Canon EOS R Series Cameras

[LongLensPhotography]

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.

The three most important metrics of lens to me are 1) sharpness across the frame, 2 durable build quality 3) consistent, reliable and dependable af which sadly sends tampon out of the running on canon systems (35 1.4 is very sharp on paper). Weight doesn't feature anywhere on that list. I will throw 24-70 in with other zooms as required if I need to pack less than 20kg on a hike. Again makes little difference

 

[isobarik]

my mate Marcus McAdam still loves his Sr - and if I could find a way to put the RF glass in front of it I'd still have it

the move to RF was driven by the desire not to get stuck with a load of EF glass should the 2nd hand prices start to take a dive

I had the Sigma 50 and sold it on as a part of that

the 40 is a bit of a beast but has the quality of the 105 and neither are going anywhere

Not good with descriptors but it's pigging obvious to spot shots taken on them

had the 40 up in Norway doing aurora a couple of weeks ago and there's simply no coma wide open

 

[isobarik]

Here's Marcus testing his 5dSr with the Sigma 40

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nlRaRdgB-Oc&t=1543s


the test starts 25 minutes in

Dave

 

[nandbytes]

Well its the Canon RF thread so I don't want to hijack with other brands.
All I will say is DSLRs lenses isn't for me. My mirrorless lenses are just sharp if not sharper than DSLR equivalents at less wieight.
Hopefully there'll be options on canon RF to realise the same benefits instead of having to needlessly carry twice the weight.

 

[A_S]

I'm sure that except for the very very tasking tasks such maybe arcitecture on wide angle, astro, the difference in the real world between an EF and RF is probably negligable and probably not worth the incremental cost of upgrade just for image quality. For other reasons, such as those mentioned by Nandbytes then it makes sense even if the quality of those lenses on a chart or pixel peeping isn't as good as the EF equivelent or vice verse.

For example can I tell the difference between photos taken on my EF 300 F4L (a 30 year old design and a 15+ year old copy of it) and my new 100-500 RF? not really. Ok the Bokah on the 300 is stunning but image quality wize there isn't a lot of difference in the real world. They both take photos which have sold. The point being I upgraded not because the 300 wasn't good enough but that it wasn't long enough on the full frame R5. Ok not quite like for like it might be different comparing to the RF 300 F2.8 don't know.

 

[LongLensPhotography]

My mirrorless lenses are just sharp if not sharper than DSLR equivalent

That's the important part

Hopefully there'll be options on canon RF to realise the same benefits

Yes, I would want to get access to Sigma DN glass which are apparently really good with more to come. 35 f/1.2, 1.4, then new 24 and 20mm, and even contemporary primes are mega sharp if you don't need the full 1.4. Dslr versions of these particular ones are barely passable, and same or worse goes for Canon L versions. I really want the new RF 50 and 85mm primes, but have a super hard time justifying the price tag. I think Sigma 1.4 ART DG versions will have to do for now. That's clearly not by choice buy by necessity. The 105 is obviously unique and excellent. I don't know if canon is afraid more of sigma or the cheap chinese ones coming up like mushrooms after the rain.
Do we in fact know what max flange distance are DN lenses made for? Canon is the longest at 20mm and that's actually not ideal if you want ultimate sharpness without using super exotic rear elements.

the move to RF was driven by the desire not to get stuck with a load of EF glass should the 2nd hand prices start to take a dive

That was my concern as well. The astronomical prices of RF equivalents put that to rest for a a few years I think. The new 135mm for example.... is it that much better than sigma to cost 4x?!

My strategy is to dump all average, mediocre glass and keep only the best ones. By definition they need to resolve the very full frame of 8K. There is established EF cine mount market so that's going nowhere as far as I'm concerned.

So that's the current outlook as evaluated on 5DS:
24-70 f/2.8 II - SELL
16-35 f.4 IS - workhorse lens on 5D3 so it just gets used while practical or replaced with 2.8 III. Long-term f/2.8 III will still depreciate heavily. F/4 is already rock bottom.
28 / 40 / 85 / 135 ART - BUY whichever
35 ART - SELL
50 ART ??? probably keep. 40 will be very close
50 STM. Perfect at f/6.3 and worth nearly nothing so I guess that is that
70-200mm f/4 IS - KEEP. Worth near nothing already. Only issues are very minor corner softening at 200mm and ugly flare + sunstars
70-200mm f/2.8 II IS - ??? disappointing 70mm is the main drawback. Nearly identical to f/4 IS from f/4; 200mm is the slightly stronger end.
400mm f/5.6 KEEP. With IBIS these become insane value.

 

[nandbytes]

Do we in fact know what max flange distance are DN lenses made for? Canon is the longest at 20mm and that's actually not ideal if you want ultimate sharpness without using super exotic rear elements.

sigma are first party lens maker for L-mount which also has 20mm flange distance.
So DN lenses should need minimal modification (physically speaking) to fit on RF mount.

 

[LongLensPhotography]

I'm sure that except for the very very tasking tasks such maybe arcitecture on wide angle, astro, the difference in the real world between an EF and RF is probably negligable and probably not worth the incremental cost of upgrade just for image quality. For other reasons, such as those mentioned by Nandbytes then it makes sense even if the quality of those lenses on a chart or pixel peeping isn't as good as the EF equivelent or vice verse.

I think the point is to evaluate every upgrade like for like and base decisions on important factors such as a IQ, or cost.
EF50L vs RF 50L is not even a debate, until you thrown sigma art into the mix.
Same goes for 85mm. To get 1.2 you get RF, to save money you stay in EF mount and get 1.4
Or perhaps you also consider Sony too

24-70 and 14/15-35 don't really bring any real improvements to the table, and it get's worse with 70-200. I would not have extending plastic lens like that under any circumstances period. No other manufacturer had such as a crazy idea and we will need to wait for Canon mkII to see that corrected.

For example can I tell the difference between photos taken on my EF 300 F4L (a 30 year old design and a 15+ year old copy of it) and my new 100-500 RF? not really. Ok the Bokah on the 300 is stunning but image quality wize there isn't a lot of difference in the real world. They both take photos which have sold. The point being I upgraded not because the 300 wasn't good enough but that it wasn't long enough on the full frame R5. Ok not quite like for like it might be different comparing to the RF 300 F2.8 don't know.

Canon L telephotos, particularly primes were never problematic. I fully expect 300mm f/4 to be a top notch lens which I would buy today if I didn't have 400mm f/5.6L. The only reason people would consider 300 over 400 back in the day was IS. With IBIS this is no longer relevant. I would suggest trying it. These are insane value and I get pixel perfect 50MP shots right 5.6 from corner to corner. I would never entertain an idea of 100-500. 2.8 would be a different idea, and that would be if I need more light, or better bokeh and have the money to spend.

 

[nandbytes]

I think the point is to evaluate every upgrade like for like and base decisions on important factors such as a IQ, or cost.
EF50L vs RF 50L is not even a debate, until you thrown sigma art into the mix.
Same goes for 85mm. To get 1.2 you get RF, to save money you stay in EF mount and get 1.4
Or perhaps you also consider Sony too

Sigma 85mm f1.4 DN is incredible. Its probably by favourite 85mm to date. The size, sharpness, rendering are all exceptional.
The canon RF 85mm f1.2 is a better lens optically speaking but its massive and costs like 4 times the amount I paid for the DN. but if you got the money and the apetitie to carry it around, why not....

it get's worse with 70-200. I would not have extending plastic lens like that under any circumstances period. No other manufacturer had such as a crazy idea and we will need to wait for Canon mkII to see that corrected.

My biggest problem with this one is you can't use TCs. Half the reason I'd buy 70-20mm f2.8 is because I can also use it as a 100-300mm f4 with TC (ok not quite 300mm but close enough with high res bodies these days).

 

[LongLensPhotography]

Sigma 85mm f1.4 DN is incredible. Its probably by favourite 85mm to date. The size, sharpness, rendering are all exceptional.
The canon RF 85mm f1.2 is a better lens optically speaking but its massive and costs like 4 times the amount I paid for the DN. but if you got the money and the apetitie to carry it around, why not....

I was actually looking at youtube reviews and charts and can't get my head round in 85mm DG vs DN debate. You seem to win some and lose some. I don't know which ones matter more, but then it is rather simple for me because I still want dslr compatibility even if this would be a more useful lens on mirrorless.
Geometry - DG hands down win. DN will be software corrected. https://www.the-digital-picture.com...&FLIComp=0&Lens=1085&Camera=979&LensComp=1532 This could have effect on sharpness. For 50 ART Adobe LR doesn't correct almost anything but kills corner sharpness outright. Secondly if you adapt sony mount one to nikon and shoot video chances are you will have that distortion baked in...
Blue / purple fringe - DN wins outright
Sharpness - centre seems to be a win for DN, corners DG minus the fringe effect, or could this be a result of geometry correction in Sony? https://www.the-digital-picture.com...ensComp=1085&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0
Point is I would have real hard time picking one for sony mount of the the two.
35mm is plain and easy. Go for DN and just pick 1.2 or 1.4 to suit your budget and needs.

85mm f/1.2 has really insane bokeh being f/1.2, then there is spiced up DS option. It is probably more like 90-95mm which makes the bokeh that much more pronounced than the competition. I watched a review vs f/2 STM and there was nothing similar between them, not even field of view

My biggest problem with this one is you can't use TCs. Half the reason I'd buy 70-20mm f2.8 is because I can also use it as a 100-300mm f4 with TC (ok not quite 300mm but close enough with high res bodies these days).

My experience with TCs is fairly negative. They kill sharpness particularly in the periphery, introduce bucket load of CA and worst of all bokeh becomes ugly. Mind you that was mk1 or mk2 ext so they may have pulled a magic trick but I doubt it. On super tele perhaps they work better. I think I would prefer to crop from R5 and even run gigapixel ai up to 150% as required.

 

[nandbytes]

I was actually looking at youtube reviews and charts and can't get my head round in 85mm DG vs DN debate. You seem to win some and lose some. I don't know which ones matter more, but then it is rather simple for me because I still want dslr compatibility even if this would be a more useful lens on mirrorless.
Geometry - DG hands down win. DN will be software corrected. https://www.the-digital-picture.com...&FLIComp=0&Lens=1085&Camera=979&LensComp=1532 This could have effect on sharpness. For 50 ART Adobe LR doesn't correct almost anything but kills corner sharpness outright. Secondly if you adapt sony mount one to nikon and shoot video chances are you will have that distortion baked in...
Blue / purple fringe - DN wins outright
Sharpness - centre seems to be a win for DN, corners DG minus the fringe effect, or could this be a result of geometry correction in Sony? https://www.the-digital-picture.com...ensComp=1085&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

After a certain point the sharpness comparison just becomes a theoritical endevour (with the current high res sensors). I think both 85mm ART are past that point.
I notice the difference in size and I cannot notice the difference in sharpness.

35mm is plain and easy. Go for DN and just pick 1.2 or 1.4 to suit your budget and needs.

I used the sony GM version of 35mm f1.4.
The sigma f1.2 once again is too big for me and I'd never carry it. I had the sony version way before the sigma 35mm f1.4 DN was released and there is really no point swapping for me.

My experience with TCs is fairly negative. They kill sharpness particularly in the periphery, introduce bucket load of CA and worst of all bokeh becomes ugly. Mind you that was mk1 or mk2 ext so they may have pulled a magic trick but I doubt it. On super tele perhaps they work better. I think I would prefer to crop from R5 and even run gigapixel ai up to 150% as required.

Recent 1.4x performs very well especially f2.8 lenses. There will of course be some impact on sharpness but doesn't seem to bother me as much as it does to you.

 

[LongLensPhotography]

The sigma f1.2 once again is too big for me and I'd never carry it

35mm is a rather complicated FL for portrait and event use if you want any bokeh, At f/2 you just don't see any. At f1/1.4 it starts to get a little more interesting but still far cry from 50mm f/1.4. f/1.2 would be that extra step to bring it closer in line. Also for astro... I believe this is the most awaited and rumored RF glass right now. I appreciate not every shot nor everyone needs special maxxed out bokeh. Sigma in fact also offer 35mm f/2 DN contemporary if you mostly shoot landscapes or have a limited budget. It is pretty sharp too.

 

[rob-nikon]

I’ve been reading and watching a few reviews today. The cameralabs review of the RF 16mm f2.8 is quite interesting showing it’s performance against the RF 14-35 f4 and Rf 15-35 f4.

View: https://youtu.be/AazHrV9x2GY


For my use as someone who doesn’t necessarily need ultimate sharpness in corners the RF 16mm f2.8 is likely to be a great option for me. Granted it won’t be as good as the RF 15-35 f2.8/14-35 f4 but the much lower cost makes it a great lens if you consider cost against performance.

 

[nandbytes]

35mm is a rather complicated FL for portrait and event use if you want any bokeh, At f/2 you just don't see any. At f1/1.4 it starts to get a little more interesting but still far cry from 50mm f/1.4. f/1.2 would be that extra step to bring it closer in line. Also for astro... I believe this is the most awaited and rumored RF glass right now. I appreciate not every shot nor everyone needs special maxxed out bokeh. Sigma in fact also offer 35mm f/2 DN contemporary if you mostly shoot landscapes or have a limited budget. It is pretty sharp too.

I shoot wide open often and photograph people too.
I find the rendering of Sony nicer than sigma f1.2. the quality of bokeh and transition is as important as DoF (or lack thereof).

RF 35mm f1.2 will certainly be a lens I'll look into. I really like my 35/85 combo.
Then again if it comes in at 1kg and £2.5k then I can't afford it.
35/1.2+85/1.2+R5 could set me down like £7K.
I haven't got that much cash (well I have but my whole Sony setup is worth that much, not just two lenses)

I don't shoot with 50mm often (at least not for people/portraits). Prefer the context from a 35mm or the tighter field of view from 85mm.

 

[LongLensPhotography]

Then again if it comes in at 1kg and £2.5k then I can't afford it.
35/1.2+85/1.2+R5 could set me down like £7K.

I think it will considering all their previous releases. I think canon is subtly telling us to also double and triple our own rates.
For that reason I'll just get 40mm and 85 art and be happy

 

[dave_bass5]

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 !

Are you sure its worth £199? it was only ever advertised with the basic one that costs £99.

 

[dave_bass5]

I took a walk up to WEX in London today. First time ive been to the shop. Quite disappointing as it seemed there is more empty space than gear. Took me a while just to find the half empty Canon lens cabinet.
Anyway, I got what I was after, which is the RF 16mm f/2.8. Ive been going back and forth between getting this and the 35 macro, but this was on sale for £249 and I couldn't really afford the 35 at the moment.
Very happy with it though. I'm not normally one to shoot wide, but this seems more natural than any of the wider lenses I have on my M50.
A gloomy wet day so not had a chance to really try it out, but I took these on the way home. a bit (lol) of processing on them.

 

[Tysonator]

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 !

I received R7 delivery Friday and I was off to a deer shoot at Bushy Park early Saturday the next morning, so I had no time to set it up and therefore did not use it,..gutted...
I did not want to just rush out with it and snap away and have no good images.

So I need so test time before I take it out !

The adapter was not the £199 control ring ( which I am sure the sales person mentioned it was when I was on the phone ordering ! ), however just the standard £130 model is bonus enough

 

[LongLensPhotography]

40mm sigma art is ordered

Sigma 40mm f1.4 DG HSM Art Lens for Canon EF

Designed within the rigorous tolerances of a cine lens, the Canon EF-mount Sigma 40mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art Lens is a wide normal-length lens characterized by a bright design and sophisticated optical layout.

www.srsmicrosystems.co.uk

That's a pretty good offer for today

I feel like 35mm will be on the chopping block at some point

 

[nandbytes]

40mm sigma art is ordered

Sigma 40mm f1.4 DG HSM Art Lens for Canon EF

Designed within the rigorous tolerances of a cine lens, the Canon EF-mount Sigma 40mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art Lens is a wide normal-length lens characterized by a bright design and sophisticated optical layout.

www.srsmicrosystems.co.uk

That's a pretty good offer for today

I feel like 35mm will be on the chopping block at some point

certainly is a lot of lens for that money
I personally like 40mm focal length more so than 35mm or 50mm. Too bad they are not as common as the other two.

 

[LongLensPhotography]

Will I need to get 28mm as well? I wish 50mm became 55 or 58 now to get more spread.

 

[isobarik]

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

40mm sigma art is ordered

Sigma 40mm f1.4 DG HSM Art Lens for Canon EF

Designed within the rigorous tolerances of a cine lens, the Canon EF-mount Sigma 40mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art Lens is a wide normal-length lens characterized by a bright design and sophisticated optical layout.

www.srsmicrosystems.co.uk

That's a pretty good offer for today

I feel like 35mm will be on the chopping block at some point

Well done that man!

IIRC the lens was a good deal more expensive than that on release

I just hope that you are delighted with the lens once you have it - I'm thrilled with mine

you might want to start doing some curls to get ready for it

I do expect you'll end up keeping the RF 35 - cracking little lens for those days when you don't feel up to the work out of carrying the 40 around

Dave

 

[LongLensPhotography]

I do expect you'll end up keeping the RF 35 - cracking little lens for those days when you don't feel up to the work out of carrying the 40 around

It's sigma 35 art. It's not up to the standard of 50 art, and really needs f8 to clean up those corners at higher resolution

 

[nandbytes]

Will I need to get 28mm as well? I wish 50mm became 55 or 58 now to get more spread.

Personally I prefer 24mm and I don't might cropping a wee bit on the odd occasion I feel I need 28mm.
But you know better as to what you need for your work.

 

[LongLensPhotography]

Personally I prefer 24mm and I don't might cropping a wee bit on the odd occasion I feel I need 28mm.
But you know better as to what you need for your work.

Yes, but I'm not sure there are any great 24mm options up to 28mm art standards. I believe either 24 art or 24L ii would be about same or worse than 35 art, and zooms are even less sharp. They are all old lenses designed to fit within a certain size and or budget
24 tse ii apparently also gets a little weak on 5ds, and with RF adapter that is thinner than 24mm gold standard this night be completely down the hill

 

[PDub]

Has anyone had their hotshoe repaired? Just wondering what the cost would be to do. Thanks.

 

[LongLensPhotography]

Has anyone had their hotshoe repaired? Just wondering what the cost would be to do. Thanks.

I believe that would be the whole new camera top, so not as cheap you might like...

 

[LongLensPhotography]

Just a side note re sigma art lenses. The good ones are reported to be just as good on Fuji gfx. That's 28, 40, 50, 85, 105 and 135. 2 down, 4 to go. 35 to move on...

 

[nandbytes]

Just a side note re sigma art lenses. The good ones are reported to be just as good on Fuji gfx. That's 28, 40, 50, 85, 105 and 135. 2 down, 4 to go. 35 to move on...

a 135mm Art has shown up in sales

 

[TimHughes]

Yes, but I'm not sure there are any great 24mm options up to 28mm art standards. I believe either 24 art or 24L ii would be about same or worse than 35 art, and zooms are even less sharp. They are all old lenses designed to fit within a certain size and or budget
24 tse ii apparently also gets a little weak on 5ds, and with RF adapter that is thinner than 24mm gold standard this night be completely down the hill

I agree, I don’t think there are. The Samyang 24mm 1.4 is surprisingly good, however it’s manual. I recently got the 24Lii and it’s good but not great. 24 TSE is great but manual and f3.5. An excellent RF 24 prime could tempt me to buy my first RF mount lens

 

[nandbytes]

And I think this is the real reason they have stopped 3rd party lenses on RF. 3rd options would basically fill all the gaps and when canon finally release their RF version people would have got the alternatives and probably won't have the motivation to swap to a more expensive 1st party option.

Sony had the opposite problem for a long time they wanted 3rd parties to make lenses but no one did till recently.

Nikon is trying to balance both by rebranding some 3rd party lenses and allowing a few chosen ones to be released.

And L-mount alliance just decided make one of the major 3rd party lens makers into a 1st party.

But in the end RF customers are suffering the most for (native) choice at this stage. May change in future of course.

 

[Paul Iddon]

Took a lot of photos today on a beautiful walk, Final edit count was 47 from over 700 actuations (seeing as the R10 was firing about a dozen or more every time I depressed the shutter (so many duplicates!) !!!

Anyway - I thought I'd show you a few taken on the LAOWA 15mm f/4 wide angle macro lens.

Paul.

 

[isobarik]

Love these Paul

Just had the notification my R6ii arrives tomorrow

feel that the R7 will be listed soon

Dave

 

[Paul Iddon]

Cheers Dave, it is a nice if niche lens.

Paul

 

[Paul Iddon]

These were taken with the RF 100-400mm lens on the EOS R10:

Never seen this many greenfinches all at once:

Didn't realise until I got the computer what ducks were here - but they are wigeons, and for the first time seeing them, eider ducks:

Some seriously backlit redshanks:

And some distance from me - so cropped a fair bit, a couple of hares:

Wind turbine seen from Cockerham Sands somewhere towards Glasson:

Paul.

 

[Paul Iddon]

Plover Scar and the Ocean Traffic - a short story... Part One.


Morecambe Bay is still a thriving shipping channel as cargo vessels and passenger ferries travels to and from Glasson Dock and Heysham. Heysham ferry port is located on the North-West coast of England, approximately 4 miles South of nearby Morecambe, and 6 miles west of inland Lancaster. Glasson is still a thriving port handling over 150,000 tonnes of cargo annually and is still used today all year around by cargo ships and pleasure craft alike.

Standing proudly is the 8 meter tall 170+ years old Plover Scar lighthouse safely guarding the seafarers routes - though as the following images were in the afternoon, there's no shining light! Remarkably, the lighthouse off the north Lancashire coast (near Cockersand Abbey) was hit at night time by a large, empty, cargo vessel en route to Glasson Dock and was seriously damaged in the collision, back in 2016.

During my walk on Monday this week, I was lucky enough to see a couple of ships - one leaving, the other arriving.

The Silver River cargo vessel is a general cargo vessel built in 1968. She measure in at over 44 meters long.

...cont.

 

[Paul Iddon]

...Part Two.

Plover Scar lighthouse is always worth a visit - more so when the tide is out which affords the chance to see more of the structure, and the chance to get a lot closer. The tide was coming in when I visited, but still afforded some good photo opportunities.

...cont.

 

[Paul Iddon]

...Part Three.

What I enjoyed watching the most was the arrival of first, the Glasson Dock's Pilot Boat "Trelawney" who escorted a decent general cargo vessel into the dock - the EEMS DOLLARD - sailing under the flag of the Netherlands, travelling from La Pallice in France. Her home port is Delfzijl, and she was built in 2004. Weighing in at a considerable Gross Tonnage of 2545 tonnes and measuring almost 90 metres in length and a breadth of 12 metres, her crew safely took her into port, after which (on Wednesday) she set sail again on her way to Newport, South Wales. (You can also see what I think is the "Admiral Bay" dredger at work in the background of the photo where the pilot ship passes the lighthouse).

...cont.

 

[Paul Iddon]

...and Part Four.

All in all, an enjoyable 90 minutes that gave me some very useable images. To be honest, I was very pleased with the sharpness the RF 100-400 zoom lens - being a budget lens from Canon, and pitched well below their acclaimed L series glass. Even though it has image stabilisation, I did use my tripod for most of these shots.

If you're ever in the vicinity of Lancaster, I would heartily recommend a visit to Cockerham Sands - but beware, its a long way down a rather narrow and awkward single track road that seems to never end!


I hope you enjoyed this little marine story and managed to get to the end!



Paul.

 

[LongLensPhotography]

40 is a bit of a beast but has the quality of the 105 and neither are going anywhere

My copy turned out to be an absolute pig . Only right side is sharp, massive decentering, so shipping it back on Monday. Af consistency is also super unreliable on 5ds; only question is if that is to do specifically with decentering.
I'm debating if I should still ask the shop to find me a good copy or just demand for a straight refund and refocus on lenses that I know work well like 85 and 105mm?
I presume you have a good copy. How do you find af accuracy and speed on r5 in tracking mode should I get the combo. For R6 the lens is an overkill if I can't get it performing well on 5ds. R6 should be happy enough with a 2nd rate lens like 35 art