-
Important: the Server Hamster is in need of a bit of TLC so the site will be off line for a while on Friday morning, the 17th
Canon EOS R Series Cameras
- Messages
- 3,082
- Name
- Tim
- Edit My Images
- Yes
well, I tested it and to my surprise the fully auto option with animals locked on 100% to our cats. As soon as they enter the frame the auto found them and locked focus, picking out any eyes in the frame. This could be good for remote control applications where fixed focus won't work.
What focal length were you using? I think my problem here is that I am using a 16mm lens for perspective (and it’s my only 2.8 lens for light) so the subject is very small in the frame. I am getting my 24-105 repaired at the moment so once it’s back I’ll give that a go at a slightly narrower focal length and see if it picks up better.
Also bare in mind that it does work well when she is at rest but in this scenario she is moving fast and erratically!
Having said i don't have any lenses other than the 16-35 @ 2.8 I guess i meant suitable for purpose. Could try the 50 1.4 but might be too much concidering the space.
anyway would be good to see your attempts!
- Messages
- 681
- Edit My Images
- Yes
A colleague of mine ordered one (body only) back in late August and received it early last week.
Where have you ordered yours from?
- Messages
- 1,293
- Edit My Images
- No
Can’t you just cancel the order and get one from HDEW which has them in stock?
- Messages
- 2,054
- Name
- T
- Edit My Images
- Yes
not really, as my order includes the free adapter worth £199 and after this Saturday I have no more shoots to go too, So it makes no odds if I get it next week or next year now !
I doubt if the R7 will arrive today for my Stag shoot in Bushy park & Richmond Park on Saturday, and if it did I will be watching the football tonight leaving me very little time to set it up for my early morning shoot on Saturday ! ! lol
I am off to Norway in April 2023, so as long as it arrives before then all will be fine.
Canon IMO, should have at least contacted customers will outstanding orders with some sort of update, or a freebie would have been nice !
- Messages
- 6,951
- Name
- Rob
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I thought Id ask if anyone has an ultra wide RF lenses and their thoughts on them? I'd like to get a ultra wide lens to give the option of going wider than the RF 24-105 f4. Ideally I'd go with the RF 14-35 f4 lens which was very good when I borrowed it on the canon test drive drive. Its just the cost that's holding me back as it would potentially be a lens I'd not use that much. I thought I'd explore other RF options, which seem to be the RF 16mm f2.8 STM lens (currently £249) and the RF 15-30mm f4.5-6.3 IS STM lens (currently £669). The RF 16mm seems to be a good option as its low cost but will only give 16mm focal length. The RF 15-30 seems to be a good option as it gives nearly the same focal range but lack of weather sealing higher cost than the RF 16mm and not being as sharp as the RF 14-35 f4 makes me think its really out of the RF 16mm and the RF14-35mm f4.
- Messages
- 1,293
- Edit My Images
- No
I reckon that in terms of ££'s per smile, the RF 16mm 2.8 is terrific. Literally chuck it in my pocket every time I take my camera out and roll with it.
Great fun.
Great fun.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 6,951
- Name
- Rob
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Looks good. My main use would be for landscapes. The low cost is great and something that makes me consider it. I’m never sure about primes as it’s the fixed nature of them that I struggle with. I’d hate to be changing lenses on and off hence why I like zoom lenses.
- Messages
- 1,293
- Edit My Images
- No
No doubt ultimate IQ would be better on a more expensive Zoom. But perhaps just give it a go, it's a bargain whether you keep it or sell it on. You can always hire a more expensive zoom from Canon for free for a couple of days and see which you prefer...
- Messages
- 6,951
- Name
- Rob
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I’ve already hired the RF 14-35 f4 which I found to be be excellent. It’s a bit harsh comparing athe £250 RF 16mm lens to the £1479 (after cashback) RF 14-35mm f4 lens. No doubt the RF 16mm is best bang for buck.
LongLensPhotography
Th..th..that's all folks!
- Messages
- 17,651
- Name
- LongLensPhotography
- Edit My Images
- No
Canon RF 16mm F2.8 STM Lens Image Quality
View the image quality delivered by the Canon RF 16mm F2.8 STM Lens using ISO 12233 Resolution Chart lab test results. Compare the image quality of this lens with other lenses.
www.the-digital-picture.com
- Messages
- 1,293
- Edit My Images
- No
Oh boo hoo. The only people bothered by corner pixel performance are those zooming in and looking at and for evidence of 'poor' corner pixel performance.
In my life, not one person, not one, has told me that a picture would have been a good one if only it had better pixels in the corners.
In my life, not one person, not one, has told me that a picture would have been a good one if only it had better pixels in the corners.
- Messages
- 3,082
- Name
- Tim
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I'm still to get an RF lens, still using EF. @rob-nikon do you have EF options, or starting fresh on RF? The 16-35 EF 2.8 or 4 are both good options too if you had those already.
In my experience, the only time people notice corner problems are in images like milky way landscapes when significant distortion of stars can attract attention.
In my experience, the only time people notice corner problems are in images like milky way landscapes when significant distortion of stars can attract attention.
LongLensPhotography
Th..th..that's all folks!
- Messages
- 17,651
- Name
- LongLensPhotography
- Edit My Images
- No
This is wrong on so many levels. For one you are paying medium format prices for both cameras like R5 and lenses that are designed to resolve the sensors and pretend that this doesn't matter (maybe spending this money doesn't make a dent to your finances in which case fair enough). Secondly, it appears that paying way over the odds for a faulty design optics is again not a part of consideration. Thirdly, we probably never print or at least never display anything at or over A4, let alone A1... never ever landscapes or product shots, Maybe just instagram and other online services at 800px or so wide. Yet we still require R5 just because. A 12-16 year old camera with average zoom easily ticks those boxes for a just a few hundred pounds now. A £100 40D will do in fact. Hell, a phone will do - it is always in the pocket and weighs nothing, has 100mp and samsung/apple/xiaomi say it is the BEST ever! Why would anyone tell you anything about pixels? In fact when I do most of you get super p***ed off so its just best to leave it well alone. The idea then evolves that focus doesn't matter that much, exposure doesn't matter and then it is really all about those personally worthless works with a certain celebrity elite name attached to it, again just because.
Nothing personal, just that I personally find such doublethink completely incomprehensible. Sorry for the rant
LongLensPhotography
Th..th..that's all folks!
- Messages
- 17,651
- Name
- LongLensPhotography
- Edit My Images
- No
ef adapter is a small change in comparison. Both of the latest 16-35 f/4 or 2.8 iii are good options. Not anything earlier though.
Corner and edge performance is critical to good landscape sharpness irrespective if you have to shoot at f1.4 or f11
It is not nice nor desirable to have 80% pin sharp and then edges melt into horrible smear. That's what many zooms, expensive zooms do. 24-70 2.8 II is pretty crap for landscape work on 50mp sensor. 16-35 becomes unusable at 35mm / 50mp.
The best demo come from 17-40,. Even 8x10 crop can't salvage edges on even 16mp bodies. They were such utter waste of time.
- Messages
- 1,293
- Edit My Images
- No
I think you rather prove the position I was illustrating…
Mind, your argument, taken literally, would suggest that anything by Monet can’t be a great picture because his brush strokes aren’t fine enough.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 3,082
- Name
- Tim
- Edit My Images
- Yes
In my experience it depends on the final product you need to make for a client, or want to make for yourself. In many cases it only matters that the subject is how you want it to look, the corners don’t matter at all. But there are times when the client, or you, need edge to edge sharpness. If this case never applies to you, no problem. For me it does apply sometimes, not very often. For these occasions EF 16-25 2.8 M3 is working very well with the EF to RF adapter.
- Messages
- 6,951
- Name
- Rob
- Edit My Images
- Yes
what I meant was I can’t expect to spend six times less money on a lens yet still expect exactly the performance as spending six times more. I don’t expect it to be as good as the RF 14-35 f4. It would be unfair to expect it to be, and that doesn’t mean it’s a bad lens. There’s definitely a point of diminishing returns on a more expensive lens. You can pay more but start to get less per £ from a certain point.
Ive got nothing against any lens and I agree that only photographers really care about the little things (I often say the same when photographers say a photo is too noisy due to high iso. Non photographers don’t notice it at all). From what I’ve read so far the RF 16mm looks like a great lens that’s pushing well above its price point whilst giving good performance from the images I’ve seen. It’s very likely to be good enough for me. It’s most likely to be the right option and the one I should get as there likely isn’t much point for me to spend more for the use Id likely have at present. Even if I did get a more expensive L series UWA lens in the future it could still be a keeper due to its low cost point and small size/weight making it easy to take out every time for the just in case times. It does look to be much bigger than the EF RF adapter.
I dont have any EF lenses having started with canon with the R6. I can’t get my head around buying EF lenses at this point when I’ve gone straight into the RF mount. I could get a used EF 16-35mm f4 for around half the price of the RF 14-35 f4 new, but I think I’d be better to wait a few years for the RF 14-35 f4 to start becoming available on the used market.
At present I’d like a wider lens option than the 24-105 f4 I already have, but I don’t know if I’d get much use from an UWA lens so in a way it doesn’t make too much sense spending lots on one at this point. The RF 16mm seems to be a good introduction lens for my situation.
LongLensPhotography
Th..th..that's all folks!
- Messages
- 17,651
- Name
- LongLensPhotography
- Edit My Images
- No
I didn't know Monet was a photographer. You learn something new every day (or night)
- Messages
- 9,203
- Edit My Images
- Yes
but what’s the point in getting a decent high end camera with great image quality and then compromising on the lens
it’s true a lot of people won’t notice, but I don’t do it for other people, I take pictures for myself and family, mainly for the memories of wildlife we have seen so have decent telephoto and macro lens
everyone is different though of course some people do landscape and also get the best lenses that they can afford, why do a hobby half arsed
I actually started looking at a wide angle lens for my R5 but I would use it so infrequently I think I’ll be better off renting one for when I need it rather get something cheap and cheerful
Last edited:
Going off on a slight tangent... bit first.
I bought a Laowa 12mm F2.8 and absolutely love it. I've really been concidering buying their 15mm F2 (although that is around £700) Could that be a half way house between your 16mm and the RF L series zooms? Not sure how the picture quality compares to the 16mm RF but I'm more than happy with the 12mm produces some fantastic perspectives and good colours. I've used it for Astro too and had few problems with the corners. It is a manual lens though, and at 12mm I just set it to infinity if I'm out in field. Not sure this would work quite as well @ 15mm but could use focus peaking etc
On that subject my 16-35 2.8 is the Mk2 version and the corner sharpness for astro is horrendus. Has anyone used the later mk3 for astro and what are the corners like? Might see if I can trade and find a decent price mk3 if better, as it would be nice to have a lens I can use for Astro which takes regular filters rather than square ones.
I think this is only photo of the stars I ever took with the 16-35. You can see the problems with the corners on the left, how the star shape changes as you move left to right towards the centre
I bought a Laowa 12mm F2.8 and absolutely love it. I've really been concidering buying their 15mm F2 (although that is around £700) Could that be a half way house between your 16mm and the RF L series zooms? Not sure how the picture quality compares to the 16mm RF but I'm more than happy with the 12mm produces some fantastic perspectives and good colours. I've used it for Astro too and had few problems with the corners. It is a manual lens though, and at 12mm I just set it to infinity if I'm out in field. Not sure this would work quite as well @ 15mm but could use focus peaking etc
On that subject my 16-35 2.8 is the Mk2 version and the corner sharpness for astro is horrendus. Has anyone used the later mk3 for astro and what are the corners like? Might see if I can trade and find a decent price mk3 if better, as it would be nice to have a lens I can use for Astro which takes regular filters rather than square ones.
I think this is only photo of the stars I ever took with the 16-35. You can see the problems with the corners on the left, how the star shape changes as you move left to right towards the centre
Last edited:
LongLensPhotography
Th..th..that's all folks!
- Messages
- 17,651
- Name
- LongLensPhotography
- Edit My Images
- No
I bought MK2 ages ago for 5d3 and returned it next day due to poor sharpness and obvious centering defects even after f8. You will be far happier with f4 version which is near perfect on wide end. 2.8 MK3 is also supposed to be as good or better depending on getting a good copy.
12mm must be insanely wide. What do you use it for?
F4 version would not be as desirable for astro. I'd be using a star tracker most of the time, but obviously would need to compromise on ISO or double the exposure time which, when taking several exposures and stacking isn't as desirable also (although I haven't done that often).
Often I use the 12mm for walking around small villages with lots of close buildings, landscapes, with a bit of cropping if need be and its fantastic for producing almost 180+ degree panoramas with few images (and therefore less miss matches on joins etc). Here are a few which highlight what great perspective you can get when you get it right. However if you get it wrong (which you do a lot... ) the images can seem like they have no subject/focal point/context because of the width. A couple of examples of Panorama's taken using it too, Makes it much easier being able to do this with less than half the images needed @ something like 16mm
Often I use the 12mm for walking around small villages with lots of close buildings, landscapes, with a bit of cropping if need be and its fantastic for producing almost 180+ degree panoramas with few images (and therefore less miss matches on joins etc). Here are a few which highlight what great perspective you can get when you get it right. However if you get it wrong (which you do a lot... ) the images can seem like they have no subject/focal point/context because of the width. A couple of examples of Panorama's taken using it too, Makes it much easier being able to do this with less than half the images needed @ something like 16mm
Last edited:
- Messages
- 681
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Yep. It’s a bit of an acquired taste when it comes to using focal lengths this wide
I love my 11-24 for this kind of stuff. But, as you say, it takes some work getting things right!
It’ll be interesting to see if Canon ever decide to do an RF alternative. Especially one to match it optically. As I still stand by the opinion that it’s the best Canon lens I’ve used for an IQ point of view.
- Messages
- 7,473
- Name
- Paul
- Edit My Images
- No
I must try my Laowa 15mm f/4 Wide Angle Macro which has a +/- 6mm shift feature makes this lens the ultimate creative tool for landscape, macro and architectural shooting (it says)...
Paul.
Paul.
LongLensPhotography
Th..th..that's all folks!
- Messages
- 17,651
- Name
- LongLensPhotography
- Edit My Images
- No
LongLensPhotography
Th..th..that's all folks!
- Messages
- 17,651
- Name
- LongLensPhotography
- Edit My Images
- No
- Messages
- 15,940
- Edit My Images
- Yes
laowa 15mm f2 isn't the best for astro wide open, you will need to stop down to f2.8 for better results
yeah Canon have not been doing any favours for astrophotography. the new 24mm f1.8 is also not any good for coma.
If they had at least allowed 3rd party lenses, the samyang 24mm f1.8 is cheaper with super impressive coma performance for astro.
I see some people are using DSLR lenses but one of the main benefits of buying mirrorless is the smaller UWA lenses. I can use them on a move shoot move safely and get good results.
No thanks to sigma DSLR arts lenses, they are massive. Canon needs to allow 3rd parties or make better affordable glass.
LongLensPhotography
Th..th..that's all folks!
- Messages
- 17,651
- Name
- LongLensPhotography
- Edit My Images
- No
My finger is hovering above the buy button for 40mm f/1.4 and 105 f/1.4 art. Realistically there can't be sharper glass than that and 5ds is still the go to resolution body for me. I rather enjoy a lens that sits comfortably in the hand
- Messages
- 15,940
- Edit My Images
- Yes
40mm is more than 1kg, not sure how anyone can find it comfortable carrying and using it.
my 35mm f1.4 weighs less than half that. I will keep that thanks.
LongLensPhotography
Th..th..that's all folks!
- Messages
- 17,651
- Name
- LongLensPhotography
- Edit My Images
- No
DSLR version is pretty poor. About same as canon mkii which is also pretty poor conferring the price and modern alternatives. They are fine for portraits and at f8 they sharpen up but that's really a joke. Both dn version are supposedly amazing but on canon we are not allowed to have that. So I reckon 40mm will be a fine replacement. As a video lens it will need a massive stabiliser either DJI rs3 pro or crane 3s. I tried buying the latter and it was unfortunately eBay dud. So this scared my of buying another. I'm looking at 5kg with 35mm lens or 5.5 with 40. That's pretty much irrelevant difference at this point.
- Messages
- 15,940
- Edit My Images
- Yes
my current 4 primes - 14, 24, 35, 85 are around 2Kgs
The same equivalent DSLR art primes would come around 3.5kgs or 4 kg if I had use 40mm instead of 35mm.
Using DSLR lenses on mirrorless isn't really seling it for me especially at wider ends.
- Messages
- 311
- Name
- Dave Cattlin
- Edit My Images
- Yes
and I don't much care for the cheap RF 16 - if it were me, I'd stump up the extra for a 2nd hand 16-35 f4
I compared the 16 with the 15-35 and the difference was huge wide open and pretty big with the prime stopped down
And I appreciate that for the price it should be....
Dave
I compared the 16 with the 15-35 and the difference was huge wide open and pretty big with the prime stopped down
And I appreciate that for the price it should be....
Dave
Last edited:
LongLensPhotography
Th..th..that's all folks!
- Messages
- 17,651
- Name
- LongLensPhotography
- Edit My Images
- No
You are not helping it! I just bought the 50art. That's quite ok, passable at 1.4 brilliant at 2.8.