Canon EOS R Series Cameras

I have the 180mm macro lens and could try it out for you on the R5 tomorrow. I don't think I've used that combo yet - will have a look. I'm pretty sure I tried it on the R when I had it.

Edit: I have tried the R and the 180mm. I cannot remember if I had the 12mm extension tube on - not sure if that would show in the exif? I think I probably manually focused with all of these and probably used focus peaking. To be honest I'm not great at hand holding this lens and often use it on a monopod. If I remember rightly it was a bit windy (it nearly always is when I go photographing flowers!)

Let me know if there is something specific you'd like me to check.

1st is SOOC f/3.5 ISO640 1/125s

View attachment 307800

2nd f/5.6 ISO 3200 1/250

View attachment 307801

3rd SOOC f/7.1 ISO 400 1/160s

View attachment 307802

Another edit: I've just realised you want it for bugs and have found these - again I think I would have been manually focusing.

f/7.1 400s ISO 800

View attachment 307804

f/6.3 1/640s ISO 3200
View attachment 307805

Thanks very much for the in depth reply. Much appreciated.

If I do get one, it’ll be mainly for bugs and stuff that my 100mm always frighten off from getting too close :D

I’m mostly interested in how well it performs on the R5 in general - ie overall IQ; AF and how much benefit the IBIS gives it and such...

I’ve considered ordering one for quite a while now. But the lack of recognition and stuff it seems to get in comparison to the 100mm has always made me cautious of its abilities.

Any up close / macro shots you could post with the setup would be most appreciated though :)

PS: I forgot to get back to you RE the drive modes shortcut via the M.fn button.
It turned out it was the options were disabled in the main custom menu.
So many thanks for your help with that also :)
 
- Paul, your detailed description relates to RF lenses on a R5/6 body, whereas @Chipper was asking about EF-adapted lenses. The situation with EF lenses is complicated and I don't pretend to understand all the details - but I believe that when an EF lens with IS is attached to a R5/6 body then that combo gives you the same number of stops of stabilisation you would expect if that lens was mounted on a non-mirrorless camera PLUS only 3 axes of stabilisation from the mirrorless IBIS body (not the 5 with a RF lens). Hence an EF-adapted combo will not give you quite the same high level of stabilisation that you would get from it's RF equivalent when mounted on an R body

Also, with an adapted-EF lens you don't get the hand icon with a + sign, only the hand icon.

There, I said it was complex!

Here is a Canon vid for anyone interested to see Canon's own partial explanation:
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F7KuUgUqOfk&feature=emb_logo


Russ

You’re exactly right!!
 
Thanks very much for the in depth reply. Much appreciated.

If I do get one, it’ll be mainly for bugs and stuff that my 100mm always frighten off from getting too close :D

I’m mostly interested in how well it performs on the R5 in general - ie overall IQ; AF and how much benefit the IBIS gives it and such...

I’ve considered ordering one for quite a while now. But the lack of recognition and stuff it seems to get in comparison to the 100mm has always made me cautious of its abilities.

Any up close / macro shots you could post with the setup would be most appreciated though :)

PS: I forgot to get back to you RE the drive modes shortcut via the M.fn button.
It turned out it was the options were disabled in the main custom menu.
So many thanks for your help with that also :)
I originally bought the 180mm years ago to photograph butterflies, and I agonised over which to buy. Now I'd probably reach for my 100-400ii as it has a good close focusing distance. On my previous cameras the 180mm would hunt for focus, so I've always tended to manually focus. I'll see how it is tomorrow. It is wonderfully sharp.
With the 180mm you'll have a shallower depth of field, but a nice blurry background.

I think the 100mm is more popular because it has IS, is more light and compact... and cheaper. It's a shame you don't live near as you could try it out.
 
@James Thomas 75 I tried out the 180mm on the R5 today using autofocus. I usually use this lens on a monopod and manually focus because of it's tendency to hunt and I'm not brilliant at hand holding it.

First impressions - I couldn't believe how well the autofocus worked. It didn't hunt as I expected. It wasn't as quick as my 100-400ii though. I even managed the birds on my feeders. I was so surprised, I put it back on my 5D4 to see if I had been mistaken all along. At first it was fine on the 5D4 (it was roughly in range to start with) and then it went back into hunting and really struggled to focus on a bird sitting atop the feeder. On the 5D4, it seemed better with the cross of focus points rather than a single one. On the R5 I had it on single point.

One thing I have found is that with the usual C-Af back button focus on the100-400ii and R5, it can struggle to find my bird feeders, but with the animal detect it has no problem, even if there is no bird there. With the 180mm it had no problem finding the feeder with the usual C-Af. Strange!

In summary I think the lens auto focuses better on the R5 than it does on my 5D4.
 
I have been taking out the R6 on a test this week. I found the menu setting which activates the IS for EF lenses in NB's guide book. On Wednesday night I will shoot BBL indoors. It will be interesting to see how it copes. Towards sunset yesterday I found the shots really noisy. I have used the RF lens on it and it was ok [thinking about John's post above] - I will double check.
 
@James Thomas 75 I tried out the 180mm on the R5 today using autofocus. I usually use this lens on a monopod and manually focus because of it's tendency to hunt and I'm not brilliant at hand holding it.

First impressions - I couldn't believe how well the autofocus worked. It didn't hunt as I expected. It wasn't as quick as my 100-400ii though. I even managed the birds on my feeders. I was so surprised, I put it back on my 5D4 to see if I had been mistaken all along. At first it was fine on the 5D4 (it was roughly in range to start with) and then it went back into hunting and really struggled to focus on a bird sitting atop the feeder. On the 5D4, it seemed better with the cross of focus points rather than a single one. On the R5 I had it on single point.

One thing I have found is that with the usual C-Af back button focus on the100-400ii and R5, it can struggle to find my bird feeders, but with the animal detect it has no problem, even if there is no bird there. With the 180mm it had no problem finding the feeder with the usual C-Af. Strange!

In summary I think the lens auto focuses better on the R5 than it does on my 5D4.

Thanks very much for taking the time to test it out. It’s much appreciated.

I was waiting with interest to see how the focusing was with it. As I briefly stuck my 100mm on the R5 for the first time the other morning, and it was like using a totally different lens.

Definitely the first time I’ve ever been able to hit focus on several different distances without even moving the focus limit switch.
Something I wasn’t expecting :D

After what you said the other day though, it has made me wonder if my 100-400 II would suffice for the likes of butterflies and stuff; rather than getting the 180mm.
It’s definitely something I need to think about...
 
Thanks very much for taking the time to test it out. It’s much appreciated.

I was waiting with interest to see how the focusing was with it. As I briefly stuck my 100mm on the R5 for the first time the other morning, and it was like using a totally different lens.

Definitely the first time I’ve ever been able to hit focus on several different distances without even moving the focus limit switch.
Something I wasn’t expecting :D

After what you said the other day though, it has made me wonder if my 100-400 II would suffice for the likes of butterflies and stuff; rather than getting the 180mm.
It’s definitely something I need to think about...
Yes, especially with the ability to crop on the R5. I wouldn't rush into it.
 
Right

Is the R5 black out free?

Also anyone had a a9 and got the R5 is the screen and evf better on the R5

Reason I ask I had the Nikon z6 loved it screen and evf compare to the a9
 
Right

Is the R5 black out free?

Also anyone had a a9 and got the R5 is the screen and evf better on the R5

Reason I ask I had the Nikon z6 loved it screen and evf compare to the a9
Can't answer the black out question but I can tell you the R6 screen and EVF is far superior to the A9, the R5 EVF is on paper even better. I really struggled with the EVF's and screens with my Sony bodies, extremely poor.
 
Can't answer the black out question but I can tell you the R6 screen and EVF is far superior to the A9, the R5 EVF is on paper even better. I really struggled with the EVF's and screens with my Sony bodies, extremely poor.

Guess you had a a9. Compare to that and your R6 what you like better. Do t think the af be as good ??
 
Guess you had a a9. Compare to that and your R6 what you like better. Do t think the af be as good ??
Yes I had the A73 A7R3 and A9.

So far i'm impressed with the R6 AF, can't say yet whether it's as good as the A9 as I only have the 40mm Sigma Art before deciding what other glass to add, so not the ideal lens to try and track birds with but it does seem to lock on even from a significant distance.

What do I like better ? The R6 feels more substantial, more comfortable, great screen and EVF, hard to say yet though.
 
Right

Is the R5 black out free?

Also anyone had a a9 and got the R5 is the screen and evf better on the R5

Reason I ask I had the Nikon z6 loved it screen and evf compare to the a9

its black out free. in electronic shutter is silent and a thin white box around the frame flashing when your shooting - similar to the a9.
the evf is higher resolution but slightly smaller than the a9's. The lcd is bigger and much better resolution than the a9.

the a9 electronic shutter has less chance of banding and rolling shutter due to the stacked sensor tech.
 
It just some report said it not black out free
 
What news of 3rd party RF lenses are there?

I’m seriously looking to downsizing my kit to an R6 and one set of lenses this year, but it’ll be based round my existing EF lenses for now, would love to go for native but I’m not happy about spending thousands to end up in a similar place to where I’m starting from.
 
What news of 3rd party RF lenses are there?

I’m seriously looking to downsizing my kit to an R6 and one set of lenses this year, but it’ll be based round my existing EF lenses for now, would love to go for native but I’m not happy about spending thousands to end up in a similar place to where I’m starting from.

There’s not much tbh. A samyang 85mm f1.4.
Rumour of sigma joining the party later this year.
 
My R5 with the 24-105 F4 is on its way . After years with Fuji I’m in relatively unknown lens territory. What I have learnt is I buy to many lenses that I rarely use. My favourite on my X-T4 was the 16-55 2.8. I’m thinking that the 24-105mm is an easy match.

I now need to decide what to get with it. I enjoy indoor family shots and occasional indoor gigs. I won’t be buying yet but I’m thinking a 70-200 or an 85mm for those low light moments. However, the EF lenses are cheaper than the RF equivalent if I can source an adapter! Any recommendations? I want the fast focusing and sharp image quality... not asking much am I
 
My R5 with the 24-105 F4 is on its way . After years with Fuji I’m in relatively unknown lens territory. What I have learnt is I buy to many lenses that I rarely use. My favourite on my X-T4 was the 16-55 2.8. I’m thinking that the 24-105mm is an easy match.

I now need to decide what to get with it. I enjoy indoor family shots and occasional indoor gigs. I won’t be buying yet but I’m thinking a 70-200 or an 85mm for those low light moments. However, the EF lenses are cheaper than the RF equivalent if I can source an adapter! Any recommendations? I want the fast focusing and sharp image quality... not asking much am I
I've had all the Fuji gear, you're in for a shock not only on price but weight, better get working out :p
 
Glad you like my large cock........very impressed with the IQ of the even larger 40mm, turning fat to muscle every time I pick it up.

Is it adapted the sigma len?

What lens you got so far. Can’t believe the image as you say heavy crop for small MP.

Also you say this as quick as a a9
 
Is it adapted the sigma len?

What lens you got so far. Can’t believe the image as you say heavy crop for small MP.

Also you say this as quick as a a9
Yes adapted, i'm going all Sigma, started with the 40mm f/1.4, it's a bit special but heavy. Ordered the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 Sport, arrives tomorrow.

The AF works very well but very different to the A9, seems to lock on instantly like the A9. I can't really comment on the tracking properly until I get the 70-200 as the only thing I can test it with is some birds down at the river, the 40mm isn't much use for that, although some quick indoors video eye AF tracking tests on my wife have been 100% successful, locks onto her eye walking around in low light.

I've got a video shoot for a client at the weekend so can report more after that.
 
Yes adapted, i'm going all Sigma, started with the 40mm f/1.4, it's a bit special but heavy. Ordered the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 Sport, arrives tomorrow.

The AF works very well but very different to the A9, seems to lock on instantly like the A9. I can't really comment on the tracking properly until I get the 70-200 as the only thing I can test it with is some birds down at the river, the 40mm isn't much use for that, although some quick indoors video eye AF tracking tests on my wife have been 100% successful, locks onto her eye walking around in low light.

I've got a video shoot for a client at the weekend so can report more after that.

Hmm

That a option is these sigma are good on this R6 might do that instead of native. Are they about sane sizes
 
Hmm

That a option is these sigma are good on this R6 might do that instead of native. Are they about sane sizes
Sigma's seem to be similar weight but physically a little bit smaller, I think the RF glass is very overpriced and initially put me off the R5/6. The Sigma's also work flawlessly adapted to Sony so easy to switch back.
 
Sigma's seem to be similar weight but physically a little bit smaller, I think the RF glass is very overpriced and initially put me off the R5/6. The Sigma's also work flawlessly adapted to Sony so easy to switch back.

So you got canon mount with the R adaptor you can by with the r6
 
Just back from taking the R6 to the basketball. I liked it with the 70-200; not so sure with the adapted lens. Will see how they process in the morning. It goes back tomorrow.
 
Just back from taking the R6 to the basketball. I liked it with the 70-200; not so sure with the adapted lens. Will see how they process in the morning. It goes back tomorrow.

You prefer the canon 70-200 native. How was tracking
 
Back
Top