-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Where next after M?
- Thread starter Tomsop
- Start date
KEG
Veteran Member
Last edited:
fighting lighting and color science is not for me
that is great value proposition glass on a great sensor
R10 doesn't make sense.
what about the R7 with your great glass?
thunder storm
Forum Pro
- Messages
- 12,669
- Solutions
- 7
- Reaction score
- 5,958
Well, I've sold the Sigma 50-100mm f/1.8, and I won't be buying another one. For the Sigma 100-400mm I need a full frame sensor to make up for higher ISO levels. The 70-200mm isn't in my bag so often, as I prefer the 105mm Art in most cases. If I want an f/4.0-ish equivalent zoom with fast AF it makes more sense to steer the money to a light weight USM f/4.0 zoom for the R5 in stead spilling almost 50% of that 1800 grams on a too small sensor.
For the 50mm Art and the 18-35mm Art it's a nice match. But no 32mm.....
If Canon ports the 32mm over to the RF mount it might work better. R2 reports the 32mm is fast enough when doing action with single point AF. I'm not sure that's 100% the case as there are more factors in play (distance to the subject for instance). But if the lens really is fast enough itself it might be the processing power of the body indeed slowing down the subject tracking modes, which means the same design ported over should perform better on the new RF bodies.
Now price.... I've payed 850 euro for M6II + EVF (oh, and the kitlens). I might get 700 euro for the camera + evf, 350 euro for the 32mm. Canon will charge me 1500 for the R7 and 650 euro for the RF-s 32mm. So that's 1200 euro extra. To be honest with you: they should have came up with the R7 before I got the R. It's too late now. I think 1200 euro is too much for AF upgrades only.
the only potential justification, and I qualify this by saying I don't know if this will work well enough:
is to sell the 70-200 that you use on FF and use instead the 105 f1.4 on the R7with the reach of the 32.5 mpxl on the 1.6 crop sensor and presumably R3-like AF
thunder storm
Forum Pro
- Messages
- 12,669
- Solutions
- 7
- Reaction score
- 5,958
m100
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 2,744
- Solutions
- 3
- Reaction score
- 1,600
It is good for head shots ?
thunder storm
Forum Pro
- Messages
- 12,669
- Solutions
- 7
- Reaction score
- 5,958
You can do that, and it will work fine, however, it makes more sense to do this on a full frame sensor in my opinion.
I don't use the 105mm for head shots because it's longer. It's rather the other way around: because it's longer I use it more environmental as the 105mm focal length provides good subject separation even when shooting environmental.
For head shots on full frame the 105mm needs more stopping down than 85 or even 50mm, so it's definitely usable, but not the best low light option for head shots. Unfortunately my 85mm still needs a bit stopping down, my 50mm needs a bit stopping down to get the best sharpness, and my 40mm doesn't need stopping down, but is not the best focal length for head shots.
m100
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 2,744
- Solutions
- 3
- Reaction score
- 1,600
I would stop it down to f/4 so to stand a bettor chance to get both eyes in focus.
I use 100 L on the M6II and use flashes.
M50II works good. It has good eye focus. Head shots do not need the detail of the 32mp sensor.
I have the room to step back in my studio.
--
Dr. says listen to this every morning.
Last edited:
got it
the 40 on crop is 64 fov f2.2 sharp across the frame - but heavy -
props to the m32 f1.4 on 32.5 mpxl
thunder storm
Forum Pro
- Messages
- 12,669
- Solutions
- 7
- Reaction score
- 5,958
I agree with your points including the points about the 70-200 which I think folks with your talent need for to and fro action photography
thunder storm
Forum Pro
- Messages
- 12,669
- Solutions
- 7
- Reaction score
- 5,958
There's no such a thing as a digital difference between in focus and out of focus, so unless both eyes are exactly in the plane of focus one is more in focus than the other. For a head shot picture viewed globally f/4.0 isn't necessarily needed for my taste, but f/2.0 or even wider is to much blur in the face for me.
I've sold that lens, but I've used it on my M50 and 70D. It's a bit long for my taste, but other than that it's great.
That M50II is a very nice camera. I had the mark I, and if you have greatly improved eye AF it will give you stunning pictures with great SOOC colors. 24Mp on crop is generally the sweet spot. The better dynamic range of the M6II is more important than those extra Mp.
Absolutely.
thunder storm
Forum Pro
- Messages
- 12,669
- Solutions
- 7
- Reaction score
- 5,958
You can change your gear accordingly to preferred shooting style, but the shooting style also adapts to the gear you love. And so it's 105 for me now.
That said, I have a bit of a headache when thinking about what lenses I should bring next summer holiday and what lenses I should leave home. ;-)
m100
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 2,744
- Solutions
- 3
- Reaction score
- 1,600
I like it if I can count the eyelashes on both eyes.
I can pull it off sometimes.
R2D2
Forum Pro
That’s a nice position to be in.
You have some great choices available to you!My FF choices are easy, as each system is pretty specialized…
RF 100-500 + 1.4x on the R5 for birds/nature.
RF 28-70 + 70-200 f/2.8 on the R6 for events, sports, and portraits (EF 135 f/1.8 for max Bokeh).
RF 100 f/2.8 on the (upcoming) R7 for Macros.
EF-M 18-55 STM on the M6 for product shots (for Web).
Lenses for the M6ii are where I have trouble. Too darn many to choose from!!! Everything from a fisheye to fast primes to zooms. Someone will feel bad being left out! I guess if I had to choose (only) 2 for travel, it would be the 18-150 and the 32.
No RFs allowed! :-D
R2
thunder storm
Forum Pro
- Messages
- 12,669
- Solutions
- 7
- Reaction score
- 5,958
Not very complicated indeed, although the f/2.0 zoom might explain why your so addicted to M. ;-) But it's less complicated than the prime cluttering in my collection. ;-)That’s a nice position to be in.
My FF choices are easy, as each system is pretty specialized…
RF 100-500 + 1.4x on the R5 for birds/nature.
RF 28-70 + 70-200 f/2.8 on the R6 for events, sports, and portraits (EF 135 f/1.8 for max Bokeh).
RF 100 f/2.8 on the (upcoming) R7 for Macros.
As a single system I use the 18-35mm, 32mm, and eventually the 50mm Art.
As a second body the M6II gets used with the 70-200 (love the IS and IQ, hate the weight) and 100-400mm (max reach).
The 11-22mm is used for filming only as I prefer the Tamron 17-35mm on the R5 for stills, the 12mm f/2.0 samyang is collecting dust.
All in all the 32mm is almost the only ef-m lens for me. Less headaches here.
Sittatunga
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 8,320
- Solutions
- 33
- Reaction score
- 5,390
The nearest thing you'll get to a water resistant camera now that Nikonos is history is a COOLPIX W300, an Olympus Tough or a Ricoh DX 6G. Canon only add weather resistant seals to their L lenses, so you're looking at Olympus or Fuji if you want weather sealing in crop format.
Last edited:
R2D2
Forum Pro
Bwahahaha! That RF 28-70 f/2 is indeed quite the Chunk-a-Lunk! I really don’t mind shooting with it though, as the R5’s grip is substantially beefier than the M6ii’s. Plus the output from that lens is to die for! (That alone sheds a pound from it!) :-DNot very complicated indeed, although the f/2.0 zoom might explain why your so addicted to M. ;-)That’s a nice position to be in.
My FF choices are easy, as each system is pretty specialized…
RF 100-500 + 1.4x on the R5 for birds/nature.
RF 28-70 + 70-200 f/2.8 on the R6 for events, sports, and portraits (EF 135 f/1.8 for max Bokeh).
RF 100 f/2.8 on the (upcoming) R7 for Macros.
Your Siggy 18-35 serves a very similar function for you (on crop). If my M System priority wasn’t strictly small & light, then I’d be considering that option too. But oh I do love those EF-M primes though!!!
Ditto keeping the M’s small & light. Even the minimal 55-250 is a bit too large for my tastes. For telephoto I really like the R’s.
You’ve been quite high on that Tamron. I guess if I still shot weddings I’d give it a try (for those receptions). As it is, I have the RF 16 for “emergency” ultra-wide, but haven’t even mounted it yet.
I just had the Samyang 8mm Fishy on the M6ii a couple of nights ago for the Meteor Shower. Nice little lens.
Yes, if I had to choose only ONE lens!
But since the M6ii still serves as my primary “fun” camera, I still enjoy mounting quite a variety of lenses to it. And my hope is that Sigma will someday port over their new 18-50 f/2.8 to M! Suh-weet! :-D
R2
thunder storm
Forum Pro
- Messages
- 12,669
- Solutions
- 7
- Reaction score
- 5,958
I still need 28-50mm in a zoom on my R5, and it's the fault of this lens. Too many lens changes when using a 50, 40 and 28mm....Bwahahaha! That RF 28-70 f/2 is indeed quite the Chunk-a-Lunk! I really don’t mind shooting with it though, as the R5’s grip is substantially beefier than the M6ii’s. Plus the output from that lens is to die for! (That alone sheds a pound from it!) :-DNot very complicated indeed, although the f/2.0 zoom might explain why your so addicted to M. ;-)That’s a nice position to be in.
My FF choices are easy, as each system is pretty specialized…
RF 100-500 + 1.4x on the R5 for birds/nature.
RF 28-70 + 70-200 f/2.8 on the R6 for events, sports, and portraits (EF 135 f/1.8 for max Bokeh).
RF 100 f/2.8 on the (upcoming) R7 for Macros.
Your Siggy 18-35 serves a very similar function for you (on crop). If my M System priority wasn’t strictly small & light, then I’d be considering that option too. But oh I do love those EF-M primes though!!!
If the lenses are in the bag I might add the M6II, but it's seldom the other way around.
The AF isn't fast or anything, and the front glass turns while AF-ing. I don't need it for fast action, so it's fine by me, but for events it's probably limiting.
IQ is nice up to 28mm and stopped down a bit. The longer the focal length, the more important it is to stop down. Don't shoot it at 35mm, and don't shoot it wide open at 28mm. If you can live with all these limitations and work around it it's giving stellar results. It's also a non distorted 24mm.
I was debating that lens as it was on sale, however, it would be another ef-m lens, and I would prefer something for the R5. Any suggestions? Adapter = no problem.
Not going to happen....
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum