# Canon RF-S 11-22mm f/4.5-5.6 IS STM coming first half of 2023



## Canon Rumors Guy (Dec 30, 2022)

Canon will likely release at least three RF-S lenses in 2023, a couple of them will likely be based on their EF-M counterparts. One of the lenses we’re told that will launch in the first half of 2023 is an RF-S 11-22mm f/4.5-5.6 IS STM. The EF-M version was a favourite of EOS M shooters

See full article...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 30, 2022)

Excellent. The M11-22 and M18-150 make a great pair, will be good to have both in RF-S versions.


----------



## Bob Howland (Dec 30, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Excellent. The M11-22 and M18-150 make a great pair, will be good to have both in RF-S versions.


Add the RF100-400 zoom and an R7.


----------



## hunck (Dec 30, 2022)

Can you use this on a R5 or R5C in cropped movie mode?


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Dec 30, 2022)

hunck said:


> Can you use this on a R5 or R5C in cropped movie mode?


Yep


----------



## entoman (Dec 30, 2022)

Hopefully plenty more to come in RF and RF-S.

Any minute now, we'll see wish lists appearing...


----------



## mdcmdcmdc (Dec 30, 2022)

Looks like a port of the EF-M 11-22, which is a fine lens. I'm glad to see Canon starting to fill out the RF-S line.


----------



## vondo (Dec 30, 2022)

entoman said:


> Hopefully plenty more to come in RF and RF-S.
> 
> Any minute now, we'll see wish lists appearing...


Mine: 60mm macro. Then I can consider the R10 for underwater use.


----------



## Stig Nygaard (Dec 30, 2022)

Argh, Canon. Please give us an APS-C wideangle-zoom going down to 10mm - or even better down to 9mm...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 30, 2022)

Bob Howland said:


> Add the RF100-400 zoom and an R7.


Personally, I’m hoping the rumored ‘R8’ is an M6II-like smaller body. If so, I’d get that and the 11-22 / 18-150 as a travel set since unlike the M6II it could serve as a backup for my R3. 

Perhaps the RF-S 11-22 will be announced alongside the R8, if the latter is a vlogging camera it needs an ultrawide. 

I am considering the RF 100-400 for travel, to urban destinations where a longer focal length may occasionally be useful but not sufficiently to justify bringing the 100-500L.


----------



## mdcmdcmdc (Dec 30, 2022)

entoman said:


> Hopefully plenty more to come in RF and RF-S.
> 
> Any minute now, we'll see wish lists appearing...


I'm eager to see that 16-55 constant f/2.8 that CR reported on shortly after the R7/R10 announcement.
Plus: Let the independents make RF and RF-S lenses!


----------



## Maximilian (Dec 30, 2022)

Wonderful to see a much liked optical formula to reaper in RF-S version.


----------



## Maximilian (Dec 30, 2022)

mdcmdcmdc said:


> I'm eager to see that 16-55 constant f/2.8 ...


I'm really hoping for all APS-C fans for such a lens to come. 
Honestly, I wouldn't even bet a penny on that. I hope I'm wrong


----------



## Swerky (Dec 30, 2022)

RF-S 11-22 f4.5-5.6? The EF-M lens goes from f4 to 5.6, and the EF-S lens is a 10-18 f4.5-5.6. So if the info is correct, the coming RF-S lens is a bit slower than the former and less wide than the latter. I believe it should be a 4-5.6 like the EF-M lens. 
Anyway I\'m not interested before seeing an 11mm f2.8 prime. Not likely to happen. Get a third party manual focus one.


----------



## AlanF (Dec 30, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> I am considering the RF 100-400 for travel, to urban destinations where a longer focal length may occasionally be useful but not sufficiently to justify bringing the 100-500L.


Also, you can walk around an urban environment with an RF 100-400 and not be so noticeable. Every R owner should have one!


----------



## entoman (Dec 30, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> I am considering the RF 100-400 for travel, to urban destinations where a longer focal length may occasionally be useful but not sufficiently to justify bringing the 100-500L.


Definitely a good idea. Lightweight, compact, close-focusing, excellent stabilisation, well built and sharp enough for most purposes even wide open at the long end. Great value too.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 30, 2022)

AlanF said:


> Also, you can walk around an urban environment with an RF 100-400 and not be so noticeable. Every R owner should have one!


I don’t mind being noticeable (the R3 sort of stands out anyway). I also don’t mind the extra weight for a lens that will be used often on a trip. But for urban European destinations, if I’m going to bring a heavy lens I’d choose the 11-24/4 over the 100-500L. With the RF 100-400, I’ll likely bring both (in addition to the RF 14-35, 24-105 and TS-E 17). 



entoman said:


> Definitely a good idea. Lightweight, compact, close-focusing, excellent stabilisation, well built and sharp enough for most purposes even wide open at the long end. Great value too.


Even better value right now, with the current rebate dropping the price by 23% to $500. 

I just ordered one from B&H.


----------



## mxwphoto (Dec 30, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> I don’t mind being noticeable (the R3 sort of stands out anyway). I also don’t mind the extra weight for a lens that will be used often on a trip. But for urban European destinations, if I’m going to bring a heavy lens I’d choose the 11-24/4 over the 100-500L. With the RF 100-400, I’ll likely bring both (in addition to the RF 14-35, 24-105 and TS-E 17).
> 
> 
> Even better value right now, with the current rebate dropping the price by 23% to $500.
> ...


The 11-24 rocks with the CPL adapter!

For the price weight and optics the RF 100-400 is unbeatable. I just came back from Yosemite and the sharpness wide open never made me left wanting (also hikes with it feel SO much easier!).
If there is one downside it is that the lens needs ISO cranked up once sunlight starts trailing off. I have also had focus hunting in complex tree shade scenarios while shooting birds, but that's on a R6. Perhaps your R3 would perform better in that regard.


----------



## entoman (Dec 30, 2022)

mxwphoto said:


> For the price weight and optics the RF 100-400 is unbeatable. I just came back from Yosemite and the sharpness wide open never made me left wanting (also hikes with it feel SO much easier!).
> If there is one downside it is that the lens needs ISO cranked up once sunlight starts trailing off. I have also had focus hunting in complex tree shade scenarios while shooting birds, but that's on a R6. Perhaps your R3 would perform better in that regard.


Yes, you do need to increase the ISO in low light due to the smallish maximum aperture (F8 at 400mm), but the excellent stabilisation allows you to shoot at quite low shutter speeds - I was getting about 10% of my butterfly shots very sharp at 1/60 @ 400mm when working in very poor light in dark rainforest a couple of weeks ago.

With the R5, and using Topaz DeNoise AI, I normally shoot in the ISO 800-1600 range, but even at ISO 6400, denoised shots are extremely acceptable when viewed on a 5K 27" screen. At that speed the cropped RAWs look pretty awful, but modern denoise software really works miracles.


----------



## Chuck3819 (Dec 30, 2022)

I work at a camera store and back in the DSLR days, the Sigma Art 18-35mm 1.8 was a very popular lens for Canon crop sensor/S35 Cinema camera users. I really wish Canon would fill that void with something like an RFS 18-45mm 1.8. It would be a must have for R7/R10/C70 users.


----------



## Exploreshootshare (Dec 30, 2022)

This is kind of a surprise for me to be honest. So far, the RF UWA zooms have become wider (14 & 15mm to start with) and even the cheaper model (RF 15-30mm) is a wide option. Therefore, I figured Canon would at least copy the EF-s 10-18mm f4.5-5.6 IS STM but I actually thought it would be a RF-s 9-18mm option. Instead, it is is 11mm (which would be 17.6mm on FF, right?) and so it doesn't match the EF-s lense... 
I kind of don't like the idea of simply "bringing over the EF-m" design without a try of making it better. Improving lenses and design is something substantial and an obvious task for Canon imho.


----------



## Exploreshootshare (Dec 30, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> I am considering the RF 100-400 for travel, to urban destinations where a longer focal length may occasionally be useful but not sufficiently to justify bringing the 100-500L.


I started using the RF 14-35mm F4 (so far the 15-35mm F2.8 but I'm selling that one) and the RF 70-200mm F4 as my city travel set-up, along with the 35mm F1.8. The 70-200mm is a bit heavier than the RF 100-400mm but it fits perfectly in a small backpack or messenger bag because it is really small. For future travels, I hope to have a camera with an internal extender mode like the R6 to have extra reach if needed.


----------



## entoman (Dec 30, 2022)

mdcmdcmdc said:


> Let the independents make RF and RF-S lenses!


Canon seem to be taking a pretty tough stance on this. It will take a while for Tamron and Sigma to reliably reverse engineer the protocols in a way that doesn't impinge on Canons' intellectual property. I can kinda understand Canon's approach, but we can be pretty sure that there are quite a lot of "wishlist lenses" that Canon won't make themselves, at least not in the foreseeable future.

My own wishlist comprises mainly of 1:1 macro lenses of various focal lengths. I can't see Canon ever replacing their EF 180mm macro with an improved, lighter, stabilised version, but Tamron and Sigma will probably do so, given half a chance.


----------



## Czardoom (Dec 30, 2022)

entoman said:


> Canon seem to be taking a pretty tough stance on this. It will take a while for Tamron and Sigma to reliably reverse engineer the protocols in a way that doesn't impinge on Canons' intellectual property. I can kinda understand Canon's approach, but we can be pretty sure that there are quite a lot of "wishlist lenses" that Canon won't make themselves, at least not in the foreseeable future.
> 
> My own wishlist comprises mainly of 1:1 macro lenses of various focal lengths. I can't see Canon ever replacing their EF 180mm macro with an improved, lighter, stabilised version, but Tamron and Sigma will probably do so, given half a chance.


Not sure Tamron or Sigma plan on reverse engineering. I think it is more likely that within a couple years they will negotiate license agreements with Canon to produce some AF lenses. Tamron has just recently done so with Nikon and rumnors are that Sigma is negotiating with Nikon as well. Based on comments from the Grays at Westminster folks online, the Nikon agreement with Tamron may include some restrictions on the lenses Tamron can make - not making any lenses with the same specs as Nikon lenses (either already made or on the roadmap). I could see Canon making similar agreements in the future. We just have to wait and see.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 30, 2022)

Exploreshootshare said:


> I kind of don't like the idea of simply "bringing over the EF-m" design without a try of making it better. Improving lenses and design is something substantial and an obvious task for Canon imho.


If a straight port of the M11-22 yields a popular lens (and probably it will), it means minimal development costs and thus more profit for Canon.


----------



## Exploreshootshare (Dec 30, 2022)

Czardoom said:


> the Nikon agreement with Tamron may include some restrictions on the lenses Tamron can make - not making any lenses with the same specs as Nikon lenses (either already made or on the roadmap). I could see Canon making similar agreements in the future. We just have to wait and see.


I´d be fine with that. So Canon could offer a 12mm, Tamron a 13mm and Sigma a 14mm prime lense  Also a 12-24mm would possible  

imho, we don't need yet another 70-200mm lense, but more niche lenses or designated macro lenses, so if that deal would become reality, all three manufacturer could be in a win-win


----------



## Exploreshootshare (Dec 30, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> If a straight port of the M11-22 yields a popular lens (and probably it will), it means minimal development costs and thus more profit for Canon.


Yep, and I totally get that. I still don't like the idea and it kind stand against the promises Canon made when introducing the R mount concerning lense designs etc.


----------



## Hubert Multana (Dec 30, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Personally, I’m hoping the rumored ‘R8’ is an M6II-like smaller body. If so, I’d get that and the 11-22 / 18-150 as a travel set since unlike the M6II it could serve as a backup for my R3.
> 
> Perhaps the RF-S 11-22 will be announced alongside the R8, if the latter is a vlogging camera it needs an ultrawide.
> 
> I am considering the RF 100-400 for travel, to urban destinations where a longer focal length may occasionally be useful but not sufficiently to justify bringing the 100-500L.


Vlogging + 4.0-4.5 lens is not a match. Way too dark.


----------



## davidespinosa (Dec 30, 2022)

Exploreshootshare said:


> it kind stand against the promises Canon made when introducing the R mount concerning lens designs etc.



I agree. Canon probably didn't plan to be this lazy.
Of course, the really lazy approach is an EF-M to RF adapter.
Probably not possible with the current RF design.
But with a different RF design, maybe they could have done it.


----------



## jam05 (Dec 30, 2022)

Too slow for me. Unless one is only taking day fotos.


----------



## Jethro (Dec 31, 2022)

Exploreshootshare said:


> Yep, and I totally get that. I still don't like the idea and it kind stand against the promises Canon made when introducing the R mount concerning lense designs etc.


Sure, but a big part of the initial philosophy around new R mount lenses was that they could be smaller & lighter etc. The M11-22 is already small (being designed for the M mount) and considered optically very good - so why go through a long development process to redesign an already high quality lens? On Neuro's point, reduced development costs not only means higher profit for Canon, but (at least potentially) a lower cost for consumers, because there is no need to recoup capital outlays.


----------



## Bob Howland (Dec 31, 2022)

Exploreshootshare said:


> This is kind of a surprise for me to be honest. So far, the RF UWA zooms have become wider (14 & 15mm to start with) and even the cheaper model (RF 15-30mm) is a wide option. Therefore, I figured Canon would at least copy the EF-s 10-18mm f4.5-5.6 IS STM but I actually thought it would be a RF-s 9-18mm option. Instead, it is is 11mm (which would be 17.6mm on FF, right?) and so it doesn't match the EF-s lense...
> I kind of don't like the idea of simply "bringing over the EF-m" design without a try of making it better. Improving lenses and design is something substantial and an obvious task for Canon imho.


They could make, for example, a 10-20 f/2.8 but it would almost certainly cost a lot more. This lens is for the people who cannot or will not spend $1000 for an APS-C UWA zoom lens. It's the same market as those who buy an R7 or R10 and, I suspect, there are a lot of us.


----------



## danfaz (Dec 31, 2022)

Jethro said:


> Sure, but a big part of the initial philosophy around new R mount lenses was that they could be smaller & lighter etc.


And Canon has come through with some fantastic new and unique lenses, as well as significantly improving on certain EF lenses with the RF versions.


----------



## Czardoom (Dec 31, 2022)

Exploreshootshare said:


> Yep, and I totally get that. I still don't like the idea and it kind stand against the promises Canon made when introducing the R mount concerning lense designs etc.


M mount lenses are already designed for a shorter flange distance. So not the same as an EF mount lens being re-designed for RF mount.


----------



## LSXPhotog (Dec 31, 2022)

While I am certainly happy to see another RF-S lens coming to market, I must express that I'm disappointed that we're simply seeing recycled EF-M designs. They have the opportunity to bring out some of the previous cool patents we saw late in the EF-M lifecycle. It would extraordinary if they would start to provide weather sealing on these lenses as well...but I would never hold my breath on that because I don't see it happening.

Let's get some faster glass for APS-C, Canon! Please!!


----------



## David - Sydney (Dec 31, 2022)

vondo said:


> Mine: 60mm macro. Then I can consider the R10 for underwater use.


Would certainly make it a small and cheaper option than my R5/100mm!


----------



## Dragon (Dec 31, 2022)

mdcmdcmdc said:


> I'm eager to see that 16-55 constant f/2.8 that CR reported on shortly after the R7/R10 announcement.
> Plus: Let the independents make RF and RF-S lenses!


That would be a logical replacement for the EF-s 17-55 f/2.8. I would also like to see a follow-on to the EF-s 15-85, which is probably the best all-around EF-s lens ever made. Of course, a port of the excellent EF-M 32mm f/1.4 is a must.


----------



## David - Sydney (Dec 31, 2022)

Hubert Multana said:


> Vlogging + 4.0-4.5 lens is not a match. Way too dark.


What is the scenario where this is an issue?
With every vlogger investing in a range of rings lights for indoor shooting, the aperture does't need to be too wide. Normally a lot more light if shooting outdoor so the same logic applies.
In any case, it is distracting it hunts for focus with a low f stop. STM motors aren't the quietest anyway manual focus with a wider aperture should be better. 
I still don't get people using lenses with significant focus breathing and auto focus.


----------



## Dragon (Dec 31, 2022)

Exploreshootshare said:


> Yep, and I totally get that. I still don't like the idea and it kind stand against the promises Canon made when introducing the R mount concerning lense designs etc.


The R mount has no optical advantage over M for APS-c. The big mount was all about FF. The faster communication could be an advantage and they may use that, but you wouldn't notice by looking at the lens. You would have to do an a/b performance comparison with the M lens and you probably still wouldn't be sure because the R7 AF is so far beyond the M6 II that you would be hard pressed to identify the contribution of the lens.


----------



## Dragon (Dec 31, 2022)

mdcmdcmdc said:


> Looks like a port of the EF-M 11-22, which is a fine lens. I'm glad to see Canon starting to fill out the RF-S line.


That doesn't just look like the EF-M 11-22 it is the EF-M 11-22. The RF-s version will necessarily have a flange at the mount end just like the RF-s 18-150. And yes, the EF-M 11-22 is an excellent WA lens, so well worth porting. The EF-M 32 f/1.4 needs to be on the list as well. along with the 22 f/2 (but the RF 24 f/1.8 does cover that base). When you throw in the RF 16mm f/2.8 and the RF 50mm f/1.8, that gives you 16,22,32, and 50 in decently fast primes. Add the 11-22, the 18-150, and the RF 100-400 and the R7 has a remarkably complete lens kit that includes super telephoto if you throw in the 600 and 800 f/11, both of which the R7 is very fond of. The rumored 16-55 f/2.8 adds a fast normal zoom. That leaves maybe a 10mm prime and it would be nice to see a replacement for the EF-s 15-85.


----------



## Skux (Dec 31, 2022)

I'm glad this is finally going to exist, but it looks like Canon is putting even less effort into APS-C than they normally do, which I didn't think was possible.

We started with the 18-45mm which had a narrower zoom range and slower aperture than the EF-M equivalent, and now the wide angle zoom doesn't even reach a modest f/4.

At this rate the prime lenses will be 22mm f/3.5 and 32mm f/2.8... and cost more than the EF-M primes.


----------



## Tangent (Dec 31, 2022)

I see today an EOY B&H closeout on the Sigma 16 f 1.4 DN DC for canon ef-m. Tempting, nice lens, but does it make sense to spend money on defunct system? Hmm... wait for port of Sigma lens to RF-S -- oops, blocked by Canon, not gonna happen any time soon. Wait for Canon to come out with a similar lens? Hahahaha. Nope. Never.

On the bright side, I get to keep my money.


----------



## roby17269 (Dec 31, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> I don’t mind being noticeable (the R3 sort of stands out anyway). I also don’t mind the extra weight for a lens that will be used often on a trip. But for urban European destinations, if I’m going to bring a heavy lens I’d choose the 11-24/4 over the 100-500L. With the RF 100-400, I’ll likely bring both (in addition to the RF 14-35, 24-105 and TS-E 17).


If you don't mind me saying, that's quite a bit of focal length overlap with lenses which won't go faster than f/4... you could get rid of one of the UWA zooms at least. Not criticizing you, just curious about why the overlap and the lack of at least one faster lens?


neuroanatomist said:


> Even better value right now, with the current rebate dropping the price by 23% to $500.
> 
> I just ordered one from B&H.


I've tried one since a friend has it... I was not impressed side-to-side with my 100-500 and decided against it. Yes it is cheaper, smaller and lighter and darker (as in not white externally!) which are all positives... but I know if I had it and used it I would be left wanting more.
Clearly I am not target market for it. But it is fun to read here how a lot of posters seems to know the lenses that everyone "must" have 
This is not aimed at you personally, I know you don't do that (before you flame me  )


----------



## AlanF (Dec 31, 2022)

roby17269 said:


> If you don't mind me saying, that's quite a bit of focal length overlap with lenses which won't go faster than f/4... you could get rid of one of the UWA zooms at least. Not criticizing you, just curious about why the overlap and the lack of at least one faster lens?
> 
> I've tried one since a friend has it... I was not impressed side-to-side with my 100-500 and decided against it. Yes it is cheaper, smaller and lighter and darker (as in not white externally!) which are all positives... but I know if I had it and used it I would be left wanting more.
> Clearly I am not target market for it. But it is fun to read here how a lot of posters seems to know the lenses that everyone "must" have
> This is not aimed at you personally, I know you don't do that (before you flame me  )


I have both an RF 100-400mm and an RF 100-500mm to go with my R5 and R7, and find they complement each other. I have to say in contrast to those who see the positive aspects of lenses and bodies and their usefulness there are plenty of naysayers who look for the downsides, and it's usually not fun reading their lack of enthusiasm.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Dec 31, 2022)

Chuck3819 said:


> I work at a camera store and back in the DSLR days, the Sigma Art 18-35mm 1.8 was a very popular lens for Canon crop sensor/S35 Cinema camera users. I really wish Canon would fill that void with something like an RFS 18-45mm 1.8. It would be a must have for R7/R10/C70 users.











RF 18-35mm f/1.8 DS & RF 120-300mm f/2.8 (Defocus Smoothing)


And here is another Canon patent application for two RF-mount lenses with Defocus Smoothing technology, first introduced




www.canonwatch.com


----------



## roby17269 (Dec 31, 2022)

AlanF said:


> I have both an RF 100-400mm and an RF 100-500mm to go with my R5 and R7, and find they complement each other. I have to say in contrast to those who see the positive aspects of lenses and bodies and their usefulness there are plenty of naysayers who look for the downsides, and it's usually not fun reading their lack of enthusiasm.


That works for you, and it's fine! I, personally, am not a fan of having a lot of overlaps in my lens stable, but that's just me. It's a combination of not having a lot of room to store my gear plus I know I'd rather bring and use the better lens regardless.

Not sure I understand your second comment though. Should we all sing high praises of all lenses regardless of the fact that we may find some of them wanting? I do not comment on lenses I haven't used. And while I have used the 100-400 for very little, it did not impress me.


----------



## Chaitanya (Dec 31, 2022)

While at it Canon should port EF-M macro to RF(though personally would have loved to see 35mm and 60mm ported to RF).


----------



## Exploreshootshare (Dec 31, 2022)

Jethro said:


> so why go through a long development process to redesign an already high quality lens?


Sure, that's an approach. Saves R&D and contributes to Canon making a whole of money. I get that.

But why I should an M-user reinvest in the very same lense when the m-mount lense and camera still functions? RF-S is not only intended for "new customers", but for M-customers willing to switch. Usually, when you "switch" and reinvest, you'd want it to be an upgrade. Canon hasn't upgraded any M-lense so far and as far as I informed, some of the zoom have actually become a "downgrade" (is that a word?) by becoming darker. 

Canon tries to entice people to upgrade from an EF to an RF lense, e.g.: 
EF 100-400mm --> RF 100-500mm 
EF 16-35mm F4 --> RF 14-35mm F4
EF 16-35mm F2.8 --> RF 15-35mm F2.8 IS 

I have upgraded the 100-400mm and my UWA zoom because the RF mount lense offers me something, the EF version doesn't... I don't see that happening with M-lenses and feel Canon is actually being lazy here. 
As an M-user (which I am not) I would feel strongly disappointed in two ways: Canon not communicating that the m-mount is actually dead... and for charging me extra money for the exact lenses for the RF mount. It really is a bad move and hope a lot people opt not to buy it. Least Canon could do is to develop an M-RF-s adapter...


----------



## entoman (Dec 31, 2022)

roby17269 said:


> I, personally, am not a fan of having a lot of overlaps in my lens stable, but that's just me. It's a combination of not having a lot of room to store my gear plus I know I'd rather bring and use the better lens regardless.


I completely understand your viewpoint, but I'm in the same boat as Alan - luckily I can afford to have a fair bit of overlap in my lenses, and I do so for good reason.

I have a T/S-E 24mm which I use mainly for landscapes in the UK, and for fungi and lichen photography. The RF 24-105mm L F4 is my walkabout lens, used mainly for landscapes when travelling. That overlaps with my RF 100mm macro, which is used for photographing butterflies, moths, beetles, grasshoppers, damselflies and other insects - it's also a great landscape lens.

It overlaps also with my RF 100-400mm and RF 100-500mm lenses. The former is for handheld work, including butterflies, reptiles, amphibians, small mammals and landscapes. It's a recent acquisition and served me extremely well on a recent trip to West Papua, where it was essential to keep my outfit light and compact. On occasions where weight isn't an issue, such as mammals on safari, or bird photography in the UK, I prefer the RF 100-500mm for its greater sharpness, wider maximum aperture and extra focal length.

Finally, I have the RF 800mm F11, which while it's limited somewhat by its slow maximum aperture and long minimal focus distance, is pretty sharp, light enough to hand-hold easily, and serves as my main bird photography lens when lighting conditions are good enough.

At some stage, I'll probably add an ultra-wide. It won't be the RF 16mm though, as it will be for landscapes and will need to be ultra sharp corner to corner.


----------



## Pierre Lagarde (Dec 31, 2022)

Exploreshootshare said:


> Sure, that's an approach. Saves R&D and contributes to Canon making a whole of money. I get that.
> 
> But why I should an M-user reinvest in the very same lense when the m-mount lense and camera still functions? RF-S is not only intended for "new customers", but for M-customers willing to switch. Usually, when you "switch" and reinvest, you'd want it to be an upgrade. Canon hasn't upgraded any M-lense so far and as far as I informed, some of the zoom have actually become a "downgrade" (is that a word?) by becoming darker.
> 
> ...


Agreed. (though I'm not sure a thin 2mm adapter would be a good idea, especially now that Canon is investing somewhere else).
To my sense, last existing M cameras will probably keep working for years (especially M6 Mark II, if built quality is what it seems to be) and will clearly stay good workhorses for the purpose of having a good "pocket" camera/system. 
On my part, I probably won't upgrade to any R equivalent attempt and simply will keep my 22mm, 11-22mm, 32mm (and Sigma 56mm 1.4 too) as old jewels from a vanished concept/system. All these are a joy to use.  
Still, I understand that some may be interested in having a whole RF + RF-S set, giving AF last technologies + a kind of compatibility between last smaller APS-C and bigger FF mirrorless cameras from their favorite brand for the years to come.
However, if having a "small bag" is the main concern, there also may be other choices in other brands (or just future smartphones techs). We still have the choice.


----------



## koenkooi (Dec 31, 2022)

Exploreshootshare said:


> Sure, that's an approach. Saves R&D and contributes to Canon making a whole of money. I get that.
> 
> But why I should an M-user reinvest in the very same lense when the m-mount lense and camera still functions? RF-S is not only intended for "new customers", but for M-customers willing to switch. Usually, when you "switch" and reinvest, you'd want it to be an upgrade.[...]


I a broader sense, for me, RF-S can never be a proper upgrade from the M line, it will always be more unwieldy and huge. The original M (which I still have and use) with the 22mm is what I still hold up as the ideal size and form factor for a system that you can have always with you. For an RF body to get close to that form factor, it will likely have to drop IBIS since that seems to add 5mm of depth and have a square-ish body aspect ratio to fit the RF mount while limiting the width. 

Getting back to the topic, I find it hard to form an opinion on it without knowing which APS-C bodies and RF-S will follow in the next few years. With the 2 current bodies, the R7 and R10, it seems like a hasty, very low effort attempt at filling with crop UWA gap(s) in the line up. It might start making more sense if EVF-less bodies get announced and designed-from-scratch constant f/2.8 UWA zooms.
But seeing how EF-S didn't get a lot of attention from Canon and EF-M even less (but with gems like the 11-22mm, 22mm and 32mm!) I don't see how of why Canon is going to divert their sole lens design team from filling out the FF RF line to designing RF-S lenses.
I've always had the impression that the APS-C line at Canon was only there to bring in the money to work on the things they actually find interesting: FF bodies and exotic L lenses. That might change with both the APS-C mirrorfull bodies and EF-M being discontinued, but I think we'll always get disappointed by Canon when it comes to APS-C, especially when they release things like the EF-M 32mm, M6II and R7 just when I'm ready to abandon all hope


----------



## chasingrealness (Dec 31, 2022)

I’d love to see what amounts to a mini r7 with less of the photo strength and more video capabilities at the same price point or slightly lower.


----------



## AlanF (Dec 31, 2022)

roby17269 said:


> Not sure I understand your second comment though. Should we all sing high praises of all lenses regardless of the fact that we may find some of them wanting? I do not comment on lenses I haven't used. And while I have used the 100-400 for very little, it did not impress me.


My second comment that naysayers are not much fun to read was in response to your comment:


roby17269 said:


> But it is fun to read here how a lot of posters seems to know the lenses that everyone "must" have


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 31, 2022)

roby17269 said:


> If you don't mind me saying, that's quite a bit of focal length overlap with lenses which won't go faster than f/4... you could get rid of one of the UWA zooms at least. Not criticizing you, just curious about why the overlap and the lack of at least one faster lens?


Not sure if you mean overlap in a full kit, or overlap in what gets packed for a specific outing/trip.

For the former, I see no problem with significant overlap. My preference is to have the right tool available for the job. You can pound a fence post in with a little hammer or drive a small picture-hanging nail into your wall with a sledgehammer, but neither is optimal. I currently have 6 RF lenses (counting the one being delivered today by FedEx), 8 EF lenses, 8 EF-M lenses, and four TCs. For FF that focal range spans 11mm to 1200mm (11-24/4, 600/4 + 2xTC), with ample overlap. For ‘fast’ lenses, I have the RF 28-70/2L and EF 85/1.4L IS, and I suppose you could count the RF 70-200/2.8 as well.

That means when I’m going to shoot something, I can pick the lenses best suited to my subject(s). I feel the same about how those lenses are carried. I have an array of cases/backpacks that can hold a camera with pretty much any lens or set of lenses without empty space (unless by design when I want to also carry non-photo items).

The only thing I don’t want in my lens kit are lenses that I don’t use.

In terms of selecting lenses for a particular outing/trip, the same rules apply except with significant trips it’s preferable to have a backup body at least. Previously, I would bring an M body and a few lenses (typically the M11-22, M18-150 and M22/2). I’d use the M set as a convenient daytime walk around kit with family, then take the FF kit out later for solo blue hour / night photography. The EF-M adapter allowed the M body to serve as a backup, although I never actually needed it. Still, that’s a function the M6II cannot serve with my mostly RF kit. It’s why, if the rumored RF-S 11-22 comes out, I’ll consider an R8 or R10 as a second camera for the trip.

Regarding UWA overlap, as I typed the list of lenses for a planned urban European trip this summer (EF 11-24/4, RF 14-35/4, RF 24-105/4, RF 100-400, and TS-E 17), I actually removed the RF 14-35 then added it back. The reason is the weight difference – the 11-24 is a beast, and for the days I won’t need wider than 14mm I’d prefer to carry the lighter lens and leave the other in the hotel. I would bring both while traveling, but not carry both on any given outing.

As for lenses being f/4 or slower, I’ve found that not to be a problem for my travels. I use fast lenses (mostly the RF 28-70/2 and RF 70-200/2.8 now) for portraits and for indoor/night-lit events with moving subjects. Most of my travel shooting is outdoors at narrower apertures, and indoor shots are typically more of interiors (cathedrals, etc.), where I don’t need a fast shutter and thus can benefit from IS. The (up-to) 8-stops of stabilization with lenses like the RF 14-35 and 24-105 is a huge benefit for interior shots in locations where a tripod is not practical or not permitted.



roby17269 said:


> I've tried one since a friend has it... I was not impressed side-to-side with my 100-500 and decided against it. Yes it is cheaper, smaller and lighter and darker (as in not white externally!) which are all positives... but I know if I had it and used it I would be left wanting more.


Given others’ reports, testing and —more importantly— results with the RF 100-400, I have a reasonable expectation the lens will perform well. Did your friend properly test the lens when new, or did you? I ask because QC is not perfect and bad lenses are shipped. I had to return the first copy of my Rokinon 14/2.8, the second performed as expected. All my Canon lenses have been fine, but for example (I know I’m repeating myself from other threads), when I was reviewing the M18-150 for TDP, my results were much better than what Bryan showed in his ISO 12233-type charts. I told him that, and he ordered and tested a second copy of the lens and it was much better, those are the results now on his site. While such issues are more common with consumer-grade lenses, they happen with L-series lenses, too. Bryan tested four copies of the EF 24-70/2.8L, the first two were sub-par.

My RF 100-400 arrives today, I’ll properly test it next week, if it’s not up to snuff I’ll exchange it, and if the second copy also fails to perform well I’ll probably just return it and decide whether or not to take the 100-500L on the trip.


----------



## Groundhog (Dec 31, 2022)

Exploreshootshare said:


> Least Canon could do is to develop an M-RF-s adapter...



There won't be an adapter from EF-M to RF since the flange focal distance 2mm shorter for the M.

RF is designed to be an upgrade path for EF/EF-S but not for M customers ... that is probably the reason Canon tries to flesh out the RF-S line before they declare the M system dead officially.

EF-M is going the way of FD back in the day where the old system was incompatible to the new EF mount and you had to replace everything (or switch to Nikon/Sony/mFT/)


----------



## chasingrealness (Dec 31, 2022)

I’d really prefer an f/1.8 or f/2.8 L IS version of this lens. Why not go all in and make L series APS-C glass for RF and make a real splash, Canon?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 31, 2022)

chasingrealness said:


> Why not go all in and make L series APS-C glass for RF and make a real splash, Canon?


Because most consumer-level buyers don't want to pay for splashy lenses. The ones that will pay for splashy lenses, Canon wants them to pay even more for splashy FF lenses. I highly doubt an APS-C L-series lens will ever happen. 

The APS-C segment is clearly important to Canon, it comprises the majority of their user base, and in fact Canon APS-C owners comprise the majority of camera owners, period. But that means that Canon has oodles of data on what those buyers want, and with all that data what does it tell you that lenses like the EF-S 17-55/2.8 and EF-M 32/1.4 are the exceptions rather than the rule? Even the relatively popular, moderately fast (for its focal length) EF-S 10-22mm was replaced with cheaper, slower, plastic-mount EF-S 10-18mm. Don't hold your breath waiting for high end APS-C lenses, even non-L ones.


----------



## Exploreshootshare (Dec 31, 2022)

Groundhog said:


> RF is designed to be an upgrade path for EF/EF-S but not for M customers


If that’s the case, why is canon reusing EF-M lenses and not EF-S lenses such as the EF-S 10-18mm? 



> Canon tries to flesh out the RF-S line before they declare the M system dead officially.


That’s probably the real reason why they are transforming the EFm lenses to RF: the m-Mount will be officially knocked out once rfs is complete.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 31, 2022)

Exploreshootshare said:


> If that’s the case, why is canon reusing EF-M lenses and not EF-S lenses such as the EF-S 10-18mm?


Because the EF-S lenses are designed with a longer flange distance, and to reuse them would require adding an extra 22mm of empty tube at the back of the lens which is a waste of space in a small lens (although that's exactly what they did with the EF 400/2.8 III and 600/4 III when they made the RF versions). 

OTOH, EF-M lenses are designed with a short flange distance so the same design can have the rear element simply protrude 2 mm further into the body and be used as-is.


----------



## Dragon (Dec 31, 2022)

Skux said:


> I'm glad this is finally going to exist, but it looks like Canon is putting even less effort into APS-C than they normally do, which I didn't think was possible.
> 
> We started with the 18-45mm which had a narrower zoom range and slower aperture than the EF-M equivalent, and now the wide angle zoom doesn't even reach a modest f/4.
> 
> At this rate the prime lenses will be 22mm f/3.5 and 32mm f/2.8... and cost more than the EF-M primes.


Maybe you are hung up on the RF-s designation. There is already a very nice 16mm f/2.8 and 50mm f/1.8 that are very affordable. The fact that they also work on a FF body is irrelevant to the APS-c discussion. The 24mm f/1.8 IS is a little pricer, but still a nice choice for a crop camera. The 100-400 is also an excellent fit and no bigger or more expensive than it would be if limited to an APS-c frame. Lastly, don't forget the 600 and 800 f/11. They both work stunningly well with the R7 and no other camera system has anything even close in terms of reach to weight ratio. The rumored 16-55 f/2.8 would be a welcome fast zoom, but even now, I don't feel crippled using the R7 and I have all the mentioned lenses other than the 24mm (because I already had the EF 24mm).


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 31, 2022)

Dragon said:


> Maybe you are hung up on the RF-s designation. There is already a very nice 16mm f/2.8 and 50mm f/1.8 that are very affordable. The fact that they also work on a FF body is irrelevant to the APS-c discussion. The 24mm f/1.8 IS is a little pricer, but still a nice choice for a crop camera. The 100-400 is also an excellent fit and no bigger or more expensive than it would be if limited to an APS-c frame.


Also a 35/1.8 that makes a good 'normal' lens on APS-C, and an 85/2 for portraits, etc. IMO, all that's really missing for APS-C primes is an UWA (e.g. 8 or 10mm, probably also f/2.8). Having said that, I'd love to see a 20-25mm pancake lens like the M22/2 or EF 40/2.8.


----------



## Dragon (Dec 31, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Also a 35/1.8 that makes a good 'normal' lens on APS-C, and an 85/2 for portraits, etc. IMO, all that's really missing for APS-C primes is an UWA (e.g. 8 or 10mm, probably also f/2.8). Having said that, I'd love to see a 20-25mm pancake lens like the M22/2 or EF 40/2.8.


I was doing an edit while you were commenting and added some more info. I agree that a UWA prime is needed, and a port of the EF-s 15-85 would be welcome. The 15-85 is sharpest of the EF-s zooms and it lives on my 90D. Since Canon seems to be playing with innovative ideas in R lens family, I suspect we will see one or two RF-s lenses that break new ground in the next year or so.


----------



## Groundhog (Dec 31, 2022)

Exploreshootshare said:


> If that’s the case, why is canon reusing EF-M lenses and not EF-S lenses such as the EF-S 10-18mm?



Because the optical formulas of EF-M lenses are for the short flange focal distance and can be converted to RF without much work - the zoom for EF-S needs about 20mm more distance to the sensor which makes for a bigger lens.


€dit:
I missed neuros response ... don't mind me, he said everything.


----------



## amfoto1 (Dec 31, 2022)

Swerky said:


> RF-S 11-22 f4.5-5.6? The EF-M lens goes from f4 to 5.6, and the EF-S lens is a 10-18 f4.5-5.6. So if the info is correct, the coming RF-S lens is a bit slower than the former and less wide than the latter. I believe it should be a 4-5.6 like the EF-M lens.
> Anyway I\'m not interested before seeing an 11mm f2.8 prime. Not likely to happen. Get a third party manual focus one.


f/4 vs f/4.5? That's virtually meaningless. 

There also is the older, larger, better built and more expensive EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM that's excellent. Up to 2./3 stop larger aperture, slightly wider range of focal lengths, plus USM autofocus... but no IS. 

The EF-M 11-22mm is the smallest and lightest of the bunch... 55mm filter (versus 67mm on the EF-S 10-18mm and 77mm on the EF-S 10-22mm). It also is by far the closest focusing of them all... 0.30X (versus 0.15X with the EF-S 10-18mm and 0.17X with the EF-S 10-22mm). 

Canon's EF-M 22mm f/2 "pancake" is the widest prime they offered for the M-system... hopefully they will adapt it to the RF-mount too. It's a very nice lens. although almost too small! (I have a metal lens hood permanently screwed into mine, to make it a little larger.)

There are plenty of good third party manual focus, manual aperture 9, 10, 11 and 12mm primes. Personally I uses a 12mm f/2.8 labelled Meike. It also sells under the Opteka brand. But neither of those make lenses themselves, so who knows who actually made it in China. It's pretty decent and easy to use on a mirrorless (exposure preview and various focus assist.... the latter is hardly needed on a lens that has so much depth of field. Look for Laowa, Rokinon/Samyang, Viltrox and others, for some good options. 

But why settle for f/2.8? There are both Meike and Laowa 10mm f/2 lenses for APS-C cameras.


----------



## mpb001 (Dec 31, 2022)

What ever happened to the R replacement and RP replacement? Seems focus has shifted a little to APS-C. I am still a bit baffled by Canon pushing APS-C, unless it’s to challenge Nikon. I say let the other companies like Fuji stick with APS-C. Afterall, a new RP is like $1000 and a R10 is like $799. Not sure why someone would chose Canon crop or FF at that entry point. If I were going to choose crop sensor I would choose Fuji because of their wide range of very good lenses. Just my opinion but I can respect other’s choices.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 31, 2022)

mpb001 said:


> Afterall, a new RP is like $1000 and a R10 is like $799. Not sure why someone would chose Canon crop or FF at that entry point.


APS-C for a smaller, lighter body that can use smaller, lighter lenses but can still natively mount FF RF lenses.


----------



## Jethro (Dec 31, 2022)

Exploreshootshare said:


> Sure, that's an approach. Saves R&D and contributes to Canon making a whole of money. I get that.
> 
> But why I should an M-user reinvest in the very same lense when the m-mount lense and camera still functions? RF-S is not only intended for "new customers", but for M-customers willing to switch. Usually, when you "switch" and reinvest, you'd want it to be an upgrade. Canon hasn't upgraded any M-lense so far and as far as I informed, some of the zoom have actually become a "downgrade" (is that a word?) by becoming darker.
> 
> ...


Maybe because the M11-22 is a popular and well designed lens, and for a lot of people having it available in a native RF mount would be an incentive to move to the R mount? Let's face it, Canon would love such people to move up to a FF R mount body, but for those preferring to stay with APS-C, they brought out options, including for those wanting an 'M series alternative'. 

It's unlikely that a lot of the sort of development you're talking about is going to be expended on RF-S lenses. As someone else mentioned, some of the new RF FF lenses seem to also have an APS-C application in mind. But I don't see why it is an issue for Canon to recycle the best of the M series lenses, bearing in mind this also speeds up the timing of getting them out in RF-S mount.


----------



## chong67 (Dec 31, 2022)

I am having trouble keeping my subject face, arms and legs from looking abnormal! I am only at 16mm. To go to 11mm? How?


----------



## entoman (Dec 31, 2022)

*Happy New Year *everyone, and may 2023 bring us a great selection of new Canon lenses and bodies!

... and maybe, if we're lucky, Tamron and Sigma AF lenses in RF mount?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 1, 2023)

chong67 said:


> I am having trouble keeping my subject face, arms and legs from looking abnormal! I am only at 16mm. To go to 11mm? How?


Move back. Wide angles with people work as ‘environmental’ portraits, smaller subject showing a lot of background.

If your issue is people at the edges, e.g., shots of large groups of people where you can’t move back to frame with a longer lens, try using DxO PhotoLab (v6 only) or DxO ViewPoint, which have volume anamorphosis correction. I posted an example here.


----------



## Dragon (Jan 1, 2023)

Exploreshootshare said:


> Sure, that's an approach. Saves R&D and contributes to Canon making a whole of money. I get that.
> 
> But why I should an M-user reinvest in the very same lense when the m-mount lense and camera still functions? RF-S is not only intended for "new customers", but for M-customers willing to switch. Usually, when you "switch" and reinvest, you'd want it to be an upgrade. Canon hasn't upgraded any M-lense so far and as far as I informed, some of the zoom have actually become a "downgrade" (is that a word?) by becoming darker.
> 
> ...


As one who has 3 M cameras and all the M lenses, I am a bit sad that M is not going forward, but I fully understand the decision. The small battery used in the M cameras will not support IBIS plus the level of processing needed for scaled 4k video. That is to say there is no way to turn an M6 II into a mini R7 and still have reasonable battery life. That said, I also snapped up an R7 to use with my RF 800 f/11 and I would like to see most, if not all the M lenses ported to the RF mount. Progress is progress and things-a-change. My M cameras still work fine and the M6 II is still my go-to for max portability.

As far as an adapter from M to R, that is a physical impossibility because the M flange distance is less than the R flange distance https://briansmith.com/flange-focal-distance-guide/ Even with a port, they have to kind of pop the rear element back into the camera much like many of the EF-s lenses were made. You could make the argument that the R flange distance could have been shorter (like the Nikon Z), but then there would not have been room for ND filters in the R cine cameras. Physics is unforgiving.


----------



## mb66energy (Jan 1, 2023)

Maximilian said:


> I'm really hoping for all APS-C fans for such a lens to come.
> Honestly, I wouldn't even bet a penny on that. I hope I'm wrong


@Maximilian: Probability is higher after the release of the R7 because it is a camera well suited for professional use. Not sharing RF lens-camera protocol should urge Canon to give us solutions. I hope I'm right


----------



## Deepboy (Jan 1, 2023)

I hope to be refuted by Canon, but I think they'll treat RF-S just like they did with EF-S and EF-M, so almost only consumer lenses, maybe optically good but only with dark apertures, and very few primes; probably they'll manufacture just a single bright standard lens to match the old EF-S 17-55 (hopefully with same extra mm on wide and/or tele end...Tamron has done a 17-70 f2.8 for E-mount, so it's possible) that wouldn't be L (I'm pretty sure we'll never EVER see an L lens for crop sensors), no weather sealing and no hood provided in the box...same old story.

They'll port all the EF-M lenses, because they're ready with minimal rehousing (but i wouldn't be so sure on the 32 f1.4 because M system was a system on its own, without an FF counterpart...on RF I think it's "too much of a lens" for Canon, they want you to buy FF if you like bright primes), and they'll reproject a couple of things from scratch, like the 17-55 2.8 and std 5x/6x "better then kit" zoom wider then 18mm like the 15-85, because they were missing in M mount, but not much else.

Waiting to see if, and when, they'll port the 22 f2 pancake, i just bought for 75€ an used EF-S 24 f2.8 to be my do-it-all-pocket-size-lens on my R10, even if the "pocket" part is much less pocketable than my M6 II + 22 STM were (but even with a 22mm pancake the R10 is very much less pocketable on its own compared to the M6 II); I thought about the RF 24 f1.8 (roughly same size then EF-S 24 + adapter) but cost 10 times as much, so not a viable option for now, even if I can reuse it on R6 (but it's a focal I'll likely never use on FF).
But the supposed RF-S 22 pancake wouldn't be cheap as well, I expect it in the range of 350/400€/$, which is still to much for my taste and pockets for such a lens.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Jan 1, 2023)

Groundhog said:


> There won't be an adapter from EF-M to RF since the flange focal distance 2mm shorter for the M.


That should not stop Canon from going the other way and making an RF lens to EF-M camera body adapter


----------



## Deepboy (Jan 1, 2023)

EOS 4 Life said:


> That should not stop Canon from going the other way and making an RF lens to EF-M camera body adapter



That's "flangely" theoretically possible, but the adapter should be just 2mm thick, electronics included, and also RF lenses are way bigger in diameter, they cannot sit in a M mount, even raised by 2mm; Canon won't do it because they want you to buy R bodies, and neither will the Chinese manufacturers, it's too complicate and unreasonable, as both M and R bodies "talk EF", so it's basically just electronic coupling for both, but M doesn't "speak RF", that means the hypothetical adapter should also have a processor onboard to translate instructions (and someone needs to write software to do that)...all in 2mm?

There's no way; you can do it with a lens in the adapter, so it can be thicker, and being wider at the front to accommodate the RF diameter, but again, there's no sense in doing that, and quality would be cr*p because the lens would screw it really hard, or other way with a good lens the adapter would cost hundreds of €/$, and would eventually even change focal lengths.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Jan 1, 2023)

What happened with the CR ratings? Did i miss something?


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Jan 1, 2023)

EOS 4 Life said:


> That should not stop Canon from going the other way and making an RF lens to EF-M camera body adapter



You need an adapter only 2mm in width. Pretty hard to make and pointless as not too many M users want to adapt RF lenses on their $500 M's.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Jan 1, 2023)

Deepboy said:


> I hope to be refuted by Canon, but I think they'll treat RF-S just like they did with EF-S and EF-M, so almost only consumer lenses, maybe optically good but only with dark apertures, and very few primes; probably they'll manufacture just a single bright standard lens to match the old EF-S 17-55 (hopefully with same extra mm on wide and/or tele end...Tamron has done a 17-70 f2.8 for E-mount, so it's possible) that wouldn't be L (I'm pretty sure we'll never EVER see an L lens for crop sensors), no weather sealing and no hood provided in the box...same old story.
> 
> They'll port all the EF-M lenses, because they're ready with minimal rehousing (but i wouldn't be so sure on the 32 f1.4 because M system was a system on its own, without an FF counterpart...on RF I think it's "too much of a lens" for Canon, they want you to buy FF if you like bright primes), and they'll reproject a couple of things from scratch, like the 17-55 2.8 and std 5x/6x "better then kit" zoom wider then 18mm like the 15-85, because they were missing in M mount, but not much else.
> 
> ...



"I'm pretty sure we'll never EVER see an L lens for crop sensors" - I think Canon mentioned a few times that L designation is reserved for full-frame lenses only.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Jan 1, 2023)

mpb001 said:


> What ever happened to the R replacement and RP replacement? Seems focus has shifted a little to APS-C. I am still a bit baffled by Canon pushing APS-C, unless it’s to challenge Nikon. I say let the other companies like Fuji stick with APS-C. Afterall, a new RP is like $1000 and a R10 is like $799. Not sure why someone would chose Canon crop or FF at that entry point. If I were going to choose crop sensor I would choose Fuji because of their wide range of very good lenses. Just my opinion but I can respect other’s choices.



The R10 is a cheaper and much better video camera than the RP. Also, it is much faster. The RP is cheap for a full frame but sloooow and limited.

Fuji is much better indeed if you don's need some exotic lenses, like super telephotos you can buy in EF mount and adapt to an R7 for example.


----------



## Bob Howland (Jan 1, 2023)

blackcoffee17 said:


> The R10 is a cheaper and much better video camera than the RP. Also, it is much faster. The RP is cheap for a full frame but sloooow and limited.
> 
> Fuji is much better indeed if you don's need some exotic lenses, like super telephotos you can buy in EF mount and adapt to an R7 for example.


There is also an adaptor to use EF lenses on 4/3 cameras. I'm not sure how well it works though. I've always wondered if the R10 could be made with an M mount and lots of the R7 firmware. It's about the same size as the M5 although it has a decent grip.


----------



## Deepboy (Jan 1, 2023)

blackcoffee17 said:


> "I'm pretty sure we'll never EVER see an L lens for crop sensors" - I think Canon mentioned a few times that L designation is reserved for full-frame lenses only.



Exactly; even if they never would have mentioned it, you just see it from what they did until now


----------



## Deepboy (Jan 1, 2023)

blackcoffee17 said:


> The R10 is a cheaper and much better video camera than the RP. Also, it is much faster. The RP is cheap for a full frame but sloooow and limited.



When i switched from the M6 II because I wanted a backup camera with same mount of my R6, I considered at basically the same price both RP and R10, and I got the second, even if APS-C, because it's a much better camera in all aspects (except very high iso, due to the sensor size), especially for video.
I was also really lucky and I paid 485€ for the R10 (ex demo, less then 200 shots, so basically a brand new camera), while reselling M6 II for 620€ (same price I purchased it), so in the end i even got money on top of the switch for a better camera, getting rid of a dead camera mount whose value was drastically dropping every day.


----------



## Dragon (Jan 1, 2023)

Deepboy said:


> I hope to be refuted by Canon, but I think they'll treat RF-S just like they did with EF-S and EF-M, so almost only consumer lenses, maybe optically good but only with dark apertures, and very few primes; probably they'll manufacture just a single bright standard lens to match the old EF-S 17-55 (hopefully with same extra mm on wide and/or tele end...Tamron has done a 17-70 f2.8 for E-mount, so it's possible) that wouldn't be L (I'm pretty sure we'll never EVER see an L lens for crop sensors), no weather sealing and no hood provided in the box...same old story.
> 
> They'll port all the EF-M lenses, because they're ready with minimal rehousing (but i wouldn't be so sure on the 32 f1.4 because M system was a system on its own, without an FF counterpart...on RF I think it's "too much of a lens" for Canon, they want you to buy FF if you like bright primes), and they'll reproject a couple of things from scratch, like the 17-55 2.8 and std 5x/6x "better then kit" zoom wider then 18mm like the 15-85, because they were missing in M mount, but not much else.
> 
> ...


Why would you expect the 22 f/2 RFs to sell for $350-400 when the 50 f/1.8 FF is currently selling for $150? Even the 16mm FF is selling for $250 and that is a lovely match for an R7 or R10. Yes, the 24mm f/1.8 goes for $600, but that is FF and includes IS and macro. The RF-s 18-150 lists for exactly the same price as the EF-M 18-150 and it has the added feature of a control ring. Too much pessimism is bad for your health  .


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 1, 2023)

Dragon said:


> Why would you expect the 22 f/2 RFs to sell for $350-400 when the 50 f/1.8 FF is currently selling for $150? Even the 16mm FF is selling for $250 and that is a lovely match for an R7 or R10. Yes, the 24mm f/1.8 goes for $600, but that is FF and includes IS and macro. The RF-s 18-150 lists for exactly the same price as the EF-M 18-150 and it has the added feature of a control ring. Too much pessimism is bad for your health  .


Agreed. The RF-S and EF-M 18-150mm lenses have the same suggested retail price, and the EF-M 22/2 lists for $250.


----------



## Dragon (Jan 1, 2023)

blackcoffee17 said:


> "I'm pretty sure we'll never EVER see an L lens for crop sensors" - I think Canon mentioned a few times that L designation is reserved for full-frame lenses only.


The L stands for Luxury (as in Lexus). The c (in APS-c) stands for cramped (as in Corolla).


----------



## Czardoom (Jan 1, 2023)

Deepboy said:


> I hope to be refuted by Canon, but I think they'll treat RF-S just like they did with EF-S and EF-M, so almost only consumer lenses, maybe optically good but only with dark apertures, and very few primes; probably they'll manufacture just a single bright standard lens to match the old EF-S 17-55 (hopefully with same extra mm on wide and/or tele end...Tamron has done a 17-70 f2.8 for E-mount, so it's possible) that wouldn't be L (I'm pretty sure we'll never EVER see an L lens for crop sensors), no weather sealing and no hood provided in the box...same old story.


Yes, Canon will treat RF-S just like EF-S and EF-M because Canon understands who the target market is for crop sensor cameras. They understand that in all likelihood, the vast majority of photographers that want L quality, fast lenses are already buying or already own those lenses in EF or RF mounts. Making essentially the same lenses in the RF-S mount would be rediculous considering the cost to develop them and the apparently tiny number of potential buyers. Based on the popularity of the M50 and the DSLR rebels over the years, Canon knows that most crop camera buyers want inexpensive lenses and are not buying many lenses, especially primes, to begin with. The other large group of crop camera buyers is wildlife, bird and sports photographers (at least based on perusing the facebook R7 groups, where probably 90% or more of the posts are birds). That group is buying FF lenses for virtually all their needs. Some folks do want a standard zoom for shots other than their main interest, in which case they don't need an L quality lens and would rather have something small, light and inexpensive.


----------



## Deepboy (Jan 1, 2023)

Dragon said:


> Why would you expect the 22 f/2 RFs to sell for $350-400 when the 50 f/1.8 FF is currently selling for $150? Even the 16mm FF is selling for $250


I was guessing about *list price* on Canon website in my country, Italy, in euro; here 50 f1.8 sells for 250€ and 16 f2.8 for 360€.

Your prices in USA dollars probably doesn't include taxes; in Europe our prices are already final, with taxes included.


----------



## sanj (Jan 1, 2023)

neuroanatomist said:


> Personally, I’m hoping the rumored ‘R8’ is an M6II-like smaller body. If so, I’d get that and the 11-22 / 18-150 as a travel set since unlike the M6II it could serve as a backup for my R3.
> 
> Perhaps the RF-S 11-22 will be announced alongside the R8, if the latter is a vlogging camera it needs an ultrawide.
> 
> I am considering the RF 100-400 for travel, to urban destinations where a longer focal length may occasionally be useful but not sufficiently to justify bringing the 100-500L.



I have the 100-400. It works wonderfully when a lighter/smaller lens is required.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Jan 1, 2023)

Bob Howland said:


> There is also an adaptor to use EF lenses on 4/3 cameras. I'm not sure how well it works though. I've always wondered if the R10 could be made with an M mount and lots of the R7 firmware. It's about the same size as the M5 although it has a decent grip.



No, because M mount is not compatible with RF. The whole point of making RF-S mount is to make APS-C and Full Frame mounts compatible.


----------



## mdcmdcmdc (Jan 2, 2023)

Dragon said:


> That doesn't just look like the EF-M 11-22 it is the EF-M 11-22. The RF-s version will necessarily have a flange at the mount end just like the RF-s 18-150. And yes, the EF-M 11-22 is an excellent WA lens, so well worth porting. The EF-M 32 f/1.4 needs to be on the list as well. along with the 22 f/2 (but the RF 24 f/1.8 does cover that base). When you throw in the RF 16mm f/2.8 and the RF 50mm f/1.8, that gives you 16,22,32, and 50 in decently fast primes. Add the 11-22, the 18-150, and the RF 100-400 and the R7 has a remarkably complete lens kit that includes super telephoto if you throw in the 600 and 800 f/11, both of which the R7 is very fond of. The rumored 16-55 f/2.8 adds a fast normal zoom. That leaves maybe a 10mm prime and it would be nice to see a replacement for the EF-s 15-85.


The RF 24 is a great lens from what I read, but I’d love to see more of a pancake like the EF-M 20 or the EF-S 28.


----------



## Deepboy (Jan 2, 2023)

mdcmdcmdc said:


> The RF 24 is a great lens from what I read, but I’d love to see more of a pancake like the EF-M 20 or the EF-S 28.


 They are EF-M 22 and EF-S 24


----------



## mdcmdcmdc (Jan 2, 2023)

Deepboy said:


> They are EF-M 22 and EF-S 24


ROTFL! Thanks for the correction! That's what I get for responding without checking the product list.

The f/2.8 on the EF-S 24 always throws me. I know there's an 8 in there somewhere. And believe it or not, I actually do own both. I just don't use them so often... obviously...


----------



## mdcmdcmdc (Jan 2, 2023)

koenkooi said:


> I a broader sense, for me, RF-S can never be a proper upgrade from the M line, it will always be more unwieldy and huge. The original M (which I still have and use) with the 22mm is what I still hold up as the ideal size and form factor for a system that you can have always with you. For an RF body to get close to that form factor, it will likely have to drop IBIS since that seems to add 5mm of depth and have a square-ish body aspect ratio to fit the RF mount while limiting the width.
> 
> Getting back to the topic, I find it hard to form an opinion on it without knowing which APS-C bodies and RF-S will follow in the next few years. With the 2 current bodies, the R7 and R10, it seems like a hasty, very low effort attempt at filling with crop UWA gap(s) in the line up. It might start making more sense if EVF-less bodies get announced and designed-from-scratch constant f/2.8 UWA zooms.
> But seeing how EF-S didn't get a lot of attention from Canon and EF-M even less (but with gems like the 11-22mm, 22mm and 32mm!) I don't see how of why Canon is going to divert their sole lens design team from filling out the FF RF line to designing RF-S lenses.
> I've always had the impression that the APS-C line at Canon was only there to bring in the money to work on the things they actually find interesting: FF bodies and exotic L lenses. That might change with both the APS-C mirrorfull bodies and EF-M being discontinued, but I think we'll always get disappointed by Canon when it comes to APS-C, especially when they release things like the EF-M 32mm, M6II and R7 just when I'm ready to abandon all hope


I can definitely relate to that sentiment. Nobody wants to spend a lot of money on a body and lens(es) today, only to have Canon release new ones that fit their needs better next year.

On the other hand, the entire RF line is still relatively new, and RF-S even more so. You can wait five years and see what happens, or you can get out there and use the gear that's available now to do what you want. If Canon comes out with something in the future that matches your needs better, you can decide if it's worth the cost to switch at that time. Either way, you've gotten good use from what you have now, and there will still be a vibrant market for used Canon gear.


----------



## mdcmdcmdc (Jan 2, 2023)

Groundhog said:


> There won't be an adapter from EF-M to RF since the flange focal distance 2mm shorter for the M.
> 
> RF is designed to be an upgrade path for EF/EF-S but not for M customers ... that is probably the reason Canon tries to flesh out the RF-S line before they declare the M system dead officially.
> 
> EF-M is going the way of FD back in the day where the old system was incompatible to the new EF mount and you had to replace everything (or switch to Nikon/Sony/mFT/)


I agree that there won't (likely) be an EF-M to RF adapter. Such an adapter isn't impossible to build, but because of the similarity in diameter and flange distance, it can't just be an empty tube like the EF to RF or EF to EF-M. Since the EF-M protocol is the same as EF, and the R cameras work with EF lenses, the electrical interface only has to make sure the signal integrity is preserved over the greater distance and the two mechanical connections. No worse than an extender or speed booster.

But because such an adapter would need some nonzero length, there would have to be some sort of optical element(s) in the path in order to bring the focus on the sensor at the greater distance. This would also seem to me to be no worse than the optics of a good quality extender or speed booster.

Canon certainly could make such a device if they wished, as could many third parties such as Viltrox or Metabones, but you won't see $30 knockoffs on Amazon that work just as well, like you do with the EF to EF-M or EF to RF adapters (and if you do, they'll be as good quality as you would expect from a $30 extender).

The real problem, IMO, is the economics. A good quality adapter with optics like this would be priced just like a good quality extender or speed booster, which is to say, anywhere between $200 and $500, and I doubt there's that big of a market for such a device at that price. While a few enthusiasts with large EF-M lens collections might spring for it, I daresay it's not like needing to preserve an investment of thousands of dollars in "L" lenses.


----------



## mdcmdcmdc (Jan 2, 2023)

sanj said:


> I have the 100-400. It works wonderfully when a lighter/smaller lens is required.


I picked up an RF 100-400 at the sale price this fall and I'm super happy with it. The results have been great, and the f/8 maximum aperture doesn't bother me since I normally shoot between f/8 and f/11 anyway. I'm coming from an adapted Sigma 100-400|C, which is also a fantastic lens.

I've got two kids in college so for now I can only dream about the RF 100-500L.


----------



## mdcmdcmdc (Jan 2, 2023)

Groundhog said:


> EF-M is going the way of FD back in the day where the old system was incompatible to the new EF mount and you had to replace everything (or switch to Nikon/Sony/mFT/)


When the EOS system was first introduced, Canon actually made an FD to EOS converter, which had lenses in it. It was only available for a few years in the late 1980's, and I don't know if it was something you could buy in a store or if you had to get through CPS, which at the time had much more selective membership requirements (I think at the time you had to be nationally published to be considered for CPS). I also recall once hearing it only worked with the big white FDs, which would make sense because the high-value customers that Canon wanted to move to the new EOS system were concerned about their existing lens investments.

Once Canon came out with the fast focusing USM big whites in the early 1990's, a lot of the remaining FD holdouts finally switched, along with a lot of Nikon pro sports photographers.

EDIT: Also, in 1987, there were no Sony cameras or MFT, and even APS was 8 years away. If you didn't want Canon or Nikon (the big two), your main choices were between Pentax, Olympus, and Minolta. There were other, less common (in the US) brands, such as Ricoh, Yashica, and Konica, among others. Minolta and Konica merged in the mid 1990's and sold their consumer camera business to Sony in 2006, which started Sony down the path to where they are today. The Sony A mount was originally the Minolta A mount from the Minolta Maxxum/Dynax 35mm film SLRs.


----------



## Dragon (Jan 2, 2023)

mdcmdcmdc said:


> I agree that there won't (likely) be an EF-M to RF adapter. Such an adapter isn't impossible to build, but because of the similarity in diameter and flange distance, it can't just be an empty tube like the EF to RF or EF to EF-M. Since the EF-M protocol is the same as EF, and the R cameras work with EF lenses, the electrical interface only has to make sure the signal integrity is preserved over the greater distance and the two mechanical connections. No worse than an extender or speed booster.
> 
> But because such an adapter would need some nonzero length, there would have to be some sort of optical element(s) in the path in order to bring the focus on the sensor at the greater distance. This would also seem to me to be no worse than the optics of a good quality extender or speed booster.
> 
> ...


Yes, such an adapter could be made, but the catch is that (like FD to EF adapters), the resulting combination no longer has the same focal length and aperture that the original lens had. The only true solution would be an open tube with a negative length of 2mm. You might even call it the "wormhole adapter".  .


----------



## Traveler (Jan 2, 2023)

11mm? Why not 10?


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Jan 2, 2023)

Traveler said:


> 11mm? Why not 10?



Because it's a recycled design and to keep size down. Plus APS-C users don't need anything other than basic in Canon's mind.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Jan 2, 2023)

Czardoom said:


> Canon will treat RF-S just like EF-S and EF-M because Canon understands who the target market is for crop sensor cameras


If, as I suspect, the R7 will be the only weather-sealed Canon APS-C camera then it would not make much sense to have L lenses for APS-C.
The R7 is really best with full-frame lenses anyway.
People even use full-frame lenses with the C70.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Jan 2, 2023)

mdcmdcmdc said:


> Such an adapter isn't impossible to build


I can't see Canon ever making such an adapter.
It would need to come from a third party.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Jan 2, 2023)

Dragon said:


> Yes, such an adapter could be made, but the catch is that (like FD to EF adapters), the resulting combination no longer has the same focal length and aperture that the original lens had.


That is a catch I could live with.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 2, 2023)

EOS 4 Life said:


> That is a catch I could live with.


Far more likely, it’s a catch you’ll have to live without.


----------



## mdcmdcmdc (Jan 2, 2023)

EOS 4 Life said:


> If, as I suspect, the R7 will be the only weather-sealed Canon APS-C camera then it would not make much sense to have L lenses for APS-C.
> The R7 is really best with full-frame lenses anyway.
> People even use full-frame lenses with the C70.


With the R7's emphasis on sports and wildlife/bird photography, I think Canon's expectation is that it will be primarily used with longer lenses. Canon already has a good selection of full frame long lenses, and longer focal lengths don't save as much in terms of size and weight being designed for the APS-C image circle as shorter lenses do.


----------



## chong67 (Jan 2, 2023)

neuroanatomist said:


> Move back. Wide angles with people work as ‘environmental’ portraits, smaller subject showing a lot of background.
> 
> If your issue is people at the edges, e.g., shots of large groups of people where you can’t move back to frame with a longer lens, try using DxO PhotoLab (v6 only) or DxO ViewPoint, which have volume anamorphosis correction. I posted an example here.



Hello @neuroanatomist. Thank you for telling me this. I went to do more research yesterday and I learn something new, its called volume anamorphosis correction. I install DxO ViewPoint and did some of the correction on anything on the sides or the bottoms and it works fairly well! I will keep using my 16mm. Thanks!


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Jan 2, 2023)

EOS 4 Life said:


> If, as I suspect, the R7 will be the only weather-sealed Canon APS-C camera then it would not make much sense to have L lenses for APS-C.
> The R7 is really best with full-frame lenses anyway.
> People even use full-frame lenses with the C70.



The problem with full-frame lenses is the standard zoom. For the R7 the only zooms you could use maybe are the 15-35 or 14-35. Both expensive and heavy lenses with not enough mm on the long end.


----------



## Deepboy (Jan 2, 2023)

mdcmdcmdc said:


> With the R7's emphasis on sports and wildlife/bird photography, I think Canon's expectation is that it will be primarily used with longer lenses. Canon already has a good selection of full frame long lenses, and longer focal lengths don't save as much in terms of size and weight being designed for the APS-C image circle as shorter lenses do.



Also, if you shoot with std and wide focal lengths, when you use APS-C you always look for wide, wider, and even more wide, because of the crop factor; but on the other side, if you shoot sport/wildlife, you need longer, not wider.
I really don't see a market (and in fact as far as I know no one manufactures them) for medium, long and extra long tele made for crop sensor only; I think someone (there' a Tokina 50-100 for sure) manufactures some short-to-medium tele zoom for crop sensors, due to portability and cost, but I don't remember anything over 100/150mm, zoom or prime, being crop only.
Even if a crop 300 f2.8 would be cheaper then a fullframe 300 f2.8 who's gonna spend all that money for something limited to a single smaller sensor size? Meanwhile they'll spend many money on something like rectilinear 10mm, or shorter, focals.


----------



## chong67 (Jan 2, 2023)

Will Canon make a RF 11mm? It will be a dream come true for taking 360 photos. I think you need 6 + 1 top + 1 bottom.


----------



## mdcmdcmdc (Jan 2, 2023)

Deepboy said:


> Also, if you shoot with std and wide focal lengths, when you use APS-C you always look for wide, wider, and even more wide, because of the crop factor; but on the other side, if you shoot sport/wildlife, you need longer, not wider.
> I really don't see a market (and in fact as far as I know no one manufactures them) for medium, long and extra long tele made for crop sensor only; I think someone (there' a Tokina 50-100 for sure) manufactures some short-to-medium tele zoom for crop sensors, due to portability and cost, but I don't remember anything over 100/150mm, zoom or prime, being crop only.
> Even if a crop 300 f2.8 would be cheaper then a fullframe 300 f2.8 who's gonna spend all that money for something limited to a single smaller sensor size? Meanwhile they'll spend many money on something like rectilinear 10mm, or shorter, focals.


If you need wide FOVs and shallow DOF, FF (or even MF) is a better choice than APS-C. APS-C is better where you need maximum pixel density for small or distant subjects. If you’re looking for one camera to do everything, you’re going to have to compromise somewhere.

Compare the specs on the Fuji XF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 (APS-C) with the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L II (FF). Same FL and aperture range. They're virtually the same size (the Canon is a few mm shorter at the wide end), and the Fuji is only lighter by about 200g (out of 1570), which could be as easily explained by the choice of materials or the number of optical elements than anything inherent in APS-C vs FF. For lenses longer than 250mm or so, there's just not that much of a difference in design and construction between FF and APS-C.


----------



## Deepboy (Jan 2, 2023)

mdcmdcmdc said:


> If you need wide FOVs and shallow DOF, FF (or even MF) is a better choice than APS-C. APS-C is better where you need maximum pixel density for small or distant subjects. If you’re looking for one camera to do everything, you’re going to have to compromise somewhere.
> 
> Compare the specs on the Fuji XF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 (APS-C) with the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L II (FF). Same FL and aperture range. They're virtually the same size (the Canon is a few mm shorter at the wide end), and the Fuji is only lighter by about 200g (out of 1570), which could be as easily explained by the choice of materials or the number of optical elements than anything inherent in APS-C vs FF. For lenses longer than 250mm or so, there's just not that much of a difference in design and construction between FF and APS-C.



Well, I already see there's someone doing APS-C long lenses, my bad! I tend to consider just CaNiSo, having them FF cameras; I totally ignore (again, my bad, it's my fault) the existence of Fuji, or Olympus, or...Panasonic? Is Pana still in the market with MFT cameras? And Oly?
You see, shooting Canon since 1999 and never changing, I just barely know what Nikon and Sony are doing; all the other guys are like in blur and smoke :-D I'm fixated on Canon cameras and lenses, and in general photo tech, but not on camera and lens market in general, so I basically know nothing about other brands/mounts, even if they're still in business.

Well, of course if they only manufacture APS-C camera, they'll have matching lenses; makes sense. Do CaNiSo, or even TamSigTok, manufacture APS-C tele lenses?


----------



## mdcmdcmdc (Jan 2, 2023)

Deepboy said:


> Well, I already see there's someone doing APS-C long lenses, my bad! I tend to consider just CaNiSo, having them FF cameras; I totally ignore (again, my bad, it's my fault) the existence of Fuji, or Olympus, or...Panasonic? Is Pana still in the market with MFT cameras? And Oly?
> You see, shooting Canon since 1999 and never changing, I just barely know what Nikon and Sony are doing; all the other guys are like in blur and smoke :-D I'm fixated on Canon cameras and lenses, and in general photo tech, but not on camera and lens market in general, so I basically know nothing about other brands/mounts, even if they're still in business.
> 
> Well, of course if they only manufacture APS-C camera, they'll have matching lenses; makes sense. Do CaNiSo, or even TamSigTok, manufacture APS-C tele lenses?


The only third party I pay much attention to is Sigma, who have a "DC DN" series for mirrorless crop sensors, but the longest one they have is 56mm.


----------



## vangelismm (Jan 2, 2023)

Lets ask Megadap to make an adapter EF-m to RF.


----------



## Docofthewild (Jan 2, 2023)

Deepboy said:


> Also, if you shoot with std and wide focal lengths, when you use APS-C you always look for wide, wider, and even more wide, because of the crop factor; but on the other side, if you shoot sport/wildlife, you need longer, not wider.
> I really don't see a market (and in fact as far as I know no one manufactures them) for medium, long and extra long tele made for crop sensor only; I think someone (there' a Tokina 50-100 for sure) manufactures some short-to-medium tele zoom for crop sensors, due to portability and cost, but I don't remember anything over 100/150mm, zoom or prime, being crop only.
> Even if a crop 300 f2.8 would be cheaper then a fullframe 300 f2.8 who's gonna spend all that money for something limited to a single smaller sensor size? Meanwhile they'll spend many money on something like rectilinear 10mm, or shorter, focals.


Canon has the EF-s 55-250. The last version with the STM is pretty good for what it is.


----------



## entoman (Jan 2, 2023)

mdcmdcmdc said:


> I picked up an RF 100-400 at the sale price this fall and I'm super happy with it. The results have been great, and the f/8 maximum aperture doesn't bother me since I normally shoot between f/8 and f/11 anyway. I'm coming from an adapted Sigma 100-400|C, which is also a fantastic lens.
> 
> I've got two kids in college so for now I can only dream about the RF 100-500L.


No need to dream, the RF 100-400mm is more than up to the job, I've been very pleasantly surprised at the sharpness and delightful bokeh the lens produces.

It makes a great "near macro" lens too, as it focuses down to half life-size. Here is a shot of an unidentified grasshopper, photographed a couple of weeks ago in West Papua. Cropped quite heavily (50% linear) and then put through Topaz DeNoise AI. Canon R5, RF 100-400mm at 300mm, 1/750 at F7.7, ISO 1600. At 100% is is bitingly sharp and noise-free.


----------



## AlanF (Jan 2, 2023)

entoman said:


> No need to dream, the RF 100-400mm is more than up to the job, I've been very pleasantly surprised at the sharpness and delightful bokeh the lens produces.
> 
> It makes a great "near macro" lens too, as it focuses down to half life-size. Here is a shot of an unidentified grasshopper, photographed a couple of weeks ago in West Papua. Cropped quite heavily (50% linear) and then put through Topaz DeNoise AI. Canon R5, RF 100-400mm at 300mm, 1/750 at F7.7, ISO 1600. At 100% is is bitingly sharp and noise-free.
> 
> View attachment 207003


I can't resist adding these from the RF 100-400 at 400mm on the R7 of a Common Darter dragonfly in flight. It focusses very fast as well as being more than sharp enough, and is light enough to move quickly.


----------



## Dragon (Jan 2, 2023)

EOS 4 Life said:


> That is a catch I could live with.


Maybe. The FD to EF flange distance difference is also -2mm, but the overall distance is double that of the R. The FD to ef adapter had a 1.26 magnifier and a bit more than half a stop reduction in effective aperture. The Canon version also only worked on telephoto lenses. The third-party versions are optically junk. With the shorter overall flange distance of the mirrorless cameras, I think an adapter from M to R would have to be at least 1.4x and a full stop in aperture to physically fit. It might be possible to get there with a full-blown retrofocus optical assembly, but that approach would make a very large adapter that would likely cost about as much as the entire M lens lineup and would likely have to be made differently for each lens. Bottom line: there is no PRACTICAL way to get there. I think you can rest assured that this issue was discussed with some emotion inside Canon when the R dimensions were developed because leaving customers orphaned is never an easy business decision, but clearly preparing for the future won out as it did with the FD to EF switch.


----------



## entoman (Jan 2, 2023)

AlanF said:


> I can't resist adding these from the RF 100-400 at 400mm on the R7 of a Common Darter dragonfly in flight. It focusses very fast as well as being more than sharp enough, and is light enough to move quickly.


Yes, I find that when photographing insects and birds, the light weight and great manoeuvrability of the lens make life much easier than when using the RF100-500mm.


----------



## Dragon (Jan 2, 2023)

Deepboy said:


> Well, I already see there's someone doing APS-C long lenses, my bad! I tend to consider just CaNiSo, having them FF cameras; I totally ignore (again, my bad, it's my fault) the existence of Fuji, or Olympus, or...Panasonic? Is Pana still in the market with MFT cameras? And Oly?
> You see, shooting Canon since 1999 and never changing, I just barely know what Nikon and Sony are doing; all the other guys are like in blur and smoke :-D I'm fixated on Canon cameras and lenses, and in general photo tech, but not on camera and lens market in general, so I basically know nothing about other brands/mounts, even if they're still in business.
> 
> Well, of course if they only manufacture APS-C camera, they'll have matching lenses; makes sense. Do CaNiSo, or even TamSigTok, manufacture APS-C tele lenses?


Panasonic and Olympus both make a 100 to 400 for micro 4/3. The Oly is about a half stop faster than the Canon R lens, but it weighs twice as much and is 2-1/2 times the price. The Panny is a full stop faster but weighs 50% more and is over 3 times the price of the Canon. Both are very nice lenses, but not smaller or cheaper.


----------



## Dragon (Jan 2, 2023)

AlanF said:


> I can't resist adding these from the RF 100-400 at 400mm on the R7 of a Common Darter dragonfly in flight. It focusses very fast as well as being more than sharp enough, and is light enough to move quickly.


The R7 wrings out just about the most resolution possible from any lens you pop on it. I suspect it uses the same AAF technology that is used in the R5, albeit I haven't seen where there was any mention of such from Canon. The R7 with the 800 f/11 is a delight with my bevy of hummingbirds. This is a shot with that combo taken in very dark conditions under the brush in the evening with an approaching storm at ISO 6400 and 1/30th handheld. Of 50 shots taken in that session, only a couple were blurred (due to bird motion). The rest were spot on focus and no motion blur. For 800mm at over 80MP equivalent FF resolution, that is pretty amazing.


----------



## mdcmdcmdc (Jan 2, 2023)

Really great shots folks!

This is the kind of "bird" I like to shoot. R7 + RF 100-400, 1/250, f/8, ISO 320. Postprocessed in Lightroom Classic with ON1 NoNoise AI 2023. This is cropped to about 75% of the original frame in both dimensions.

My only complaint about the RF 100-400 is that I wish the zoom ring and focus ring were swapped, so the zoom ring was farther from the camera body. I keep my left hand on the zoom ring, and having it farther from the camera body gives me a little more stability and fine control when panning.


----------



## mdcmdcmdc (Jan 2, 2023)

blackcoffee17 said:


> The problem with full-frame lenses is the standard zoom. For the R7 the only zooms you could use maybe are the 15-35 or 14-35. Both expensive and heavy lenses with not enough mm on the long end.


I do hope Canon comes out with some decent RF-S standard zooms, even if it's just to port the EF-S 17-55 or 15-85.

My all-time favorite "normal" lens is the Sigma 17-70 f/2.8-4. That's what I have on my R7 right now. I started doing photography as a teenager in the early 1980's when the mantra was "f/8 and be there", so I rarely shoot that wide, but I have long fingers and I like the diameter and heft of the faster glass in my hand.

Don't get me wrong, Canon has impressively redefined the expectations of a "kit lens" over the past 8-10 years, starting with the EF-S 18-55 STM. I've only used the RF-S 18-150 a couple of times, but I thought the EF-M version was a great compact travel lens that punched well above its weight optically.


----------



## entoman (Jan 3, 2023)

mdcmdcmdc said:


> My only complaint about the RF 100-400 is that I wish the zoom ring and focus ring were swapped, so the zoom ring was farther from the camera body. I keep my left hand on the zoom ring, and having it farther from the camera body gives me a little more stability and fine control when panning.


I also prefer to have the zoom ring furthest out on the lens, for the same reason. It's then easy to adjust the focus manually, if needed, using the left thumb. I can only assume that Canon did it the other way around due to design constraints (positioning of focusing group). When using long lenses I always grip the lens as far out as possible - in fact with my RF 100-500mm and RF 800mm F11 lenses, I grip the lens hood, which makes it much more stable and reduces camera-shake.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 3, 2023)

mdcmdcmdc said:


> My only complaint about the RF 100-400 is that I wish the zoom ring and focus ring were swapped, so the zoom ring was farther from the camera body. I keep my left hand on the zoom ring, and having it farther from the camera body gives me a little more stability and fine control when panning.


I don't mind. It does take some getting used to, but at least with my kit all the black RF lenses have the zoom ring closer to the body, and my two white RF lenses (70-200/2.8, 100-500) have the zoom ring further out than the focus ring (although that's not the case with the RF 70-200/4).


----------



## AlanF (Jan 3, 2023)

neuroanatomist said:


> I don't mind. It does take some getting used to, but at least with my kit all the black RF lenses have the zoom ring closer to the body, and my two white RF lenses (70-200/2.8, 100-500) have the zoom ring further out than the focus ring (although that's not the case with the RF 70-200/4).


The control ring of the RF 100-500 is so close to the body I find it very inconvenient to use.


----------



## Exploreshootshare (Jan 3, 2023)

AlanF said:


> I can't resist adding these from the RF 100-400 at 400mm on the R7 of a Common Darter dragonfly in flight. It focusses very fast as well as being more than sharp enough, and is light enough to move quickly.
> 
> View attachment 207004
> View attachment 207005





entoman said:


> No need to dream, the RF 100-400mm is more than up to the job, I've been very pleasantly surprised at the sharpness and delightful bokeh the lens produces.
> 
> It makes a great "near macro" lens too, as it focuses down to half life-size. Here is a shot of an unidentified grasshopper, photographed a couple of weeks ago in West Papua. Cropped quite heavily (50% linear) and then put through Topaz DeNoise AI. Canon R5, RF 100-400mm at 300mm, 1/750 at F7.7, ISO 1600. At 100% is is bitingly sharp and noise-free.
> 
> View attachment 207003



Wooooow! Both absolutely stunning results! Congratulations 
It did make me wonder, whether I "need" my RF 100-500mm or if should get rid of it and get the RF 100-400mm I love the RF 100-500mm, but at the moment I'm just thinking it is hard to justify the cost of the lens when seeing (and researching) pics of the RF 100-400mm. And to be honest: I could sell the RF 100-500mm, buy an R7 and 100-400mm and still have money left over. 

Since everybody is absolutely raving about this lense, I do have some questions:
1. what "downsides" does the RF 100-400mm have?
2. what do you miss compared to the RF 100-500mm? I mean besides the obvious 100mm in extra reach.
3. is the lense fully compatible with the RF extenders?
4. If you had to choose one of the two lenses, which would be: RF 100-500mm or 100-400mm? 

thx for the reply.


----------



## Exploreshootshare (Jan 3, 2023)

I do have another question, which can't really place in any of the forums, concerning "near-macro/ macro" work: 
Has anybody worked the Meike RF Extension tubes yet? I'm interested in getting one or two, but I can't find a decent review or specs which tell me how much the minimum focus distance is shortened. And do they work with all RF lenses? I'd probably use them with RF 35mm, 70-200mm F4 and RF 100-500mm.


----------



## Exploreshootshare (Jan 3, 2023)

AlanF said:


> The control ring of the RF 100-500 is so close to the body I find it very inconvenient to use.


That is one of the two things I don't´like about the RF 100-500mm! The second is the extenders only working between 300-500mm...

I actually opted for the 70-200mm F4 initially because of the (in my opinion) superior placement of the control ring. Looking back, I'd also opt for the 70-200mm F4 because of weight and size. I use it a lot for city travels and even when I go hiking.


----------



## AlanF (Jan 3, 2023)

Exploreshootshare said:


> Wooooow! Both absolutely stunning results! Congratulations
> It did make me wonder, whether I "need" my RF 100-500mm or if should get rid of it and get the RF 100-400mm I love the RF 100-500mm, but at the moment I'm just thinking it is hard to justify the cost of the lens when seeing (and researching) pics of the RF 100-400mm. Since everybody is absolutely raving about this lense, I do have some questions:
> 1. what "downsides" does the RF 100-400mm have?
> 2. what do you miss compared to the RF 100-500mm? I mean besides the obvious 100mm in extra reach.
> ...


1. It's not weather sealed - but, I don't shoot in the rain.
2. The 100-500 does have an edge in IQ, but unless you are heavy cropping it might not be noticeable. It has 2/3rds stop more light gathering. And, the wider lens adds a little to the resolution. The 100-400 focusses very fast but for extreme BIF, the 100-500 has an edge. The RF 100-500 is IMHO the best lighter zoom available across all brands when considering performance and weight.
3. The RF 100-400 is fully compatible with the RF1.4x and 2x TCs, and is not limited to the 300mm minimum.

My wife and I are going on an intensive foreign bird safari in March, with flights and vehicles. She will take the R7 and RF 100-400mm. I will be taking the R5 and torn between the second RF 100-400 and the RF 100-500. I know the 100-500 will have the edge over the 100-400, but the 100-400 will be good enough for much of the time. I'd take it every time over the EF 100-400mm, but the 100-500 will probably go with me. On the other hand, I could buy a second R7 and have the same kit as my wife!


----------



## Exploreshootshare (Jan 3, 2023)

AlanF said:


> 1. It's not weather sealed - but, I don't shoot in the rain.
> 2. The 100-500 does have an edge in IQ, but unless you are heavy cropping it might not be noticeable. It has 2/3rds stop more light gathering. And, the wider lens adds a little to the resolution. The 100-400 focusses very fast but for extreme BIF, the 100-500 has an edge. The RF 100-500 is IMHO the best lighter zoom available across all brands when considering performance and weight.
> 3. The RF 100-400 is fully compatible with the RF1.4x and 2x TCs, and is not limited to the 300mm minimum.
> 
> My wife and I are going on an intensive foreign bird safari in March, with flights and vehicles. She will take the R7 and RF 100-400mm. I will be taking the R5 and torn between the second RF 100-400 and the RF 100-500. I know the 100-500 will have the edge over the 100-400, but the 100-400 will be good enough for much of the time. I'd take it every time over the EF 100-400mm, but the 100-500 will probably go with me. On the other hand, I could buy a second R7 and have the same kit as my wife!


Thx for the reply! There are things I hadn't considered and were very helpful: 
1. I do shoot sports (soccer) in the rain sometimes. I also shoot in the rain when traveling and the weather isn't great. (But we were very lucky/ fortunate this year!) 
2. Since I don't own a longer lense than the RF 100-500mm and got rid of the extenders, I do crop quite a lot... with the RF 100-400mm I'd have to crop even more or use an extender (extra cost/ slower aperture...) 

I now ordered the R7, RF 100-400mm and the 800mm F11 from a lens rental place in Germany for a weekend in February. I'll compare all three lenses at this weekend and the R7. Maybe I get my future father-in-law to get the RF 100-400mm He is thinking about getting R7 now, after I/ canon almost lost him to Sony due to lack of APS-C cameras when his 750d gave up working... I convinced him to get a used one and wait  Maybe it is about time now


----------



## AlanF (Jan 3, 2023)

Exploreshootshare said:


> Thx for the reply! There are things I hadn't considered and were very helpful:
> 1. I do shoot sports (soccer) in the rain sometimes. I also shoot in the rain when traveling and the weather isn't great. (But we were very lucky/ fortunate this year!)
> 2. Since I don't own a longer lense than the RF 100-500mm and got rid of the extenders, I do crop quite a lot... with the RF 100-400mm I'd have to crop even more or use an extender (extra cost/ slower aperture...)
> 
> I now ordered the R7, RF 100-400mm and the 800mm F11 from a lens rental place in Germany for a weekend in February. I'll compare all three lenses at this weekend and the R7. Maybe I get my future father-in-law to get the RF 100-400mm He is thinking about getting R7 now, after I/ canon almost lost him to Sony due to lack of APS-C cameras when his 750d gave up working... I convinced him to get a used one and wait  Maybe it is about time now


Modern software is another factor. The AI sharpening from Topaz, for example, is a great leveller of lenses. It's a whole new world where narrower cheaper lenses benefit greatly from that and noise reduction.


----------



## Exploreshootshare (Jan 3, 2023)

AlanF said:


> Modern software is another factor. The AI sharpening from Topaz, for example, is a great leveller of lenses. It's a whole new world where narrower cheaper lenses benefit greatly from that and noise reduction.


That's true and actually own and use the AI deNoise from Topaz along with LR and now Affinity photo 2 in an attempt of trying to get rid of LR and their monthly payments. I only use DeNoise for shoots with severe noise and high ISO because it takes time and don't enjoy editing and spending time in front of my laptop as much as actually going out and shoot. Therefore, I always try to get as much right as possible and as little editing as necessary. Although your point is absolutely correct and for some customers a great advise, I don't think I'll ever get a lense with keeping in mind: if a use certain software, it's as good as...


----------



## entoman (Jan 3, 2023)

Exploreshootshare said:


> Wooooow! Both absolutely stunning results! Congratulations
> It did make me wonder, whether I "need" my RF 100-500mm or if should get rid of it and get the RF 100-400mm I love the RF 100-500mm, but at the moment I'm just thinking it is hard to justify the cost of the lens when seeing (and researching) pics of the RF 100-400mm. And to be honest: I could sell the RF 100-500mm, buy an R7 and 100-400mm and still have money left over.
> 
> Since everybody is absolutely raving about this lense, I do have some questions:
> ...


The RF100-400mm isn't weather-sealed, and the build quality is lower, so it's less durable. Optically it's more than good enough and the bokeh is really nice IMO. It focuses closer than the RF100-500mm, but it isn't supplied with a tripod collar, lens hood or case. But it's a fraction of the cost of the RF100-500mm.

For safaris or bird photography from hides, weight and portability aren't significant factors, so I use the RF100-500mm on my R5, which gives me about an extra stop of light at most focal lengths - and that's valuable for wildlife in winter light or at dusk and dawn when most animals are active.

For insects and other small wildlife, the RF100-400mm is for me a much better choice, as it's so easy and light to carry, focuses closer, and is much easier to manoeuvre.

Luckily I have both lenses, but if I had to choose between one or the other, I'd probably get the RF100-400mm and poke it on a R7, which will give more reach than the RF100-500mm will on FF.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 3, 2023)

AlanF said:


> The control ring of the RF 100-500 is so close to the body I find it very inconvenient to use.


I don’t use the control rings that much (set to ISO, which is usually on Auto), but the ring placement on the 100-500 (same as in the 70-200/2.8) allows me to adjust it with one finger of my right hand while holding the camera.


----------



## koenkooi (Jan 3, 2023)

neuroanatomist said:


> I don’t use the control rings that much (set to ISO, which is usually on Auto), but the ring placement on the 100-500 (same as in the 70-200/2.8) allows me to adjust it with one finger of my right hand while holding the camera.


After a few mishaps, I set the ring to only activate when the shutter is pressed halfway. This is great on the other lenses, but on the 100-500 I would need more opposable digits


----------



## entoman (Jan 3, 2023)

neuroanatomist said:


> I don’t use the control rings that much (set to ISO, which is usually on Auto), but the ring placement on the 100-500 (same as in the 70-200/2.8) allows me to adjust it with one finger of my right hand while holding the camera.


I don't use the control ring at all, because I find it superfluous when using the R5, but on a camera like the R7, which lacks a third input dial on the body, it must be pretty much essential to have a ring on the lens. If I was using a R7, I'd probably use the ring for exposure compensation.


----------



## entoman (Jan 3, 2023)

Exploreshootshare said:


> That's true and actually own and use the AI deNoise from Topaz along with LR and now Affinity photo 2 in an attempt of trying to get rid of LR and their monthly payments. I only use DeNoise for shoots with severe noise and high ISO because it takes time and don't enjoy editing and spending time in front of my laptop as much as actually going out and shoot. Therefore, I always try to get as much right as possible and as little editing as necessary. Although your point is absolutely correct and for some customers a great advise, I don't think I'll ever get a lense with keeping in mind: if a use certain software, it's as good as...


You'd better not buy any more lenses then, because virtually all modern lenses need software to get the best from them.

Regarding noise, remember that everything in digital photography is *digital*, i.e. totally dependent on software to produce an image from a digital signal, so it makes sense to use the best and most appropriate software.

I use Topaz DeNoise AI, but it isn't perfect (over-processed images can look plasticky, and it can sometimes produce weird random soft-edged rectangular artefacts), so I'd recommend trials with various brands to see which you prefer.


----------



## AlanF (Jan 3, 2023)

neuroanatomist said:


> I don’t use the control rings that much (set to ISO, which is usually on Auto), but the ring placement on the 100-500 (same as in the 70-200/2.8) allows me to adjust it with one finger of my right hand while holding the camera.


You must have the finger span of a pianist or, even more importantly, a pool player. I use the control ring for altering ±exposure to compensate.


----------



## Bonich (Jan 3, 2023)

Exploreshootshare said:


> Wooooow! Both absolutely stunning results! Congratulations
> It did make me wonder, whether I "need" my RF 100-500mm or if should get rid of it and get the RF 100-400mm I love the RF 100-500mm, but at the moment I'm just thinking it is hard to justify the cost of the lens when seeing (and researching) pics of the RF 100-400mm. And to be honest: I could sell the RF 100-500mm, buy an R7 and 100-400mm and still have money left over.
> 
> Since everybody is absolutely raving about this lense, I do have some questions:
> ...


The 100-400 is the way to go for closeups, there is no better option for insects like grasshoppers, butterflies, dragonflies on the market. It does accept PCs without the pain we know from the 100-500 (but I still did not use it with TC)
The 100-500 has (in the distance)100mm more reach, is a bit faster, the AF is better and it is even more sharp.
The biggest disadvantage shooting insects is double the weight of the non L and a slightly reach disadvantage due to more focus breathing.
Whenever you want to go ultra light, you are on a budget or insects are your special thing, the 100-400 is the way to go.

In the meantime I do have both and I will hold both: Birding: L, insects non L, landscape: L, longer hikes and light traveling: non L

You have to decide .....


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Jan 3, 2023)

mdcmdcmdc said:


> I do hope Canon comes out with some decent RF-S standard zooms, even if it's just to port the EF-S 17-55 or 15-85.
> 
> My all-time favorite "normal" lens is the Sigma 17-70 f/2.8-4. That's what I have on my R7 right now. I started doing photography as a teenager in the early 1980's when the mantra was "f/8 and be there", so I rarely shoot that wide, but I have long fingers and I like the diameter and heft of the faster glass in my hand.
> 
> Don't get me wrong, Canon has impressively redefined the expectations of a "kit lens" over the past 8-10 years, starting with the EF-S 18-55 STM. I've only used the RF-S 18-150 a couple of times, but I thought the EF-M version was a great compact travel lens that punched well above its weight optically.



Yes, they only need one decent standard zoom, like 16-70 F4 or 16-55 2.8 or maybe 15-85 and 1 or 2 small APS-C primes. And one wide angle. The rest can be covered by the RF full frame lenses.


----------



## mdcmdcmdc (Jan 3, 2023)

Exploreshootshare said:


> I do have another question, which can't really place in any of the forums, concerning "near-macro/ macro" work:
> Has anybody worked the Meike RF Extension tubes yet? I'm interested in getting one or two, but I can't find a decent review or specs which tell me how much the minimum focus distance is shortened. And do they work with all RF lenses? I'd probably use them with RF 35mm, 70-200mm F4 and RF 100-500mm.


The most important spec for an extension tube is its length. The magnification and MFD depend on the length of the extension and the focal length, magnification, and MFD of the lens without the extension tube. There are many online extension tube calculators. Here is one that I’ve used.

Apart from length, look for extension tubes that pass the electrical signals between the camera and the lens. Without those, you won’t have AF or aperture control. The better quality tubes also fit the camera and lens better. You don’t want it to be loose or too tight.


----------



## Dragon (Jan 3, 2023)

Exploreshootshare said:


> Thx for the reply! There are things I hadn't considered and were very helpful:
> 1. I do shoot sports (soccer) in the rain sometimes. I also shoot in the rain when traveling and the weather isn't great. (But we were very lucky/ fortunate this year!)
> 2. Since I don't own a longer lense than the RF 100-500mm and got rid of the extenders, I do crop quite a lot... with the RF 100-400mm I'd have to crop even more or use an extender (extra cost/ slower aperture...)
> 
> I now ordered the R7, RF 100-400mm and the 800mm F11 from a lens rental place in Germany for a weekend in February. I'll compare all three lenses at this weekend and the R7. Maybe I get my future father-in-law to get the RF 100-400mm He is thinking about getting R7 now, after I/ canon almost lost him to Sony due to lack of APS-C cameras when his 750d gave up working... I convinced him to get a used one and wait  Maybe it is about time now


You will find that the R7 is very happy with the 800 f/11 and from all reports here, also with the 100-100.


----------



## OskarB (Jan 3, 2023)

entoman said:


> The RF100-400mm isn't weather-sealed, and the build quality is lower, so it's less durable. Optically it's more than good enough and the bokeh is really nice IMO. It focuses closer than the RF100-500mm, but it isn't supplied with a tripod collar, lens hood or case. But it's a fraction of the cost of the RF100-500mm.
> 
> For safaris or bird photography from hides, weight and portability aren't significant factors, so I use the RF100-500mm on my R5, which gives me about an extra stop of light at most focal lengths - and that's valuable for wildlife in winter light or at dusk and dawn when most animals are active.
> 
> ...


I'm thinking of buying a Sigma 105mm Macro for my R5. I would use it in my garden or around for insects and plants, as well as for some portraits.
Having the RF 100-400 already I wonder if I need the Macro lens at all?


----------



## entoman (Jan 3, 2023)

OskarB said:


> I'm thinking of buying a Sigma 105mm Macro for my R5. I would use it in my garden or around for insects and plants, as well as for some portraits.
> Having the RF 100-400 already I wonder if I need the Macro lens at all?


If you're shooting "true" macro, i.e. 1:1 or higher magnification, your best bet is the RF 100mm macro. The stabilisation is amazing, it's one of the sharpest lenses on the market, and it focuses down to 1:1.4x which is great for tiny insects. Miles better than the Sigma, although twice the price.

For anything down to 1:2 scale, the RF100-400mm is probably better due to the greater working distance. It also has nicer bokeh than the macro, IMO.


----------



## Dragon (Jan 3, 2023)

OskarB said:


> I'm thinking of buying a Sigma 105mm Macro for my R5. I would use it in my garden or around for insects and plants, as well as for some portraits.
> Having the RF 100-400 already I wonder if I need the Macro lens at all?


The SIGMA APO MACRO 150mm F/2.8 EX DG OS HSM is also a very nice lens. You can pick one up on fleabay for less than $600. The Sigma 180mm is a tiny bit sharper wide open, but it is HEAVY and more expensive. The longer macros give you more air space from your subject, which is often handy.


----------



## OskarB (Jan 3, 2023)

entoman said:


> If you're shooting "true" macro, i.e. 1:1 or higher magnification, your best bet is the RF 100mm macro. The stabilisation is amazing, it's one of the sharpest lenses on the market, and it focuses down to 1:1.4x which is great for tiny insects. Miles better than the Sigma, although twice the price.
> 
> For anything down to 1:2 scale, the RF100-400mm is probably better due to the greater working distance. It also has nicer bokeh than the macro, IMO.


Here hte price is 3,5x higher (400€ - 1.400€).
And I wouldn't like to spend too much money, as I don't know by now how much I like to (and can) shoot real Macro.
If it becomes a passion, I still could sell the cheap Sigma and get a Canon Macro.
But maybe I give the 100-400 a try first... the nicer bokeh is definately a plus.


----------



## OskarB (Jan 3, 2023)

Dragon said:


> The SIGMA APO MACRO 150mm F/2.8 EX DG OS HSM is also a very nice lens. You can pick one up on fleabay for less than $600. The Sigma 180mm is a tiny bit sharper wide open, but it is HEAVY and more expensive. The longer macros give you more air space from your subject, which is often handy.


I just looked it up. No new ones anymore and the used ones are without OS. But this can change, of course.
The double weight doesn't attract me, though.


----------



## scyrene (Jan 3, 2023)

OskarB said:


> Here hte price is 3,5x higher (400€ - 1.400€).
> And I wouldn't like to spend too much money, as I don't know by now how much I like to (and can) shoot real Macro.
> If it becomes a passion, I still could sell the cheap Sigma and get a Canon Macro.
> But maybe I give the 100-400 a try first... the nicer bokeh is definately a plus.


Maybe also consider a secondhand EF 100mm L macro, that is a stalwart lens.


----------



## OskarB (Jan 3, 2023)

scyrene said:


> Maybe also consider a secondhand EF 100mm L macro, that is a stalwart lens.


I did. The Canon is 600 used, the Sigma is 400 new. So for trying out Macro I thought I would go with the cheaper one for a season or two and then evaluate again.
Actually I think I start with the 100-400 - no expenses at all.


----------



## entoman (Jan 3, 2023)

Exploreshootshare said:


> I do have another question, which can't really place in any of the forums, concerning "near-macro/ macro" work:
> Has anybody worked the Meike RF Extension tubes yet? I'm interested in getting one or two, but I can't find a decent review or specs which tell me how much the minimum focus distance is shortened. And do they work with all RF lenses? I'd probably use them with RF 35mm, 70-200mm F4 and RF 100-500mm.


Here is a link to extension tubes on sale at B&H:









Meike MK-RF-AF1 13mm and 18mm Extension Tubes for Canon RF


Buy Meike MK-RF-AF1 13mm and 18mm Extension Tubes for Canon RF featuring For Canon RF-Mount Cameras and Lenses, 13mm and 18mm Tubes, Shortens Minimum Focus Distance of Lens, Copper Contacts Maintain AF and AE, Aluminum Alloy Bayonet Mounts. Review Meike MK-AF1




www.bhphotovideo.com





As you can see from the illustration, they are available only in 18mm and 13mm lengths, although they can be combined to make a 31mm tube. They have the full set of electrical contacts, so will transmit AF, metering and EXIF data between RF lenses and bodies.

The 13mm tube woulds be best on your RF 35mm lens. Using both tubes together would be needed to get a decent magnification with the RF100-500mm. It would also result in a long, heavy and cumbersome set-up.

What I'd recommend is to get the RF100-400mm and both tubes. Used in combination they'll get you a bit closer, but probably not enough to make a worthwhile difference. When using tubes you'll also lose the ability to focus on more distant subjects.


----------



## OskarB (Jan 3, 2023)

entoman said:


> Here is a link to extension tubes on sale at B&H:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Is an extension tube just as good as an Achromat? Something like this here: https://smile.amazon.de/gp/product/B000VZ2RFK/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_search_asin_title?ie=UTF8&psc=1


----------



## OskarB (Jan 3, 2023)

OskarB said:


> Is an extension tube just as good as an Achromat? Something like this here: https://smile.amazon.de/gp/product/B000VZ2RFK/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_search_asin_title?ie=UTF8&psc=1


I just found the answer. The impact on wider focal lenghts is higher with tubes, on higher focal lenghts the impact is higher with the Achromat.








Macro with the SEL70200G and the Marumi achromat close-up lens DHG 330 (+3)


A photography diary



stoppingdown.net


----------



## Exploreshootshare (Jan 3, 2023)

entoman said:


> Here is a link to extension tubes on sale at B&H:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Thank you for your effort and providing the links as well for the information! It really helped a lot  
I looked at the Meike extension a couple of days on amazon, because I couldn't find them on German camera retailers site. I couldn't do anything with the 11mm/ 13mm and 18mm, but now I can  thx 
I´ll probably get a few couple and test them on several lenses


----------



## Exploreshootshare (Jan 3, 2023)

> entoman said:
> 
> 
> > The RF100-400mm isn't weather-sealed, and the build quality is lower, so it's less durable. Optically it's more than good enough and the bokeh is really nice IMO. It focuses closer than the RF100-500mm, but it isn't supplied with a tripod collar, lens hood or case. But it's a fraction of the cost of the RF100-500mm.
> ...



Thanks for summing up the advantages. I'll be testing the RF 100-400mm next month because I am super curious.
From your list, I'd expect to stick to the 100-500mm though because I do shoot a lot of birds and hopefully dolphins on this years vacation. 


> Bonich said:
> 
> 
> > The 100-400 is the way to go for closeups, there is no better option for insects like grasshoppers, butterflies, dragonflies on the market. It does accept PCs without the pain we know from the 100-500 (but I still did not use it with TC)
> ...


Thank you as well for summing up the advantages! Did not know the 100-500mm had more focus breathing... 


> mdcmdcmdc said:
> 
> 
> > The most important spec for an extension tube is its length. The magnification and MFD depend on the length of the extension and the focal length, magnification, and MFD of the lens without the extension tube. There are many online extension tube calculators. Here is one that I’ve used.
> ...



Thanks for the info and the link! I bookmarked it and will use quite often  



> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> > You will find that the R7 is very happy with the 800 f/11 and from all reports here, also with the 100-100.


I can imagine  But after thinking about it the entire day, I'm also curious how the RF 100-500mm works with crop sensor! 


Thx to all the people on this forum contributing to my questions! That's what I love about this site, I learn so much here


----------



## koenkooi (Jan 3, 2023)

OskarB said:


> I just looked it up. No new ones anymore and the used ones are without OS. But this can change, of course.
> The double weight doesn't attract me, though.


The OS is junk on the 150 and the IBIS on the R5 actively fights it. So the non-OS 150 would likely give you better stabe on an IBIS body. Turning off OS on my 150 also turns off IBIS


----------



## OskarB (Jan 3, 2023)

koenkooi said:


> The OS is junk on the 150 and the IBIS on the R5 actively fights it. So the non-OS 150 would likely give you better stabe on an IBIS body. Turning off OS on my 150 also turns off IBIS


Is this the same for the 105?


----------



## mdcmdcmdc (Jan 4, 2023)

Dragon said:


> You will find that the R7 is very happy with the 800 f/11 and from all reports here, also with the 100-100.


I rented an 800mm f/11 STM to use during the lunar eclipse in November. I got some great shots with it. While checking it out and "practicing" a couple of nights before, I really liked that the STM focus motor adapted its responsiveness so that when I turned the MF ring fast, focus would change by a lot, but when I turned it slowly, it changed much more slowly than just the difference in how fast I turned it.

I got some great shots during the eclipse, but by mid-eclipse, the down-side of f/11 was apparent as I needed 1/2 second exposures at ISO 1600. Fortunately I had a tracking mount and it was aligned well enough to get some keepers, but next time (which I don't think is until 2025 for the eastern US) I might go back to the Sigma 100-400. It's 1-2/3 stops faster (f/6.7), but only half the focal length. Still, I have 32.5 MP with the R7 so I shouldn't be afraid to crop.


----------



## Dragon (Jan 4, 2023)

mdcmdcmdc said:


> I rented an 800mm f/11 STM to use during the lunar eclipse in November. I got some great shots with it. While checking it out and "practicing" a couple of nights before, I really liked that the STM focus motor adapted its responsiveness so that when I turned the MF ring fast, focus would change by a lot, but when I turned it slowly, it changed much more slowly than just the difference in how fast I turned it.
> 
> I got some great shots during the eclipse, but by mid-eclipse, the down-side of f/11 was apparent as I needed 1/2 second exposures at ISO 1600. Fortunately I had a tracking mount and it was aligned well enough to get some keepers, but next time (which I don't think is until 2025 for the eastern US) I might go back to the Sigma 100-400. It's 1-2/3 stops faster (f/6.7), but only half the focal length. Still, I have 32.5 MP with the R7 so I shouldn't be afraid to crop.
> 
> ...


During the Eclipse in Jan 2018, I tried some shots with an SL2 (200D) and my EF 800mm f/5.6 L IS with a 1.4 extender. It was a little breezy and I didn't have the luxury of an equatorial mount, so I left the IS turned on. This shot is near totality at f/8 and 1/10th s at ISO 12800. It has had a fair bit of post work, but as you can see, not as sharp as the one you took (due to lunar motion, wind, and possibly the IS just not holding on that long). The bottom line is that one or even two stops doesn't buy that much for this kind of shot. A tracking mount with still and clear air are the biggest help. In stable conditions, the EF 800L is sharper than the RF 800 f/11, but not by all that much and it is sharpest at f/8 (without TC), so really only a 1 stop advantage for best performance and did I mention that it weighs 10 lbs and change. .
View attachment 207033


----------



## Dragon (Jan 4, 2023)

Dragon said:


> ot


----------



## mdcmdcmdc (Jan 4, 2023)

Dragon said:


> During the Eclipse in Jan 2018, I tried some shots with an SL2 (200D) and my EF 800mm f/5.6 L IS with a 1.4 extender. It was a little breezy and I didn't have the luxury of an equatorial mount, so I left the IS turned on. This shot is near totality at f/8 and 1/10th s at ISO 12800. It has had a fair bit of post work, but as you can see, not as sharp as the one you took (due to lunar motion, wind, and possibly the IS just not holding on that long). The bottom line is that one or even two stops doesn't buy that much for this kind of shot. A tracking mount with still and clear air are the biggest help. In stable conditions, the EF 800L is sharper than the RF 800 f/11, but not by all that much and it is sharpest at f/8 (without TC), so really only a 1 stop advantage for best performance and did I mention that it weighs 10 lbs and change. .
> View attachment 207033
> 
> 
> View attachment 207035


Nice. I think I remember that January eclipse. It was cold and ridiculously windy here (Virginia suburbs of DC). I didn’t get a single decent shot.

For the lunar eclipse in May, 2022, I rented a Sony 200-600 for use with my a6400. Got some good shots with that. I think 600mm on a 24MP sensor is still a higher pixel density on the moon than 400mm on the 32.5MP of the R7? Am I doing that math right? Is it linear like that?

My thinking is that since the Sigma at f/6.7 is 1-2/3 stops faster than f/11, I can use exposures about 1/3 as long at the same ISO (I think the actual number is 1/3.17). So instead of 1/2 second, I can be at 1/6. Still needs a good tracking mount, but less likely to be affected by wind or tracking error.

I have a 1.4x TC for the Sigma but I haven’t had much luck with it in the past, and that will also bring it up to about f/9. I could rent a Sigma or Tamron 150-600. Renting a big white Canon 600 or 800 f/4 is a bit beyond my budget. Regardless, I have a couple of years to figure it out. I think the next one visible from the eastern US is March 2025.


----------



## Dragon (Jan 4, 2023)

mdcmdcmdc said:


> Nice. I think I remember that January eclipse. It was cold and ridiculously windy here (Virginia suburbs of DC). I didn’t get a single decent shot.
> 
> For the lunar eclipse in May, 2022, I rented a Sony 200-600 for use with my a6400. Got some good shots with that. I think 600mm on a 24MP sensor is still a higher pixel density on the moon than 400mm on the 32.5MP of the R7? Am I doing that math right? Is it linear like that?
> 
> ...


The linear resolution is related to the square root of the pixel count, so the R7 has 1.16 x more linear resolution than the A6400 or 1.16x400 = 465mm equiv on the A6400 for the same pixel density on the subject. I didn't see any sign of motion issues in your shots. If you have a tracking mount and an R7, just buy the 800 f/11 rather than spending all that rental money. It takes awesome pictures and supports a 1.4 TC well even on an R7. I bought the 800L used before there was a mention of anything "R" and it has served me well, but it still cost more than an R5 plus an R7 plus an 800 f/11  . I probably won't sell it but given how well the f/11 lens works, I wouldn't buy the L today. It has landed me some very cool shots and it supports a 2x TC well, albeit best at f/16. Here is a shot I took with the 800L and the 2x converter at f/16, ISO 1600, and 1/125th. This was during the recent near flyby of Jupiter, which was very bright. This was on a tripod with delayed shutter and the IS turned off.

The second shot is with the R7, the RF800 f/11 with 1.4 TC at f/16, ISO 6400, and 1/400th handheld, but note that the stabilizer is good down to 1/30th if you have a reasonably steady hand and the subject is not moving. That hummingbird was about 35 feet away and the attached image is downscaled almost 2:1 to give you an idea of the magnification.


----------



## koenkooi (Jan 4, 2023)

OskarB said:


> Is this the same for the 105?


With 105mm being a shorter focal length, I expect it to behave much better than the 150mm. But I don’t have direct experience with the 105, only the 150.


----------



## AlanF (Jan 4, 2023)

entoman said:


> The RF100-400mm isn't weather-sealed, and the build quality is lower, so it's less durable. Optically it's more than good enough and the bokeh is really nice IMO. It focuses closer than the RF100-500mm, but it isn't supplied with a tripod collar, lens hood or case. But it's a fraction of the cost of the RF100-500mm.
> 
> For safaris or bird photography from hides, weight and portability aren't significant factors, so I use the RF100-500mm on my R5, which gives me about an extra stop of light at most focal lengths - and that's valuable for wildlife in winter light or at dusk and dawn when most animals are active.
> 
> ...


We agree 100% on this, apart from the last point. In theory, a 32 Mpx APS-C gives 36% more resolution than a 45 Mpx FF sensor, and a 500mm lens gives only 25% more resolution, so on paper you are right as it looks like 400mm on an R7 should give 8.8% more reach than a 500mm on an R5. In practice, however, my measurements show it's the other way round that the 100-500mm on the R5 gives about 10% more reach at base iso and it increases with increasing iso. The following reasons come into it. The R5 sensor has a better AA-filter and its larger pixels are slightly less affected by diffraction so the resolution advantage of the R7 is only about 20-25% more at base iso, and the 100-500 is slightly sharper and has a small advantage for diffraction. At higher isos, the smaller pixels are affected more by noise and the R7 progressively loses its reach advantage. It's for the this reason, I'll be taking the 100-500mm with me on our next birding safari, but for insects I would go for the 100-400 too.


----------



## mdcmdcmdc (Jan 5, 2023)

Dragon said:


> The linear resolution is related to the square root of the pixel count, so the R7 has 1.16 x more linear resolution than the A6400 or 1.16x400 = 465mm equiv on the A6400 for the same pixel density on the subject. I didn't see any sign of motion issues in your shots. If you have a tracking mount and an R7, just buy the 800 f/11 rather than spending all that rental money. It takes awesome pictures and supports a 1.4 TC well even on an R7. I bought the 800L used before there was a mention of anything "R" and it has served me well, but it still cost more than an R5 plus an R7 plus an 800 f/11  . I probably won't sell it but given how well the f/11 lens works, I wouldn't buy the L today. It has landed me some very cool shots and it supports a 2x TC well, albeit best at f/16. Here is a shot I took with the 800L and the 2x converter at f/16, ISO 1600, and 1/125th. This was during the recent near flyby of Jupiter, which was very bright. This was on a tripod with delayed shutter and the IS turned off.
> 
> The second shot is with the R7, the RF800 f/11 with 1.4 TC at f/16, ISO 6400, and 1/400th handheld, but note that the stabilizer is good down to 1/30th if you have a reasonably steady hand and the subject is not moving. That hummingbird was about 35 feet away and the attached image is downscaled almost 2:1 to give you an idea of the magnification.
> 
> ...


That Jupiter shot is incredible! Not just the bands and moons, but all of the background stars too. Nice job!

You're right about the pixel density, it's linear pixels/mm, not area in total MP.

But the multiplier is even larger because Canon's APS-C is smaller than everybody else's. The R7 sensor is 22.3 x 14.8 mm, whereas the Sony a6400 is 23.5 x 15.6 mm. So when you look at the actual pixels per mm, the density multiplier for Canon is more like 1.22.

Being a math nerd, I put together a spreadsheet to compare the two. I used as an example two of my lunar eclipse lenses, the Sony 200-600 at 600 mm on the a6400, and the Sigma 100-400 at 400 on the R7.

In order to get the same pixel density with the R7 as with the Sony at 600 mm, I only need 491 mm. Similarly, if I used the Sigma at 400 on the Canon, it would be equivalent to 489 mm on the Sony.


----------



## Dragon (Jan 5, 2023)

mdcmdcmdc said:


> That Jupiter shot is incredible! Not just the bands and moons, but all of the background stars too. Nice job!
> 
> You're right about the pixel density, it's linear pixels/mm, not area in total MP.
> 
> ...


Correct. I spaced the 1.5/1.6 crop factor difference between Sony and Canon in my response, and I know better. My only excuse is that it was late . In any case, 600mm still wins the reach game. and 800 is even better. Here is a 100% crop of a shot on a very dark day with the R7 and the 800 f/11 bare (no TC). ISO 6400 and 1/80th second handheld. As you see, it doesn't want for detail. Processed through DXO Photolab 6.1.1 and final tweaked in LR. It is amazing how the hummer feathers light up when they are looking at you even in crappy lighting. Actually, dim gray lighting works best because if the sun is behind you, the contrast goes up to about 20 stops and you can't recover the detail in the feathers. And rember, this bird is only about 2-1/2 inches long from tip to tip.


----------



## mdcmdcmdc (Jan 5, 2023)

Dragon said:


> Correct. I spaced the 1.5/1.6 crop factor difference between Sony and Canon in my response, and I know better. My only excuse is that it was late . In any case, 600mm still wins the reach game. and 800 is even better. Here is a 100% crop of a shot on a very dark day with the R7 and the 800 f/11 bare (no TC). ISO 6400 and 1/80th second handheld. As you see, it doesn't want for detail. Processed through DXO Photolab 6.1.1 and final tweaked in LR. It is amazing how the hummer feathers light up when they are looking at you even in crappy lighting. Actually, dim gray lighting works best because if the sun is behind you, the contrast goes up to about 20 stops and you can't recover the detail in the feathers. And rember, this bird is only about 2-1/2 inches long from tip to tip.
> 
> View attachment 207049


I know I focused (no pun intended) on the Jupiter shot earlier, but your bird shots are terrific too.

My only concern with buying the 800mm f/11 is that I wouldn't use it that often. I'm not a birder as such; the "birds" I like to shoot usually have metal wings and propellers, and even 400mm on the R7 is more than enough most of the time (there's always humidity and haze in the air where I live, so I've learned that if I have to zoom all the way to 400, it's probably not going to be a great shot anyway).

But there's always the moon and planets, and there are two solar eclipses coming up in the next 15 months, so you've got me thinking about it!

Edit: Somebody on my local Craigslist has an FD 800mm f/5.6L listed for $1900. Since I’ll probably only use it in MF anyway, I’m tempted, but the price is too much. If I were serious I would try to talk him down to maybe $1200, but I’m not sure I’m that serious yet.


----------



## codym90 (Jan 5, 2023)

11-22 is so random. Then again I just do photos. I bet that is super helpful for those who do video. 28 has been more than enough for my weddings and etc.
-Cody M
Charlotte Wedding Photographer


----------



## Dragon (Jan 5, 2023)

koenkooi said:


> The OS is junk on the 150 and the IBIS on the R5 actively fights it. So the non-OS 150 would likely give you better stabe on an IBIS body. Turning off OS on my 150 also turns off IBIS


For what it is worth, I just did a comparison test with my Sigma 150 OS. On the 5DSr, the OS has about a 90% hit rate at 2 stops and about 60% at 3 stops. That is in the ballpark for the original specification of the lens, which, as I remember, only claimed about 2 stops. I then put the lens on the R5 and the results were slightly worse with several random weird results, so the theory that the lens doesn't play well the IBIS may be correct or it may simply not be fully compatible with the R5. I then put the lens on the R7 and the results were slightly better than with the 5DSr (actually quite a bit better when you take the crop factor into account), so the lens does appear to be compatible with the R7. These kinds of issues are common with third party lenses and later released Canon bodies. For lenses that are still in production, Both Sigma and Tamron do try pretty diligently to provide firmware updates, but with discontinued lenses, you are on your own and some bodies never get supported. As to getting better performance with the non-OS lens and IBIS, I doubt that. IBIS works wonders on short lenses but falls off very fast over about 70mm. The sensor simply cannot move far enough to make the necessary corrections. In any case, all three Sigma OS macros (105, 150, and 180) are much older lenses and the OS is pretty primitive compared to modern lenses. There is also, no claim from anyone, least of all Canon, that the IBIS will be cooperative with 3rd party EF lenses. The good news is that, at least in my limited testing, the 150 seems to be happy on the R7. With the R5, the best solution may well be to simply turn off the OS (and thus, also the IBIS). I did run a test on the 150 with the R5 a while back to see if the lens worked with focus stacking and in limited testing, it seemed to work correctly. For focus stacking, you should have the camera on tripod with the IS/OS turned off, no matter what lens you are using, so depending on your application, the OS compatibility may or may not be a major issue. I have both the 150 and the 180 and optically they are both stellar with the 180 being slightly sharper in the center wide open.


----------



## Dragon (Jan 5, 2023)

mdcmdcmdc said:


> I know I focused (no pun intended) on the Jupiter shot earlier, but your bird shots are terrific too.
> 
> My only concern with buying the 800mm f/11 is that I wouldn't use it that often. I'm not a birder as such; the "birds" I like to shoot usually have metal wings and propellers, and even 400mm on the R7 is more than enough most of the time (there's always humidity and haze in the air where I live, so I've learned that if I have to zoom all the way to 400, it's probably not going to be a great shot anyway).
> 
> ...


The FD 800L is even heavier than my EF 800L and I don't think it will be any sharper than the RF800 f/11 and maybe just about match it after you stop the FD down to f/11 . Trust me, using an 800mm without stabilization is very challenging. You need a really good tripod and NO wind to get decent results. One of the big features on the EF 800L is that the IS is tripod sensing and continues to work correctly on a tripod. I haven't tried the RF 800 f/11 on a tripod to see if it has that feature, but I have seen no claim that it does. OTOH, it works so well handheld that I have never seen the need for a tripod. For astro, you would turn off the IS in most cases, but for terrestrial shots, it is awesome. I did look at an FD 800L before I bought the EF 800, but that was before Canon mirrorless and FD to EF has the same -2mm flange distance problem that M to R has so I passed. Also good to remember that there is no sensible way to get one of the big FD lenses repaired as all repair parts are long gone at Canon. That makes the investment less attractive.


----------



## Dragon (Jan 5, 2023)

codym90 said:


> 11-22 is so random. Then again I just do photos. I bet that is super helpful for those who do video. 28 has been more than enough for my weddings and etc.
> -Cody M
> Charlotte Wedding Photographer


The M series 11-22 has been around for quite a few years and it is a fine little lens. 11-22 crop is 17.6-35.2 FF equivalent, so not really random, but rather a very decent ultra-wide range. Beyond video, it is very useful for landscape, architectural, and real estate photography.


----------



## AlanF (Jan 5, 2023)

mdcmdcmdc said:


> That Jupiter shot is incredible! Not just the bands and moons, but all of the background stars too. Nice job!
> 
> You're right about the pixel density, it's linear pixels/mm, not area in total MP.
> 
> ...


It's easier for me to work the relative resolutions of sensors using the pixel pitch directly, which is basically doing the same as you. For example, the length of the A6400 pixel is 3.89µ, R7 3.2µ, R5 4.38µ, R10 3.7µ, R3 5.99µ etc so the A6400 needs a lens 3.89/3.2 times longer etc to get the same linear resolution. But, this ignores the effects of diffraction, noise, AA-filter etc. In bright light with a sharp f/2.8 lens, the relative pixel sizes will approximate to the real relative resolutions. But, at high iso and a narrow lens the resolution advantages of the smaller pixels become negated.


----------



## scyrene (Jan 5, 2023)

mdcmdcmdc said:


> That Jupiter shot is incredible! Not just the bands and moons, but all of the background stars too. Nice job!


It's a nice shot but if you look closely it's not a single exposure, the planet has a halo that shows it was pasted into the background, that's the only way to do this, as you can't expose for both the surface details and the much dimmer starfield.


----------



## roby17269 (Jan 5, 2023)

AlanF said:


> My second comment that naysayers are not much fun to read was in response to your comment:


Sorry for being so tardy, I was away on a 3-week trip...

Fair enough, although my quip wasn't about a specific lens being good or bad, it was about other people assuming that their likes (or dislikes) should be shared by everyone else.

While it may be "fun" to read high praises about a lens, I personally prefer to hear both from people who liked it and people who didn't, since we all have our specific use cases and different tolerances to the compromises each lens has.


----------



## roby17269 (Jan 5, 2023)

neuroanatomist said:


> Not sure if you mean overlap in a full kit, or overlap in what gets packed for a specific outing/trip.


Both, actually  Apologies for the long time, I was on a 3-weeks trip with family in Italy. I brought 3 lenses (RF 100-500, RF 85 1.2 and TS-E 24 II) which have all seen some use on my R5, plus my GoPro 10 (not so happy with it) and my DJI Mini 3 Pro (super happy with it)


neuroanatomist said:


> For the former, I see no problem with significant overlap. My preference is to have the right tool available for the job. You can pound a fence post in with a little hammer or drive a small picture-hanging nail into your wall with a sledgehammer, but neither is optimal. I currently have 6 RF lenses (counting the one being delivered today by FedEx), 8 EF lenses, 8 EF-M lenses, and four TCs. For FF that focal range spans 11mm to 1200mm (11-24/4, 600/4 + 2xTC), with ample overlap. For ‘fast’ lenses, I have the RF 28-70/2L and EF 85/1.4L IS, and I suppose you could count the RF 70-200/2.8 as well.
> 
> That means when I’m going to shoot something, I can pick the lenses best suited to my subject(s). I feel the same about how those lenses are carried. I have an array of cases/backpacks that can hold a camera with pretty much any lens or set of lenses without empty space (unless by design when I want to also carry non-photo items).
> 
> ...


It's all good, as mentioned my post was not meant as a critique to your approach. I have a slightly different philosophy I guess. I have the RF 85 1.2 and if I had the RF 85 2 I know for a fact that the f/2 lens would stay in the drawer unused, even if it is significantly smaller and lighter than the 1.2 one. Again, this is just me.


neuroanatomist said:


> As for lenses being f/4 or slower, I’ve found that not to be a problem for my travels. I use fast lenses (mostly the RF 28-70/2 and RF 70-200/2.8 now) for portraits and for indoor/night-lit events with moving subjects. Most of my travel shooting is outdoors at narrower apertures, and indoor shots are typically more of interiors (cathedrals, etc.), where I don’t need a fast shutter and thus can benefit from IS. The (up-to) 8-stops of stabilization with lenses like the RF 14-35 and 24-105 is a huge benefit for interior shots in locations where a tripod is not practical or not permitted.


As I mostly shoot fashion with the Hassy & IQ 180 and active kids with the R5, when I use the R5 I value speed to isolate subjects and to keep fast shutter speeds even in bad light conditions. Different use cases. Of course if I'm traveling I shoot other things as well: I've shot landscapes and cityscapes in Italy with my lenses stopping down as needed... I am aware I could have used lighter lenses for those images, but that won't change my mind. 
Moreover, I am probably being an old curmudgeon , but I am not a fan of going high ISO. With the IQ 180 I am really comfortable only at ISO 35 or 50... but that's an old CCD. With the R5 I can go 1600 in a pinch but really I feel 800 is the ceiling for me.


neuroanatomist said:


> Given others’ reports, testing and —more importantly— results with the RF 100-400, I have a reasonable expectation the lens will perform well. Did your friend properly test the lens when new, or did you? I ask because QC is not perfect and bad lenses are shipped. I had to return the first copy of my Rokinon 14/2.8, the second performed as expected. All my Canon lenses have been fine, but for example (I know I’m repeating myself from other threads), when I was reviewing the M18-150 for TDP, my results were much better than what Bryan showed in his ISO 12233-type charts. I told him that, and he ordered and tested a second copy of the lens and it was much better, those are the results now on his site. While such issues are more common with consumer-grade lenses, they happen with L-series lenses, too. Bryan tested four copies of the EF 24-70/2.8L, the first two were sub-par.


In short ,no. I just took some shots in the same settings I was using my 100-500 (a wolf reservation) and looked at them side by side at home. It's not that it is a bad unusable lens (no clue if that particular one was sub par or not), but I prefer the output of the 100-500 which, since I do indeed have a 100-500 already, made the decision not to buy a 100-400 a very easy one for me... 


neuroanatomist said:


> My RF 100-400 arrives today, I’ll properly test it next week, if it’s not up to snuff I’ll exchange it, and if the second copy also fails to perform well I’ll probably just return it and decide whether or not to take the 100-500L on the trip.


Happy shooting!


----------



## Dragon (Jan 5, 2023)

scyrene said:


> It's a nice shot but if you look closely it's not a single exposure, the planet has a halo that shows it was pasted into the background, that's the only way to do this, as you can't expose for both the surface details and the much dimmer starfield.


Sorry, but that was a single shot with a lot of shadow pull and noise reduction. The halo is due to dimming the planet with a mask in LR so the starfield could be pulled up without burning out the planet, but it was a single shot albeit heavily tweaked in post.


----------



## scyrene (Jan 5, 2023)

Dragon said:


> Sorry, but that was a single shot with a lot of shadow pull and noise reduction. The halo is due to dimming the planet with a mask in LR so the starfield could be pulled up without burning out the planet, but it was a single shot albeit heavily tweaked in post.


Ok fair dos, unexpected. I would suggest some (many?) of the 'stars' likely to be noise/hot pixels, in that case. A good illustration of what's possible, anyhow


----------



## Dragon (Jan 5, 2023)

scyrene said:


> Ok fair dos, unexpected. I would suggest some (many?) of the 'stars' likely to be noise/hot pixels, in that case. A good illustration of what's possible, anyhow


It was exposed to the right to start with, so you are seeing the max dynamic range of an R5. The noise was just below the stars that are showing so I doubt that more than a few are noise. That shot was at ISO 600 and it would have been a bit better if I had had a tracking mount to be able to drop the ISO to 100. It does go to show that a lot of dynamic range is good, and more is better . If Canon can get that photon counting sensor tech up to normal camera resolution, it will be really interesting because more bits in an A/D always translates to longer readouts.


----------



## scyrene (Jan 5, 2023)

Dragon said:


> It was exposed to the right to start with, so you are seeing the max dynamic range of an R5. The noise was just below the stars that are showing so I doubt that more than a few are noise. That shot was at ISO 600 and it would have been a bit better if I had had a tracking mount to be able to drop the ISO to 100. It does go to show that a lot of dynamic range is good, and more is better . If Canon can get that photon counting sensor tech up to normal camera resolution, it will be really interesting because more bits in an A/D always translates to longer readouts.


Cool! Nothing taxes DR like astro. Do you find ETTR helpful even now? My understanding was since Canon's newer sensors (~5D4 onwards?) it was no longer really necessary, but I haven't tested that assumption tbh.


----------



## Dragon (Jan 5, 2023)

scyrene said:


> Cool! Nothing taxes DR like astro. Do you find ETTR helpful even now? My understanding was since Canon's newer sensors (~5D4 onwards?) it was no longer really necessary, but I haven't tested that assumption tbh.


I think ETTR is always helpful when you have very high contrast and want to preserve the highlights. With a very small object like a planet, often the easiest approach is to take a series of exposures and then pick the optimum one in Post as I did in this case. The issue is not sensor related, but rather a metering issue. In-camera metering is useless for astro (other than maybe an 800mm moon shot) because the mass of black will cause the metering to overexpose all the shiny things  . For terrestrial stuff with objects big enough to meter on, I find spot metering to be quite useful, particularly for birds against both bright and dark backgrounds, but it is very hard to use for BIF unless you have a camera that tracks the AF point with the Spot metering (think 1 series).


----------



## mdcmdcmdc (Jan 6, 2023)

AlanF said:


> It's easier for me to work the relative resolutions of sensors using the pixel pitch directly, which is basically doing the same as you. For example, the length of the A6400 pixel is 3.89µ, R7 3.2µ, R5 4.38µ, R10 3.7µ, R3 5.99µ etc so the A6400 needs a lens 3.89/3.2 times longer etc to get the same linear resolution. But, this ignores the effects of diffraction, noise, AA-filter etc. In bright light with a sharp f/2.8 lens, the relative pixel sizes will approximate to the real relative resolutions. But, at high iso and a narrow lens the resolution advantages of the smaller pixels become negated.


True on all counts. In fact, resolution or pixel density aren't true figures of merit because you'll rarely get features in your images whose boundaries align exactly with the pixel boundaries on the sensor.

I wish there was a straightforward way to quantify pixel density because I feel "crop factor" is an anachronism. Twenty years ago, when APS-C DSLRs became popular and most people viewed photos as 4x6" minilab prints, crop factor made some sense. But given that most high-end APS-C shooters do a lot of cropping in post anyway, it's less relevant. But mathematically, crop factor is easy. Just multiply by 1.6 (for Canon). Pixel density is a little more complicated.

In my experience, diffraction is often worried about more than it really needs to be. Yes, it's real, it can be calculated (I've done it), it can be measured, and sharp-eyed observers might be able to spot in an image viewed at 100% on a monitor. But in my experience, using the R7 at the f/8 to f/11 where I normally shoot, I've never felt limited by it. I'm not talking about f/22, but people on various forums who say the R7 can't be used at slower than f/5 in my opinion haven't tried.

I look forward to a day when diffraction limits me with the R7 at f/11, and not my own handling of the camera.


----------



## mdcmdcmdc (Jan 6, 2023)

scyrene said:


> It's a nice shot but if you look closely it's not a single exposure, the planet has a halo that shows it was pasted into the background, that's the only way to do this, as you can't expose for both the surface details and the much dimmer starfield.





Dragon said:


> Sorry, but that was a single shot with a lot of shadow pull and noise reduction. The halo is due to dimming the planet with a mask in LR so the starfield could be pulled up without burning out the planet, but it was a single shot albeit heavily tweaked in post.


Even if it wasn't a single exposure, so what? That's what HDR is.

Similar to what @Dragon said, the lunar eclipse image I posted a couple of pages back was a single exposure, but I used a mask in LR to tone down the brightness of the non-totally eclipsed limb. I was really surprised by how much detail became visible on that part. Kudos to the R7 sensor!


----------



## mdcmdcmdc (Jan 6, 2023)

Dragon said:


> The FD 800L is even heavier than my EF 800L and I don't think it will be any sharper than the RF800 f/11 and maybe just about match it after you stop the FD down to f/11 . Trust me, using an 800mm without stabilization is very challenging. You need a really good tripod and NO wind to get decent results. One of the big features on the EF 800L is that the IS is tripod sensing and continues to work correctly on a tripod. I haven't tried the RF 800 f/11 on a tripod to see if it has that feature, but I have seen no claim that it does. OTOH, it works so well handheld that I have never seen the need for a tripod. For astro, you would turn off the IS in most cases, but for terrestrial shots, it is awesome. I did look at an FD 800L before I bought the EF 800, but that was before Canon mirrorless and FD to EF has the same -2mm flange distance problem that M to R has so I passed. Also good to remember that there is no sensible way to get one of the big FD lenses repaired as all repair parts are long gone at Canon. That makes the investment less attractive.


Very true about a 30+ year old FD lens. I probably will end up with the RF 800 f/11 eventually, I just want to look at alternatives. I have a 10" f/4.7 telescope (1200mm FL), but it's a dobsonian mount and the tube is too big for an equatorial mount, at least any mount that I would want to buy and lug around. I've thought about something like a 5" Celestron Schmidt-Cassegrain telescope (1250mm f/10), but I've had SCT's before and they need frequent collimation adjustment, and it's a constant struggle to keep dew from forming on the front corrector.


----------



## Dragon (Jan 6, 2023)

mdcmdcmdc said:


> True on all counts. In fact, resolution or pixel density aren't true figures of merit because you'll rarely get features in your images whose boundaries align exactly with the pixel boundaries on the sensor.
> 
> I wish there was a straightforward way to quantify pixel density because I fell "crop factor" is an anachronism. Twenty years ago, when APS-C DSLRs became popular and most people viewed photos as 4x6" minilab prints, crop factor made some sense. But given that most high-end APS-C shooters do a lot of cropping in post anyway, it's less relevant. But mathematically, crop factor is easy. Just multiply by 1.6 (for Canon). Pixel density is a little more complicated.
> 
> ...


Yes, you can get some very detailed results with the R7 and either the 800 f/11 or the 600 f/11. OTOH, when the R7 is at its absolute highest resolution, it is stunning https://www.the-digital-picture.com...eraComp=1619&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=4 That RF 85L f/1.2 is scary sharp even wide open. I don't do many people shots, so 85 is not a FL that I use a lot and I have a perfectly good EF 85 f/1.8, but that RF 85 is tempting. In the end, pixel density is just one factor in system MTF. The higher the pixel density, the less the sensor contributes to the degradation of the overall system performance. Lens MTF, focus accuracy, air quality, system stability, and depth of field (i.e. f/FL) all contribute to the ability of a camera system to produce a "sharp" image. When you get all those things tuned up to the max for what you arre shooting, then, finally differences in pixel density are noticeable .


----------



## Dragon (Jan 6, 2023)

mdcmdcmdc said:


> Very true about a 30+ year old FD lens. I probably will end up with the RF 800 f/11 eventually, I just want to look at alternatives. I have a 10" f/4.7 telescope (1200mm FL), but it's a dobsonian mount and the tube is too big for an equatorial mount, at least any mount that I would want to buy and lug around. I've thought about something like a 5" Celestron Schmidt-Cassegrain telescope (1250mm f/10), but I've had SCT's before and they need frequent collimation adjustment, and it's a constant struggle to keep dew from forming on the front corrector.


I have several shelves loaded with old FD, Minolta MD, and Nikon F lenses and I love to experiment with them, but none were expensive enough to make me cry if they quit and I have the tools to repair at least the simpler ones. I just drew the line on the 800 FD as I think the owner wanted about $1500 at the time. I have a friend with an 8" Celestron Schmitt and the EF 800L seems to outperform it by a pretty good margin, and yes, he is always fussing with collimation. The Schmitts can be very good if everything is tuned up and better with correction lenses (e..g Celestron Edge line), but if is a big word in this context. I have several older Mirror lenses (Canon FD 500mm, Minolta MD 500mm, Sigma 600mm, Nikon 500mm, and Nikon 1000mm). They are a blast to experiment with, but the 800L will smoke them all looking through samples, I would say the RF 800 f/11 does also. The Nikon 1000mm comes the closest, but it still needs a lot of sharpening to get close to the refractors and then you have the challenge of actually taking the shot. The Mirrors need a stable platform (most tripods are marginal) and then focus (particularly on long distance) is VERY touchy and hard to optimize, whereas with the 800 f/11, the same shot can be handheld and taken in a couple of seconds. I think the biggest challenge with mirrors is accurate focus. It is very hard to determine (even with focus peaking) just where the optimum point is. I believe that is because the secondary mirror effectively blocks the center (and therefore the peak) of the airy disc, so when focusing, you are actually looking at bunch of tiny doughnuts rather than something that looks like a gaussian curve. This means the focus adjustment has a flat spot on top rather than a peak. It also means that the depth of field is very shallow because you don't have the advantage of that peak to broaden the DOF. Here are a few comparison shots. Note that this pole is about a mile away and much of the time is heavily distorted by thermals. These shots were taken at different times and even different years, but the seeing conditions were pretty good in each case. The time-of-day differences make direct comparison more difficult, but you can get the idea. The R5 likes the big Nikon Mirror better than any other body I have tried it on but it is still a bear to focus and this shot was with a 10 second delay to let the tripod settle down and probably the sharpest shot I have ever taken with that lens. The 800L was on a tripod with the stabilizer on and shot with an SL-2 (200D) by simply hitting the shutter button. The 800 f/11 shot was with an R7 handheld (leaning against a post) and the easiest to set up by a mile. All the shots are quite usable with a little post work, but you can see that the RF 800 does not lose the contest by any means, particularly considering it was shot with the high res R7, but that is offset by the 1.4 TC as opposed to 2x (I don't have an RF 2x converter). All shots are 100% crops.




Nikon 1000mm Mirror with 2x TC (f/22) and R5.



EF 800 f/5.6L with 2x TC (at f/14) and SL2



RF 800 f/11 with 1.4x TC (f/16) and R7


----------



## AlanF (Jan 6, 2023)

Dragon said:


> I think the biggest challenge with mirrors is accurate focus. It is very hard to determine (even with focus peaking) just where the optimum point is. I believe that is because the secondary mirror effectively blocks the center (and therefore the peak) of the airy disc, so when focusing, you are actually looking at bunch of tiny doughnuts rather than something that looks like a gaussian curve. This means the focus adjustment has a flat spot on top rather than a peak.
> 
> View attachment 207078
> 
> ...


I don't understand your argument about the Airy disk. Do you have a link to where it is explained or are you just surmising?


----------



## depth (Jan 6, 2023)

Canon is doing everything to kill it\'s EF-M system. Their M-series cameras are wonderful for travelling in terms of portability (small and lightweight bodies/lenses) and they are very capable cameras. This small 11-22 lens will be ridiculously looking small on much larger R10 or R7 than on M50 or M6. Canon is making a lot of mistakes in last years. From locking their RF system to 3rd party lens manufacturers to recycling their old lenses to new mounts. Sorry Canon, you do not deserve anymore to be No.1 in terms of sales.


----------



## entoman (Jan 6, 2023)

depth said:


> Canon is doing everything to kill it\'s EF-M system. Their M-series cameras are wonderful for travelling in terms of portability (small and lightweight bodies/lenses) and they are very capable cameras. This small 11-22 lens will be ridiculously looking small on much larger R10 or R7 than on M50 or M6. Canon is making a lot of mistakes in last years. From locking their RF system to 3rd party lens manufacturers to recycling their old lenses to new mounts. Sorry Canon, you do not deserve anymore to be No.1 in terms of sales.


Canon is a business, and an extremely successful one. Although many of us would like to have the option of Tamron/Sigma RF glass, Canon will make far more money by restricting the mount and selling their own glass. What's wrong with buying EF mount glass anyway? It works absolutely perfectly via the Canon adaptor, and you can buy a mint used EF lens for about the same price that you'd have to pay for a new Sigma or Tamron.

I do tend to agree about the M system, it's a great design, but the difference in size/weight isn't as dramatic as you imply. If you have an M, and like it, just keep it and enjoy it. No one is forcing you to buy an APS-C.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 6, 2023)

depth said:


> Sorry Canon, you do not deserve anymore to be No.1 in terms of sales.


Deserve it or not, they have been for two decades and it does not look like that will be changing anytime soon.


----------



## scyrene (Jan 6, 2023)

mdcmdcmdc said:


> Even if it wasn't a single exposure, so what? That's what HDR is.
> 
> Similar to what @Dragon said, the lunar eclipse image I posted a couple of pages back was a single exposure, but I used a mask in LR to tone down the brightness of the non-totally eclipsed limb. I was really surprised by how much detail became visible on that part. Kudos to the R7 sensor!


I wasn't criticising it, it's just handy for people to know how images are created. I'm a big fan of computational imaging, and most astrophotography requires it, but I think transparency around the process is valuable.

(Edit: and in this case it meant I learned the DR of the R5 provides opportunities in single exposures that may have required multiple ones with older equipment)


----------



## RaPhoto (Jan 6, 2023)

AlanF said:


> I don't understand your argument about the Airy disk. Do you have a link to where it is explained or are you just surmising?


It's not that it has a mirror but that it has a central obstruction which spreads light from the central peak of the airy disk to the outer rings. But the reality of such a comparison is far more complicated. See telescopeOptic.net chapter 7. See for example the concluding remarks at the end of: https://telescope-optics.net/telescope_central_obstruction.htm


----------



## SteveC (Jan 6, 2023)

> This small 11-22 lens will be ridiculously looking small on much larger R10 or R7 than on M50 or M6.


I have to say I've never understood why people gripe about how a camera _looks _as if that's a fatal flaw. (Obviously, from a marketing standpoint ugly gear won't sell as well, all other things being equal.) It's not as if you're taking pictures _of_ the camera; you're taking them _with_ the camera.


----------



## Dragon (Jan 6, 2023)

AlanF said:


> I don't understand your argument about the Airy disk. Do you have a link to where it is explained or are you just surmising?


That was based on an article I read and may not be quite correct. If you scroll down to the section on "obstructed airy disk" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airy_disk , you will find the equations and the description that the central point gets smaller and there is more energy in the diffraction rings which still has the effect of flattening the focus control, and once you are ever so slightly off peak focus you have to deal with doughnuts that behave much as I described. A simpler way to describe the focus challenge with Mirrors is to say that the low contrast makes it hard to find the peak focus point. BTW, I don't think anyone who has used mirror lenses will even suggest that mirrors have as much DOF as refractors at the same aperture and FL. From an image perspective, I find the doughnuts kind of fun, but accurate focus is tricky, particularly without stabilization.


----------



## Hubert Multana (Jan 6, 2023)

depth said:


> Canon is doing everything to kill it\'s EF-M system. Their M-series cameras are wonderful for travelling in terms of portability (small and lightweight bodies/lenses) and they are very capable cameras. This small 11-22 lens will be ridiculously looking small on much larger R10 or R7 than on M50 or M6. Canon is making a lot of mistakes in last years. From locking their RF system to 3rd party lens manufacturers to recycling their old lenses to new mounts. Sorry Canon, you do not deserve anymore to be No.1 in terms of sales.


It looks like R8 may indeed be what we expected to have with R100. Lets hope for 22f2.0 soon


----------



## Dragon (Jan 6, 2023)

depth said:


> Canon is doing everything to kill it\'s EF-M system. Their M-series cameras are wonderful for travelling in terms of portability (small and lightweight bodies/lenses) and they are very capable cameras. This small 11-22 lens will be ridiculously looking small on much larger R10 or R7 than on M50 or M6. Canon is making a lot of mistakes in last years. From locking their RF system to 3rd party lens manufacturers to recycling their old lenses to new mounts. Sorry Canon, you do not deserve anymore to be No.1 in terms of sales.


The R10 is not the smallest R that can be made, but it is not all that much bigger than the M50. It is 6mm wider, a tiny bit shorter, and on paper looks deeper, but that is mostly due to the deeper grip and extended eyepiece. When you put a lens on it, it is pretty close to the same. https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Camera-Product-Images.aspx?Camera=1523&CameraComp=1620 I was very fond of the M5 but gave to a granddaughter and got an M6 II. I have all the M series lenses and the M6 is still my preferred ultra-portable kit, but an R10 with similar lenses (and they will come) wouldn't be that much bigger. OTOH, the R7 is in a whole different league and needs to be bigger to support the long lenses that will get attached to it. The R7 and both the 600 f/11 and the 800 f/11 make an amazing combination for all sorts of wildlife work. The big downside of the M cameras is that they just aren't big enough, nor do they have enough grip to support lenses much bigger than those little M lenses. Another catch is that the small battery used to keep the M bodies small will not support the feature set of the R7, so there was no way to build a tiny equivalent M7 and have any meaningful battery life and I love the R7.


----------



## AlanF (Jan 6, 2023)

Dragon said:


> That was based on an article I read and may not be quite correct. If you scroll down to the section on "obstructed airy disk" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airy_disk , you will find the equations and the description that the central point gets smaller and there is more energy in the diffraction rings which still has the effect of flattening the focus control, and once you are ever so slightly off peak focus you have to deal with doughnuts that behave much as I described.


Thanks for the link and also that from @RaPhoto. My thoughts were that the physics behind this is that the diffraction is caused by light from the the circumference of the outer circle of the lens or mirror. For a lens or mirror that doesn't have an obstruction, you have the standard Airy disk with radius proportional to the f-number. If you have have a circular obstruction in the centre, that will produce another Airy disk from the circumference around the obstruction. Its Airy disk will have a larger radius because the f-number is larger. The intensity will also be smaller because the circumference is shorter and less light is diffracted. So there will be a less intense Airy disk superposed on the major pattern, and I didn't understand how this would affect the AF.


----------



## vladk (Jan 6, 2023)

I would prefer to see something faster with wider range, like RF-S equivalent of EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM (I loved it with 350D), but looks like Canon is all about portability now.


----------



## Czardoom (Jan 6, 2023)

SteveC said:


> I have to say I've never understood why people gripe about how a camera _looks _as if that's a fatal flaw. (Obviously, from a marketing standpoint ugly gear won't sell as well, all other things being equal.) It's not as if you're taking pictures _of_ the camera; you're taking them _with_ the camera.


Because if the camera works really well, than you have to find other things to gripe about here on Camera Whiners.


----------



## Czardoom (Jan 6, 2023)

depth said:


> ... Canon is making a lot of mistakes in last years. From locking their RF system to 3rd party lens manufacturers to recycling their old lenses to new mounts. Sorry Canon, you do not deserve anymore to be No.1 in terms of sales.



If I am wrong, someone please correct me, but the issue of 3rd party lenses seems to be misunderstood probably due to misinformation, whether intentional or otherwise, but so far, Canon has told only those lens makers who violated their patents to stop making AF lenses. I don't think there has been any mention from Canon that they won't negotiate license agreements with 3rd party lens makers at some time in the future. They may well follow the lead of Nikon, who in the past year negotiated such an agreement with Tamron and is rumored to be in negotiations with Sigma. We just don't know if Canon plans to do the same. So we can't say for sure (and I personally doubt that they will) that they are locking out 3rd party lens makers. It seems likely, given that Nikon is doing so, that Canon will do so as well when they feel that they have built up their own lens lineup sufficiently.


----------



## Dragon (Jan 7, 2023)

AlanF said:


> Thanks for the link and also that from @RaPhoto. My thoughts were that the physics behind this is that the diffraction is caused by light from the the circumference of the outer circle of the lens or mirror. For a lens or mirror that doesn't have an obstruction, you have the standard Airy disk with radius proportional to the f-number. If you have have a circular obstruction in the centre, that will produce another Airy disk from the circumference around the obstruction. Its Airy disk will have a larger radius because the f-number is larger. The intensity will also be smaller because the circumference is shorter and less light is diffracted. So there will be a less intense Airy disk superposed on the major pattern, and I didn't understand how this would affect the AF.


Here is an old article that among other things describes the MTF alteration due to the central obstruction in Mirror lenses https://www.bobatkins.com/photography/tutorials/mirror.html . I have a copy of the mentioned Tamron (actually a slightly later version that does have a tripod mount), and it performs very similarly to the Canon 500, the Nikon 500, and the Minolta 500. The Sigma 600 is the washout. I bought one and was disappointed, so I picked up a second to see if I had a bad copy. The second copy was not an improvement. The Tamron has the notable feature of close focus (down to about 5 ft) making it almost a macro lens (the rest are more like 15-20 ft with the Nikon being the worst in that regard). I wasn't able to find any charts that show the OOF behavior of the PSF with a central obstruction, but here a couple of shots that make what is happening pretty obvious. The first is from a Canon FD 500mm f/8 mirror lens. The second is from a Canon FD 200mm f/4 normal lens wide open. The scene is similar (different flower, same fence). As you can see, when the standard lens goes out of focus, the fence wires blur, but they are still brightest in the center (the green lines are LOCA). With the Mirror, the edges brighten and center darkens, reflecting the double peak in the PSF as lens goes out of focus (a bright point first flattens and then turns into a doughnut). This does seem to make finding the peak focus more difficult and is aggravated at long distances by the very sensitive focus behavior near infinity on all mirror lenses that I have encountered (I can't speak to telescopes as I don't have any). Note that I am talking about manual focus here since the only AF mirror ever made was a Sony A-mount version of the Minolta Mirror and it wasn't around for very long and AFAIK the A-mount cameras at the time were all contrast detect AF. I can't say for sure, but I strongly suspect that the double peak would be very confusing to a PDAF system. It would be interesting to know if someone has tried bolting that A-Mount mirror onto a modern PDAF Sony body and what the results were. As a last note, you can see that the Canon FD 500 is quite sharp when in focus (actually much sharper than the old f/4). The last shot is from the Tamron against the same fence, but with a little less distance from the focal point to the fence so you can see the double peak starts very early in the OOF region.




Canon FD 500mm Mirror




Canon FD 200mm f/4



Tamron 500 mirror.


----------



## mdcmdcmdc (Jan 7, 2023)

Czardoom said:


> If I am wrong, someone please correct me, but the issue of 3rd party lenses seems to be misunderstood probably due to misinformation, whether intentional or otherwise, but so far, Canon has told only those lens makers who violated their patents to stop making AF lenses. I don't think there has been any mention from Canon that they won't negotiate license agreements with 3rd party lens makers at some time in the future. They may well follow the lead of Nikon, who in the past year negotiated such an agreement with Tamron and is rumored to be in negotiations with Sigma. We just don't know if Canon plans to do the same. So we can't say for sure (and I personally doubt that they will) that they are locking out 3rd party lens makers. It seems likely, given that Nikon is doing so, that Canon will do so as well when they feel that they have built up their own lens lineup sufficiently.


My understanding--and this might only be heresay--is that Canon doesn't license their mount technology to anybody. I think they once licensed it to Sigma many years ago for a specific purpose, but other than that, the third parties have had to reverse engineer it. That's why incompatibilities occasionally crop up with newer Canon bodies; if it were licensed, the third parties would have access to all of the protocol information. That's also why Canon can assert patents to stop them from doing it.


----------



## AlanF (Jan 7, 2023)

Dragon said:


> Here is an old article that among other things describes the MTF alteration due to the central obstruction in Mirror lenses https://www.bobatkins.com/photography/tutorials/mirror.html . I have a copy of the mentioned Tamron (actually a slightly later version that does have a tripod mount), and it performs very similarly to the Canon 500, the Nikon 500, and the Minolta 500. The Sigma 600 is the washout. I bought one and was disappointed, so I picked up a second to see if I had a bad copy. The second copy was not an improvement. The Tamron has the notable feature of close focus (down to about 5 ft) making it almost a macro lens (the rest are more like 15-20 ft with the Nikon being the worst in that regard). I wasn't able to find any charts that show the OOF behavior of the PSF with a central obstruction, but here a couple of shots that make what is happening pretty obvious. The first is from a Canon FD 500mm f/8 mirror lens. The second is from a Canon FD 200mm f/4 normal lens wide open. The scene is similar (different flower, same fence). As you can see, when the standard lens goes out of focus, the fence wires blur, but they are still brightest in the center (the green lines are LOCA). With the Mirror, the edges brighten and center darkens, reflecting the double peak in the PSF as lens goes out of focus (a bright point first flattens and then turns into a doughnut). This does seem to make finding the peak focus more difficult and is aggravated at long distances by the very sensitive focus behavior near infinity on all mirror lenses that I have encountered (I can't speak to telescopes as I don't have any). Note that I am talking about manual focus here since the only AF mirror ever made was a Sony A-mount version of the Minolta Mirror and it wasn't around for very long and AFAIK the A-mount cameras at the time were all contrast detect AF. I can't say for sure, but I strongly suspect that the double peak would be very confusing to a PDAF system. It would be interesting to know if someone has tried bolting that A-Mount mirror onto a modern PDAF Sony body and what the result were. As a last note, you can see that the Canon FD 500 is quite sharp when in focus (actually much sharper than the old f/4). The last shot is from the Tamron against the same fence, but with a little less distance from the focal point to the fence so you can see the double peak starts very early in the OOF region.
> 
> 
> View attachment 207101
> ...


Thanks, most illuminating.


----------



## Poto7 (Tuesday at 1:41 AM)

Canon is not ashamed to release this? all brands creating clearer products and at least 2.8 for the most part. the worst thing is that they continue to launch their brick cameras at 680-720mg, we live in 2023 and we are already in the era of portability.


----------



## Jethro (Tuesday at 2:15 AM)

Poto7 said:


> Canon is not ashamed to release this? all brands creating clearer products and at least 2.8 for the most part. the worst thing is that they continue to launch their brick cameras at 680-720mg, we live in 2023 and we are already in the era of portability.


There's a view that a 680 mg camera body is pretty light even by modern standards ...

Presuming that your rant was meant to refer to 'grams', well, the R10 is only 420gm, and even the prosumer R7 is 612gm, so to be kind you seem misinformed.

Great first post, by the way.


----------



## photophil (Tuesday at 11:25 AM)

Poto7 said:


> Canon is not ashamed to release this? all brands creating clearer products and at least 2.8 for the most part. the worst thing is that they continue to launch their brick cameras at 680-720mg, we live in 2023 and we are already in the era of portability.


If you want lighter gear, you have to accept some tradeoffs such as slower lenses and smaller sensors. And even then a fully-featured APS-C camera such as the X-H2 is a mere 20 grams lighter than the 680 gram R6.

And speaking of Fuji, their XF 10-24mm would probably be the closest lens to the rumored 11-22mm. The XF however is an f/4 lens coming in at 385 grams compared to the 220 grams of the EF-M 11-22mm that seems to be the predecessor of the new RF lens. f/4 is not exactly fast and a f/2.8 zoom lens would be _significantly_ heavier and bulkier than that.

But either way, you should rejoice — if CR is accurate, we will be getting two small, light RF cameras in a couple of weeks and a tiny, comparatively fast, prime pancake to boot (RF-s 22mm f/2).


----------



## NKD (Tuesday at 10:27 PM)

I have done a full circle with my camera bodies. 2010 Purchased the 60D & the EFS 10-22mm. Later moved to FF.
Now have the R7 & was regretting selling the EFS lens. BUT this looks like a great little travel & hopefully vlogging lens!
I recall the older EFS being around 700$ AUD new when prices dropped in ~2019. Higher near $900+ when purchased near release


----------



## mdcmdcmdc (Tuesday at 11:33 PM)

Poto7 said:


> Canon is not ashamed to release this? all brands creating clearer products and at least 2.8 for the most part. the worst thing is that they continue to launch their brick cameras at 680-720mg, we live in 2023 and we are already in the era of portability.


I'm not sure I understand this post. You seem to be simultaneously complaining that the cameras are too big, and the lenses aren't big enough (wider max aperture = bigger lens).

I doubt anybody in these forums can say for sure what Canon's overall APS-C strategy is, but it looks to me like they are going after two distinct segments:

1) Enthusiast wildlife/bird and action/sports photographers, who want high pixel density and like fast focusing, long focal length lenses, of which Canon has plenty of great options to choose from. These are the 7DII/90D/R7 buyers

2) Consumers who want something more capable than their phones, don't hang out in online photography forums or geek out over specs, and are sensitive to price, size, and weight. These are the M and Digital Rebel/xxxD/xxxxD buyers.

Enthusiasts who want fast, high quality wide and normal lenses don't appear to be a priority for Canon at this time. Check out Sony or Fuji if that's where your interests lie.

I know I've said this before, but I really believe that if your photography frequently needs wide FOV and shallow DOF, APS-C is not the best tool for you.

Another reason for fast lenses, of course, is to allow shorter exposures in low light (which is why these lenses are called "fast" in the first place). My opinion is that Canon believes they have this covered with their advances in low noise at high ISO.

Remember also that some of the most highly regarded Canon EF-S zooms, like the 10-22 USM (2004), 17-55 f/2.8 USM (2006), and 15-85 USM (2009) were released during the 00's, when overall ILC sales were still climbing sharply, and there was still a big price difference between APS-C and FF DSLRs. Once the market did finally peak, it was probably almost 10x as big as it is today.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Wednesday at 12:47 AM)

mdcmdcmdc said:


> Remember also that some of the most highly regarded Canon EF-S zooms, like the 10-22 USM (2004), 17-55 f/2.8 USM (2006), and 15-85 USM (2009) were released during the 00's, when overall ILC sales were still climbing sharply, and there was still a big price difference between APS-C and FF DSLRs. Once the market did finally peak, it was probably almost 10x as big as it is today.


In that context, it's worth noting that the EF-S 17-55/2.8 and 15-85/3.5-5.6 were never updated, and the EF-S 10-22/3.5-4.5 was 'updated' as the 10-18/4.5-5.6 (reduced range, slower, and cheaper construction...but a lower price to go with those sacrifices). It seems that Canon sees insufficient demand for 'highly regarded' APS-C zoom lenses.


----------



## Dragon (Wednesday at 3:38 AM)

neuroanatomist said:


> In that context, it's worth noting that the EF-S 17-55/2.8 and 15-85/3.5-5.6 were never updated, and the EF-S 10-22/3.5-4.5 was 'updated' as the 10-18/4.5-5.6 (reduced range, slower, and cheaper construction...but a lower price to go with those sacrifices). It seems that Canon sees insufficient demand for 'highly regarded' APS-C zoom lenses.


That makes market sense, given the likely distribution of the majority of APS-s buyers. The 18-135 became the catch-all general-purpose lens on the higher end rebels and it got updated twice as did the 55-250 (the 18-55 was updated 4 times), so you can easily see where the volume of sales was (kit lenses). That said, I am very fond of my 15-85 as it is likely the sharpest of all the EF-s zooms and it is happy on mirrorless bodies. The 18-150 (M and R) is clearly the successor to the 18-135 family and IQ-wise, it is at least as good as the best of the latter and has more reach, albeit a third of a stop slower. The best part is that it is just over half the weight of the EF-s 18-135s in either M or R format. I think we will see the 11-22 and the 22 pancake in R format. I would guess that we won't see the 55-200 given the price point and size of the 100-400 FF lens. The 32mm f/1.4 M lens is thing of beauty considering its IQ and size but hard to tell if it will make it across to R, given the 35mm f/1.8 FF is only a couple of ounces heavier, but it would be very welcome. Small and light is clearly "in" for casual photography and even at the high end, many lenses are shrinking in both size and weight so the distribution of new lenses is kind of hard to call. Who would have guessed the 600 and 800 f/11 before they popped on the scene. I have both and they are incredibly useful. I also have an EF 800 f/5.6 L and it is an amazing piece of glass, but the f/11 is close enough that for 90% of usage it wins the day simply because it is so maneuverable.


----------



## TonyG (Wednesday at 1:51 PM)

neuroanatomist said:


> In that context, it's worth noting that the EF-S 17-55/2.8 and 15-85/3.5-5.6 were never updated, and the EF-S 10-22/3.5-4.5 was 'updated' as the 10-18/4.5-5.6 (reduced range, slower, and cheaper construction...but a lower price to go with those sacrifices). It seems that Canon sees insufficient demand for 'highly regarded' APS-C zoom lenses.


The 15-85 was a great little lens. It was my second lens that I purchased and got rid of my kit lens back when I had my first DSLR, the 7D mk1.
The EF lenses seemed more expensive for me back then and trying to get a "general purpose" zoom range for apsc from EF lenses was a lot more tricky than just getting the single EF-S lens that gave me a nice 24-136 reach.

I think your assumption about Canons decisions are right. If it's too expensive, then the general public might not purchase, and it makes sense to focus and push product on what the demand is. If the trend right now is small compact mirrorless for vlogging, then make vlogging lenses.


I think 11-22 is great wide angle range, especially for vlogers and such that want to do video. It will give them a roughly 18-35 range.
It will complement the vlogging youtube social media market they are after.
The only other option they currently have is the almost 20 year old 10-22 EF-S, or the expensive 11-24 F4 L.

I just wish they could release the 35mm L already and hopefully finish the L prime line this year.
I almost feel like they are trying to satisfy all their markets at once by sprinkling product at them little by little without actually fully completing any one of them.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Wednesday at 2:23 PM)

TonyG said:


> The 15-85 was a great little lens. It was my second lens that I purchased and got rid of my kit lens back when I had my first DSLR, the 7D mk1.
> The EF lenses seemed more expensive for me back then and trying to get a "general purpose" zoom range for apsc from EF lenses was a lot more tricky than just getting the single EF-S lens that gave me a nice 24-136 reach.


With my first DSLR purchase (a Rebel T1i/500D, in 2009), I kept in mind the glass > body axiom from my film SLR days and bought the body without the kit lens, getting the EF-S 17-55/2.8 and the EF 85/1.8 as my starter kit. Those plus a 430EX flash and a Manfrotto CF tripod and ballhead kept me under my self-imposed budget of US$2500 for an endeavor that I wasn't sure would become a serious hobby or end up as a passing phase. Obviously, the former was the outcome.



TonyG said:


> I think 11-22 is great wide angle range, especially for vlogers and such that want to do video. It will give them a roughly 18-35 range.
> It will complement the vlogging youtube social media market they are after.
> The only other option they currently have is the almost 20 year old 10-22 EF-S, or the expensive 11-24 F4 L.


Those and the EF-S 10-18mm that sells for $299. But the current M11-22 is a noticeably better lens than either of the EF-S UWA zooms (assuming one can live without the extra 1mm on the wide end). A straight port to RF-S, as they did with the M18-150, would be a great option for RF APS-C bodies.



TonyG said:


> I just wish they could release the 35mm L already and hopefully finish the L prime line this year.
> I almost feel like they are trying to satisfy all their markets at once by sprinkling product at them little by little without actually fully completing any one of them.


I'm sure the L prime line won't be finished this year, at least not the 'full' lineup including 14/24/35 on the wide side, 200/300/500 'great whites', TS lenses, etc.

I had the 35/1.4L (MkI), but did not use it too often. For me, the RF 28-70/2 functions as a 'bag of primes' and I have no need for the 24-85mm f/1.2-1.4 lenses, although I do still have the EF 85/1.4L IS. Personally, I'm hoping for a 300/2.8 this year.


----------



## scyrene (Wednesday at 4:14 PM)

Dragon said:


> That makes market sense, given the likely distribution of the majority of APS-s buyers. The 18-135 became the catch-all general-purpose lens on the higher end rebels and it got updated twice as did the 55-250 (the 18-55 was updated 4 times), so you can easily see where the volume of sales was (kit lenses). That said, I am very fond of my 15-85 as it is likely the sharpest of all the EF-s zooms and it is happy on mirrorless bodies. The 18-150 (M and R) is clearly the successor to the 18-135 family and IQ-wise, it is at least as good as the best of the latter and has more reach, albeit a third of a stop slower. The best part is that it is just over half the weight of the EF-s 18-135s in either M or R format. I think we will see the 11-22 and the 22 pancake in R format. I would guess that we won't see the 55-200 given the price point and size of the 100-400 FF lens. The 32mm f/1.4 M lens is thing of beauty considering its IQ and size but hard to tell if it will make it across to R, given the 35mm f/1.8 FF is only a couple of ounces heavier, but it would be very welcome. Small and light is clearly "in" for casual photography and even at the high end, many lenses are shrinking in both size and weight so the distribution of new lenses is kind of hard to call. Who would have guessed the 600 and 800 f/11 before they popped on the scene. I have both and they are incredibly useful. I also have an EF 800 f/5.6 L and it is an amazing piece of glass, but the f/11 is close enough that for 90% of usage it wins the day simply because it is so maneuverable.


Out of interest, why do you have both the 600 and 800 f/11? Do you find them useful in different situations, is it for completeness/collecting, for the size saving on the 600, or something else?


----------



## Dragon (Wednesday at 6:34 PM)

scyrene said:


> Out of interest, why do you have both the 600 and 800 f/11? Do you find them useful in different situations, is it for completeness/collecting, for the size saving on the 600, or something else?


I bought the 800 first and really like it. Canon had the 600 on sale in Refurb for $399 over the holidays, so I snapped it up, partly for completeness, but mostly because it is considerably smaller and there are times when smallness is very helpful. Also, sometimes 800 is just a bit too long for certain subjects. If I put the 800 on the R7 and the 600 on the R5, that gives me 600 and 1280 just by reaching for a different body and that covers a big chunk of the long reach territory. I also have the EF 100-400 L II, which is an excellent lens in just about every way but am considering adding the RF 100-400 at just over 1/3rd the weight.


----------



## scyrene (Wednesday at 11:25 PM)

Dragon said:


> I bought the 800 first and really like it. Canon had the 600 on sale in Refurb for $399 over the holidays, so I snapped it up, partly for completeness, but mostly because it is considerably smaller and there are times when smallness is very helpful. Also, sometimes 800 is just a bit too long for certain subjects. If I put the 800 on the R7 and the 600 on the R5, that gives me 600 and 1280 just by reaching for a different body and that covers a big chunk of the long reach territory. I also have the EF 100-400 L II, which is an excellent lens in just about every way but am considering adding the RF 100-400 at just over 1/3rd the weight.


Thanks! That's a very comprehensive answer


----------



## mdcmdcmdc (Wednesday at 11:58 PM)

Dragon said:


> I bought the 800 first and really like it. Canon had the 600 on sale in Refurb for $399 over the holidays, so I snapped it up, partly for completeness, but mostly because it is considerably smaller and there are times when smallness is very helpful. Also, sometimes 800 is just a bit too long for certain subjects. If I put the 800 on the R7 and the 600 on the R5, that gives me 600 and 1280 just by reaching for a different body and that covers a big chunk of the long reach territory. I also have the EF 100-400 L II, which is an excellent lens in just about every way but am considering adding the RF 100-400 at just over 1/3rd the weight.


If you're OK with f/8 at 400, I think you'll be happy with the RF 100-400. I know I am. I haven't looked at any side-by-side comparisons against the EF 100-400L II, but in my experience it's every bit as good as my Sigma 100-400|C, which did compare favorably with the 100-400L II when it first came out.


----------



## photophil (Thursday at 7:58 AM)

I used to have the venerable air pump EF 100-400 Mk I before I got the RF100-400, and the new lens is a definite improvement coming from that in almost any regard. My poor RP's sensor used to be absolutely _speckled,_ which was a real pain with stopped down macros.
The only thing I miss on the RF100-400 is the focus limiter and I am not super happy about the long focus throw, but I guess the latter is personal preference. With stabilization the loss of one stop does not bother me at all.


----------



## koenkooi (Thursday at 8:16 AM)

photophil said:


> [...]The only thing I miss on the RF100-400 is the focus limiter and I am not super happy about the long focus throw, but I guess the latter is personal preference. [...]


Does the RP have the focus ring sensitivity setting the R5 has? That might help reduce the focus throw when set to 'varies with rotation speed'. On RF lenses the focus( r)ing is completely controlled by software, it isn't mechanically coupled like the EF USM lenses were.


----------



## photophil (Thursday at 8:23 AM)

koenkooi said:


> Does the RP have the focus ring sensitivity setting the R5 has? That might help reduce the focus throw when set to 'varies with rotation speed'. On RF lenses the focus( r)ing is completely controlled by software, it isn't mechanically coupled like the EF USM lenses were.


Yeah, I have tried out that setting, but found it did not make _that_ much of a difference.
I am not a big fan of focusing by-wire in general, though. It is okay-ish on the RF50mm 1.8, but on the RF35 and RF100-400 it just feels a bit meh and not super responsive.
Are the haptics of manual focusing better implemented on RF L lenses?


----------



## koenkooi (Thursday at 9:29 AM)

photophil said:


> Yeah, I have tried out that setting, but found it did not make _that_ much of a difference.
> I am not a big fan of focusing by-wire in general, though. It is okay-ish on the RF50mm 1.8, but on the RF35 and RF100-400 it just feels a bit meh and not super responsive.
> Are the haptics of manual focusing better implemented on RF L lenses?


Not by much, the rings are larger and made to feel more expensive. Manually focussing feels the same to me, but I rarely use it outside of macro shooting so I'm not the best person to ask


----------

