question about ever losing images because a card failed?

We agree: It would be nice for Canon to produce a FF mirrorless body with dual slots. Personally, the value the RF primes brings to my photography is worth the risk of using a body with one slot--but I would not choose to use the R as the primary body at a wedding (which I clearly implied in earlier posts).


----------



## Kit. (Oct 10, 2019)

wockawocka said:


> Poor man's DS filter for the EF 85mm 1.4 ( I should test this with a central focus rather than off side, will try again tomorrow in the daylight).


Looks like your "filter" just adds flare.

Maybe some mechanical vignetting too. Hard to judge by such a dark image.

The proper DS filter placement is inside the lens near the diaphragm.


----------



## David - Sydney (Oct 10, 2019)

akiskev said:


> Exellent news. Hopefully the RF will make EF 70-200 2.8 more affordable.


 Not sure that this will happen... the 5Div did not drop in price once the R was released. Although there might be some cannibalisation the production cost of the EF version would not have changed and Canon will try to maximise profit where possible. Some will prefer the EF version to avoid any weather sealing questions but the RF native should perform better with the new interface... and in the future with IBIS.


----------



## David - Sydney (Oct 10, 2019)

alejandrobox said:


> When a client is paying you to capture unique moments that cannot be repeated, to take risk is not an option. I have to buy a camera that I only should use for details like you said? It´s that a joke? To spend 2000 dollars in a camera with one slot is not an option if you are a wedding photographer and don´t want to take risk. Among other things, because my prestige (and my money should be in risk). And I don´t understand why Canon do it. 2 slot is something really basic in a profesional camera.


Outside of the box thinking... is there any reason why there aren't options for micro SD cards instead of full sized SD cards? I get that they are harder to handle but you can get UHS II versions if they are really required so technically there shouldn't be a difference. 2 should fit in the space of 1 SD card stacked. The (unfortunate!) removal of SD slot from macbooks means a card reader is needed irrespective. Other PC users would need to use a card reader or micro->normal SD adapter instead.

As the Sony Pro Duo memory stick are so expensive, there are adaptors for 2 x micro SD cards in one pro duo card eg








ProDuo to Dual Socket Micro SD(HC) Adapter | Sintech-Shop - Spare parts for mobile phones, game consoles and more


Dual Socket Micro SD(HC) Adapter Sony PSP PSP1000 (fat) Zubehör




www.sintech-shop.de




That said, the pro duo is actually physically smaller than a SD card. In theory a SD adaptor could hold 2 x Micro SD cards giving us the infamous dual SD card redundancy. Does a product exist for this??? Not that I can find :-(
SD card 32x24x2.1mm
pro duo 31x20x1.6mm
micro SD 15x11x1mm


----------



## David - Sydney (Oct 10, 2019)

TO


David - Sydney said:


> Outside of the box thinking... is there any reason why there aren't options for micro SD cards instead of full sized SD cards? I get that they are harder to handle but you can get UHS II versions if they are really required so technically there shouldn't be a difference. 2 should fit in the space of 1 SD card stacked. The (unfortunate!) removal of SD slot from macbooks means a card reader is needed irrespective. Other PC users would need to use a card reader or micro->normal SD adapter instead.
> 
> As the Sony Pro Duo memory stick are so expensive, there are adaptors for 2 x micro SD cards in one pro duo card eg
> 
> ...


To add... I wasn't the first to think of this solution. A couple of threads discussing the option below. Summary is:
- Possible to do technically.
- Additional points of failure but would solve the failed card scenario.
- Could increase the latency.
- Could be much more complex/power etc if a RAID server/buffer is the solution vs a FIFO solution.
Nothing on the market at this time but I imagine that there would be some pent up market demand for such a product and probably more than a pro duo card market 
Anyone have any contacts at possible manufacturers? 



Dual MicroSD SD Adapter - How does this not exist?







Dual Micro SD to CF Express Adapter: Nikon Z Mirrorless Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review


Expert news, reviews and videos of the latest digital cameras, lenses, accessories, and phones. Get answers to your questions in our photography forums.




www.dpreview.com


----------



## Michael Clark (Oct 10, 2019)

alejandrobox said:


> That lenses are excellent, like all the others RF lenses. But... When will release Canon a Eos R "Pro" with IBIS stabilization, 2 SD slots and 4K without crop????!!!!!????!!!!! That´s what every profesional photographer that I know are waiting for. And, by the way... what about a RF 35 mm 1.4 lens????????? 35mm is "The" lens. Come on Canon!!



Every professional photographer I know isn't waiting for anything. They're out hustling for a living with what they've already got. And many of them couldn't give a rodent's behind about 4K (or 2K, or 1080) video in their stills camera.


----------



## Michael Clark (Oct 10, 2019)

David - Sydney said:


> TO
> 
> To add... I wasn't the first to think of this solution. A couple of threads discussing the option below. Summary is:
> - Possible to do technically.
> ...



It doesn't matter if you've got two microSD cards inserted in it, if the controller in the holder goes south, you're still SOL. That's why most ILCs with two card slots feed each card slot from a different data bus.


----------



## Michael Clark (Oct 10, 2019)

Berowne said:


> Thanks for the explanation, I can imagine it. This filter may in some way function like an aperture. But is not the DS element _a radially symmetric graduated gray filter _which is not clear in the center, but rather dark in the center? And would a radially Variable ND Filter with a clear center not work like an aperture, producing an image similar to one stopped down, which means with a less pronounced bokeh?



Go back and look at photos taken with the Rodenstock "sink-stopper" almost 100 years ago. This is nothing new, just a slightly different way of getting there.


----------



## Michael Clark (Oct 10, 2019)

Kit Lens Jockey said:


> I was curious about the 85 DS lens until I saw a little while ago that the coatings cause it to lose 1.5 stops of light transmittance. I'll never own this lens over the non-DS version because of this. A slightly nicer background absolutely isn't worth 1.5 stops of light to me. I'm surprised they even bothered making this lens for the few who will probably choose it over the normal version. But, good on them I guess.
> 
> Also really not interested in the extending 70-200. My 70-200 f2.8 II is a tank and works great on the R.



Those to whom the DS lens is aimed use plenty of lights and modifiers in their studios and when shooting on location. The 1.5 stops of light isn't going to force them to raise the ISO, it's just going to require them to increase the output of their strobes from something like 1/8 power to 1/2 -.5 power.


----------



## Michael Clark (Oct 10, 2019)

alejandrobox said:


> When a client is paying you to capture unique moments that cannot be repeated, to take risk is not an option. I have to buy a camera that I only should use for details like you said? It´s that a joke? To spend 2000 dollars in a camera with one slot is not an option if you are a wedding photographer and don´t want to take risk. Among other things, because my prestige (and my money should be in risk). And I don´t understand why Canon do it. 2 slot is something really basic in a profesional camera.




Then keep shooting with your 5D Mark IV, 5Ds R, and 1D X Mark II, like most wedding pros are doing.


----------



## Michael Clark (Oct 10, 2019)

YuengLinger said:


> I agree with you 100%. But I couldn't help myself and now have both. You see, the kids, just growing out of the toddler phase, are running a little farther away now when they see the camera come out, and that extra 15mm makes all the difference.



Just wait until the aliens capture them and leave clones to fill in for them from about age 11 to age 24 when they return the real kids!

You're going to need a lot more focal length!


----------



## Michael Clark (Oct 10, 2019)

alejandrobox said:


> "But you seem to be lumping their first production model of mirrorless with ultra mission-critical bodies such as the 1DX." It is not his first production model of mirrorless. They have a lot of experience with mirrorless. In fact, they are Nº 1 seller of mirrorless in Japan (before Eos R). And, I am not talking about "ultra mission-critical bodies as the 1DX". 5D Mark IV have 2 card slots. Canon 90D record in 4K without crop.



But the 5D Mark IV can't do uncropped 4K video (and neither can the 90D because it has a cropped sensor right off the bat), and the 90D does not have two card slots.


----------



## Michael Clark (Oct 10, 2019)

David - Sydney said:


> Not sure that this will happen... the 5Div did not drop in price once the R was released. Although there might be some cannibalisation the production cost of the EF version would not have changed and Canon will try to maximise profit where possible. Some will prefer the EF version to avoid any weather sealing questions but the RF native should perform better with the new interface... and in the future with IBIS.



Here in the U.S. the 5D Mark IV has had a couple of periods when a promotional price has been lower than it was any time before the R was released. In early summer it was $200 cheaper than it had ever been before from authorized Canon dealers *and* included a free BG-E20 grip ( for which the dealers were compensated by Canon N.A.)!


----------



## SecureGSM (Oct 10, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> It doesn't matter if you've got two microSD cards inserted in it, if the controller in the holder goes south, you're still SOL. That's why most ILCs with two card slots feed each card slot from a different data bus.


I beg to differ. If controller in the holder goes south you don’t lose files stored on cards. You won’t be able to write or read to cards via camera.


----------



## Foxeslink (Oct 10, 2019)

RF 70-200 F2.8 Leaked image from a video

Link :


----------



## scyrene (Oct 10, 2019)

alejandrobox said:


> I know at least 200 wedding photographers and recently I was in a meeting with almost 50. No one want to spend money in a camera with just 1 slot. It´s ridiculous. What bothers me and I don't understand is why Canon do that. It´s not something that they can´t do. Rome was not built in a day but I am sure that the Colosseum began by having good foundations. Basic should be first. And double slot is something basic for professionals who are being paid to get something that cannot be repeated.



Two card slots isn't an unreasonable request, but the first two R models were clearly not aimed at professional wedding photographers, though they could be used for that purpose despite your reservations. But anyway, my point was I doubt very much *ALL* professionals (your words) are waiting for IBIS *and* 2 card slots *and* uncropped 4K (this last one has already started to appear in the latest Canon cameras, so it's likely to be included in the next R body). Your sweeping statement was an exaggeration, and given this thread _isn't even about camera bodies_, it was especially unnecessary imho.


----------



## Act444 (Oct 10, 2019)

Foxeslink said:


> RF 70-200 F2.8 Leaked image from a video
> 
> Link :
> 
> ...



Thanks for sharing. Looks like it extends quite a bit (not surprising).


----------



## BillB (Oct 10, 2019)

scyrene said:


> Two card slots isn't an unreasonable request, but the first two R models were clearly not aimed at professional wedding photographers, though they could be used for that purpose despite your reservations. But anyway, my point was I doubt very much *ALL* professionals (your words) are waiting for IBIS *and* 2 card slots *and* uncropped 4K (this last one has already started to appear in the latest Canon cameras, so it's likely to be included in the next R body). Your sweeping statement was an exaggeration, and given this thread _isn't even about camera bodies_, it was especially unnecessary imho.


All this is true, but the original post did make the point that the only cameras now available that can mount an RF lens only have one card slot, so RF lenses aren't much use to someone who uses cameras with two card slots.


----------



## scyrene (Oct 10, 2019)

BillB said:


> All this is true, but the original post did make the point that the only cameras now available that can mount an RF lens only have one card slot, so RF lenses aren't much use to someone who uses cameras with two card slots.



Sure, but that's why I said Rome wasn't built in a day. They decided to release lower-end bodies first, presumably because they will sell well (and/or didn't feel their tech was up to the professional level/pros would be the last group to switch the mirrorless etc). There's a perceived mismatch in the lenses offered versus the bodies, but maybe they were banking on most early adopters adapting EF lenses, while they announced/released the RF lenses they had ready. Either way, the original comment was a boring repetition of the latest common gripe here, and I reacted accordingly.


----------



## SecureGSM (Oct 10, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> Those to whom the DS lens is aimed use plenty of lights and modifiers in their studios and when shooting on location. The 1.5 stops of light isn't going to force them to raise the ISO, it's just going to require them to increase the output of their strobes from something like 1/8 power to 1/2 -.5 power.


this. come think of it: shooting wide open at F1.2 outdoors in full sun, typically will see me shooting at extreme shutter speeds (up to 1/8000) and likely with ND2 - Nd 8 filter on... therefore, 1.5 stop of light loss comes handy. ND filter is no longer required. great! no nd filter = no colourcast.


----------



## SteveC (Oct 10, 2019)

SecureGSM said:


> I beg to differ. If controller in the holder goes south you don’t lose files stored on cards. You won’t be able to write or read to cards via camera.



If if there are two controllers, one is likely to continue functioning.

I could also imagine the controller that is dying, doing so mid-write and corrupting the card in its dying spasm. But maybe there's a good technical reason why that's not possible.


----------



## Ozarker (Oct 10, 2019)

SecureGSM said:


> this. come think of it: shooting wide open at F1.2 outdoors in full sun, typically will see me shooting at extreme shutter speeds (up to 1/8000) and likely with ND2 - Nd 8 filter on... therefore, 1.5 stop of light loss comes handy. ND filter is no longer required. great! no nd filter = no colourcast.


Or you can drop to ISO 50.


----------



## akiskev (Oct 10, 2019)

David - Sydney said:


> Not sure that this will happen... the 5Div did not drop in price once the R was released. Although there might be some cannibalisation the production cost of the EF version would not have changed and Canon will try to maximise profit where possible. Some will prefer the EF version to avoid any weather sealing questions but the RF native should perform better with the new interface... and in the future with IBIS.


I'm pretty sure this will happen. I have found some great deals on used market over the years because some people always want the latest and greatest.


----------



## flip314 (Oct 10, 2019)

Act444 said:


> Thanks for sharing. Looks like it extends quite a bit (not surprising).



I'm not surprised at all, but based on past comments about here there are quite a few people who WILL be surprised. Lots of people around here were holding onto delusional hope that it was internal zoom.


----------



## Ozarker (Oct 10, 2019)

flip314 said:


> I'm not surprised at all, but based on past comments about here there are quite a few people who WILL be surprised. Lots of people around here were holding onto delusional hope that it was internal zoom.


The RF 70-135mm f/2L will be internal zoom.  And $4k


----------



## SecureGSM (Oct 11, 2019)

SteveC said:


> If if there are two controllers, one is likely to continue functioning.
> 
> I could also imagine the controller that is dying, doing so mid-write and corrupting the card in its dying spasm. But maybe there's a good technical reason why that's not possible.


Yeah, there is a technical reason we cannot quite figure out what it is. Bummer


----------



## SecureGSM (Oct 11, 2019)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Or you can drop to ISO 50.


You can but you better of shooting at native iso 100 with as ISO 50 is a “trickery”


----------



## Michael Clark (Oct 11, 2019)

SecureGSM said:


> I beg to differ. If controller in the holder goes south you don’t lose files stored on cards. You won’t be able to write or read to cards via camera.



So what happens to the images in the buffer that haven't written to the card yet? What do you use for the remainder of your mission critical shoot?


----------



## Ozarker (Oct 11, 2019)

SecureGSM said:


> You can but you better of shooting at native iso 100 with as ISO 50 is a “trickery”


Very true. I prefer an ND filter... but that's more trickery.  My last shoot I dropped to ISO 50 because the other guy I was shooting with always laughs when I put on an ND filter. I have no idea why he thinks that's funny... but I am gonna shoot f/1.2 in the blazing sun no matter what, by God!  Honestly, I should just stop down a little.


----------



## SecureGSM (Oct 11, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> So what happens to the images in the buffer that haven't written to the card yet? What do you use for the remainder of your mission critical shoot?


all good questions:
yes, images in the buffer (a few shots)will be lost, however the card contents won't be. having 2000+ shots on the card at the end of the day is not a rare occurrence. having a few lost is irritating but not a cataclysmic event. 
what do I do? I use a replacement card holder that I keep as a spare in my photo backpack. it's is a $2 item.


----------



## SecureGSM (Oct 11, 2019)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Very true. I prefer an ND filter... but that's more trickery.  My last shoot I dropped to ISO 50 because the other guy I was shooting with always laughs when I put on an ND filter. I have no idea why he thinks that's funny... but I am gonna shoot f/1.2 in the blazing sun no matter what, by God!  Honestly, I should just stop down a little.


well, ask your guy an advice on how to achieve a 30 seconds long exposure in full sun without a ND filter. funny that.


----------



## SteveC (Oct 11, 2019)

SecureGSM said:


> well, ask your guy an advice on how to achieve a 30 seconds long exposure in full sun without a ND filter. funny that.



I can simulate the results of that. Open up Photoshop or GIMP, create a new document (sized appropriately for your sensor) and save it immediately, with just the white background.


----------



## Michael Clark (Oct 11, 2019)

SecureGSM said:


> all good questions:
> yes, images in the buffer (a few shots)will be lost, however the card contents won't be. having 2000+ shots on the card at the end of the day is not a rare occurrence. having a few lost is irritating but not a cataclysmic event.
> what do I do? I use a replacement card holder that I keep as a spare in my photo backpack. it's is a $2 item.



Even when it happens during the "first kiss?"


----------



## SecureGSM (Oct 12, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> Even when it happens during the "first kiss?"


You are absolutely correct, Michael. Solution isn’t ideal. Therefore I always shoot to multiple cards. 
however, saving to multiple cards via holder adapter provides some additional protection from a card failure. Not controller failure, of course.
To the same effect, and I like your intelligence, lest see what happens if shutter gives up or any other unfortunate camera fault take place during the first kiss? Oh, Schweppes....... or is it oh, Schweitzer?


----------

