R2D2
Forum Pro
Very pretty indeed! And you are right, I would have been walking around with my (IMHO incomparable) RF 15-35!! :-D
R2
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
New Canon camera announcement!
- Thread starter R2D2
- Start date
R2
R2D2
Forum Pro
Thanks guys,
Explore - American Sign Museum
if you go, invest in ultra wide like $2500 RF 10-20 or $2400 RF 15-35. You'd be toast Storm with 35-150. My 24-105 wasn't wide enough since the spaces are tight and the signs are big
or if you can't justify those, the ultra wide and IS of the iphone 16 pro was doable *for me* as a retiree
where main output is facebook for me .btw storm, on your get a RF 35 f1.8 IS commentThanks guys,
Explore - American Sign Museum
if you go, invest in ultra wide like $2500 RF 10-20 or $2400 RF 15-35. You'd be toast Storm with 35-150. My 24-105 wasn't wide enough since the spaces are tight and the signs are big
or if you can't justify those, the ultra wide and IS of the iphone 16 pro was doable *for me* as a retiree
I could still do a wedding or event if I needed to
and I could do it at ~f2 instead of the RF 28-70 f2 or your 35-150
I have a nice shoulder bag that will hold my m6II + RP + R8 with three lens attached, 32,35, 85 - never having to change lenses - I'd carry my open bag all day long and reach for the focal and f2 lens I needed
I'd use my two oden triggers when needed to trigger my 3 off camera strobes when needed. I'd also take my 60 inch shoot through umbrella when needed.
I'd have some co-helpers take video clips with their iphones and send to me
and I'd just use my iphone when I needed untra wide or wide or short video clips
juggling 4 cameras is not my thing though, I'd just rather be a guest, have wine in one hand and my iphone in the other for video clips - I've done combined video clips of weddings where the bride enjoyed my video clip creation more than what her stills photo photographer gave her.
memo to file --- too much work for me as a retiree - just drink the wine, no need to buy that 35
My wife came across that. I had been using a cell phone analogy but nowhere as good as that. He's a bit goofy but very passionate. My wife doesn't care for him. Between him and Brian Cox (not the actor) I've become passionate as well. Now I wish I had paid more attention in school. :-DGood one Zeee/Neil.
thunder storm
Forum Pro
- Messages
- 11,853
- Solutions
- 7
- Reaction score
- 5,959
You're comparing here to the very compact 28-60mm, which is kind of full frame equivalent of the RF-s 18-45mm. Not bad for what it is, but yes, there's a limit you can do in very small zooms, and it shows at 61Mp.
The Samyang 24mm is definitely stronger, especially at the narrow apertures you need in these cases anyway.
the 28 is the reason I'd not buy a cheap zoom , no matter how light and low $
getting a 11-22 for your m6II would have been better for these waterway border constraints
61 mp in great but deserves more than cheap 28-60
when you have waterways and are border constraint limited, take ultrawide zooms imo
zooms rule for me 10-35 mm
one needs to carry too many primes to handle the border constraint shooting scenarios imo
a good ultra-wide zoom on your R5 would be good for landscape and cityscape and compliment your great people shooting lens, the 35-150, where you'd not have to change lenses when carrying two bodies
Last edited:
thunder storm
Forum Pro
- Messages
- 11,853
- Solutions
- 7
- Reaction score
- 5,959
Yeah, my first copy died. I've been thinking of buying another one.
There's a setting to get 26Mp full frame output (not to confuse with the crop mode, which also gives 26Mp).
Well, I have a 460g Tamron EF 17-35mm f/4.0-5.6, and it fits both the Sony and the Canon via adapters. Stopped down it's pretty good (definitely better than the 11-22mm). That lens should have been in my bag.
I've been satisfied in other cases with just the 20mm Viltrox. Yes, there's a gap between 35mm and 20mm, and yes, it's not crazy wide, but it's a good trade off. The problem: the 16mm f/1.8 Viltrox is much better, but the gap between 16 and 35mm doesn't work.
Yes, I hear you.
The advantage of 11-22mm + M6II next to Sony + Tamron 35-150mm, no lens changes while not a lot of extra weight.
The advantage of the Tamron EF 17-35mm: you can leave the R5 at home (which saves weight as well), use it on the Sony, and you get better IQ than the ef-m 11-22mm can give you. M6II =408g, 11-22mm=220g, there's an external viewfinder as well, so compared to the Tamron EF 17-35mm + MC11 it's about the same weight. But you do have to change lenses. The Tamron also allows me to accept the extra weight of the R5 and enjoy full frame IQ without lens changes. As long as it's not clear I will stick with RF I'm not investing in an expensive RF wide angle zoom. The RF 14-35mm f/4.0 has it's appeal though, especially because the RF 24mm f/1.8 can do low light stuff making the 16-28mm stm less interesting, but without an RF 85mm VCM I will rather go Sony only, and and something like the FE 20-70mm f/4.0 for this kind of city scape stuff. 20-70mm f/4.0 + 35-150mm f/2.0-2.8 is a much more useful combo imo than a classic 24-70mm + 70-200mm + wide angle zoom, and that's especially true if you want to carry just one body.
One zoom giving a good telephoto range + a little wide angle, and the other giving a good wide angle range + a little telephoto.... that's pretty convenient if you ask me.
Also very convenient: not having too many lenses making it too hard to make up your mind what too put in the bag and what to leave at home.
ahh, yes indeed, that would have resolved the ultra-wide need with border constraints
I'm pretty sure your 17-35 would have done better than those two primes around that waterway - primes are ok when you can move your feet
well, I've stopped investing in m6II, I can't recommend it
go with this
do those lens changes for now, until you get your companion body, A7CR
If I did, it would be the RF 15-30 IS
I've lost interest in the 16-26
That seems to be an epic lens in sony land
good stuff
ahh my friend, you'll be looking to buy that 50-150 f2 at some point,One zoom giving a good telephoto range + a little wide angle, and the other giving a good wide angle range + a little telephoto.... that's pretty convenient if you ask me.
Also very convenient: not having too many lenses making it too hard to make up your mind what too put in the bag and what to leave at home.
and even that new 200 f2 - sony really does have some great stuff with their open third party conceptenjoy!
thunder storm
Forum Pro
- Messages
- 11,853
- Solutions
- 7
- Reaction score
- 5,959
That's the whole thing.
What everybody wants is an M6III or M5II with IBIS and a lot of DigicX horsepower. Nobody needs the RF-s stuff. 18-45mm in stead of 15-45mm >> fail. 10-18mm in stead of 11-22mm >> fail. Sigma 30mm in stead of 32mm >> fail. Having to buy your lenses all over again >> fail. No compact body with yet a lot of dials and a flip up screen + IBIS >> fail. The only body with IBIS is chunky and big and a teleconverter the luxe with build in camera for the birders >> fail.
It's like that whole holding back on a balanced portable 85mm prime, I'm just so sick of Canon holding back.
Sure. Full frame or no picture.
Would have been perfect for my use case, however, f/6.3 at 28 and 30mm is limiting in other use cases. ILIS helps though. My EF Tamron relies on IBIS. IQ is weak at the long end without stopping down though, so the difference isn't huge in that regard. Around 24mm it's great at f/4.0, and distortion is low around 24mm.
It costs 1000 euro more than I payed for my Tamron EF 17-35mm f/2.8-4.0....
I might actually get that lens before I get another Sony body. Add the 50GM and 85mm DN, eventually the Samyang f/1.8, and do the lens changes, in stead of the extra weight of another body.
No, I decided not to go with that 50-150mm f/2.0. At the end of the day an affordable f/1.4 at 85mm wins over zoomability at f/2.0 and a sky high price point. 40-105mm f/1.8 would be harder to resist, but too much money and weight is spend in the +105mm range imo, which is nice for sports, but I don't need that desperately.good stuff
ahh my friend, you'll be looking to buy that 50-150 f2 at some point,One zoom giving a good telephoto range + a little wide angle, and the other giving a good wide angle range + a little telephoto.... that's pretty convenient if you ask me.
Also very convenient: not having too many lenses making it too hard to make up your mind what too put in the bag and what to leave at home.
enjoy!
Sittatunga
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 7,793
- Solutions
- 33
- Reaction score
- 5,390
While that's what a lot of people want, it's not what they actually end up buying. People who actually bought the M5/6 series loved them but it was the cheaper M50 series that sold in quantity. My favourites are the M2 and M100, but that's because of their size and unclutteredness. Canon's current IBIS mechanisms are too big to physically fit into an M-sized body (that and the LP-E6 sized battery are why the APS-C format R7 is bigger and heavier than the full-frame R8) and impressive, fast, wide-ranging APS-C zooms are poor value for money compared with the bottom-rung RF lenses that are their full-frame equivalents.
This forum has a lot of posts advising people against the R100 and the R50 because they're too stripped down and basic, but those are the cameras that newcomers to the system are first interested in because of their size and prices. Those fast Sigma APS-C, given the economies of scale from their E, L and X mount versions that keep their prices down have saved Canon the trouble and expense of developing a range of big, fast crop lenses in order to concentrate on inexpensive and small crop format lenses which they think they can actually sell.
+1
Exactamundo - it would beat the heck out of fuji X-E5
yeah, if it doesn't start wide enough, no deal
that 11-22 on 32.5 mp is sweet. I didn't buy a 22 f2 because I have a good 22
yep, Canon made a gem in the 32 f1.4
Canon hasn't made even 1 RF-s lens that I wanted.
The RF-s 22 is no where to be found. The Rf-s 32 is no where to be found
exactly - they went BACKWARDS with compact apsc
exactly, the bigger R7 is a TC for birders, but not a compact advanced apsc
no advanced compact apsc for us - they were on the cusp with m6II and have now gone backwards
they could crush fuji with a compact powerful R-m6III with IBIS and a compact RF-s 22 f2 pancake
with tax, in the US, Fuji wants more than $2000 for the X-E5 with 23 mm f2.8 lens - Canon could crush this but they don't want to be in the advanced compact powerful apsc market
and look at Sony wanting more than $5000 for a compact 61 mp FF with a 35 mm f2 lens and no IBIS - it is a joke when you can get an A7CR for $2000 less with interchangeable lenses and IBIS - see the Fro Knows Review
I hear you - folks will go elsewhere
I do like my R8 and RF lenses though
but Canon will not get much more business from me unless they innovate small and powerful
+1
for now I'm staying with 48mp iphone with 13 mm on board, 11-22, and my 24-105 L
yes it is costly
I think you'll want that lens in the long run on a compact A7CR so you don't have to change lenses
yeah, I was just teasing you - you got the right idea with longer portrait primesNo, I decided not to go with that 50-150mm f/2.0. At the end of the day an affordable f/1.4 at 85mm wins over zoomability at f/2.0 and a sky high price point. 40-105mm f/1.8 would be harder to resist, but too much money and weight is spend in the +105mm range imo, which is nice for sports, but I don't need that desperately.good stuff
ahh my friend, you'll be looking to buy that 50-150 f2 at some point,One zoom giving a good telephoto range + a little wide angle, and the other giving a good wide angle range + a little telephoto.... that's pretty convenient if you ask me.
Also very convenient: not having too many lenses making it too hard to make up your mind what too put in the bag and what to leave at home.
enjoy!
anyway, Canon is in a real pickle imo - how are they going to get me to buy more unless they move to compact and powerful - my R8 was a blessing - but we shall see how they get me to buy more stuff
thunder storm
Forum Pro
- Messages
- 11,853
- Solutions
- 7
- Reaction score
- 5,959
No no no no no, the M5&M6 had lacklustre AF (waaay too slow, no eye AF, way too large smallest AF-point) , and the M50 - at the time - had adequate AF, thát was the main difference, beside the lower price point of the M50.
Sittatunga
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 7,793
- Solutions
- 33
- Reaction score
- 5,390
Why, I've just received the X-E5, its a miniature marvel
You should try the new Fuji 16-50 2.8-4.8, it really is a great achievement.
I'd say 18mm is too long on an uwa zoom, and the Sigma 10-18 2.8 is a more practical solution for UWA on aps-c, especially on the X-E5 it's absolutely tiny combination for 15-28 f4 equivalent, less than 700gr complete, with an evf, selfie screen and lots of dials and a joystick for af no less too.
The Viltrox 35 1.7 will give the 32 1.4 a run for its money in all regards, its £150 new!
Honestly, you are clutching at straws, the X-E5 with Viltrox air 15,25,35,56 1.7 has got to be the most incredible compact prime set-up around. If you want an excellent 24-75, the 16-50 2.8-4.8 is it.
I don't know if they can, Fuji is sold out everywhere and have completely dominated aps-c for some time. The X-E5 with the 23 2.8 or like I say, 25 1.7 will satisfy different tastes, there's also Fuji 23 f2 as well, which at 51mm length is incredibly compact too.
I don't think they can any more, or they would, they've lost the skill and capability for some reason. Best to take the hit and buy the camera without the lens if the 23 2.8 is too slow and get the Viltrox air 25 1.7 or a used Fuji 23 f2.
A7cr, you need to try that camera to understand, but imo the X-E5 is a far better camera in every respect, evf doesn't protrude, the rear screen flips, front button and lever, the incredible compact 10-18 2.8, 25 1.7, 23 f2, etc etc. Also, the 56 1.4 is proving to be very impressive on the X-T5 so will also be good on the X-E5.
I think the Sigma 56 1.4 is a pretty incredible compact lens on Fuji, combined with the new 17-40 1.8 that's about as small and compact on my X-T5 for 25-85 <2.8 equivalent you are going to get across any system. If primes is your thing Viltrox air is impressive series, 22-85 at 2.5 equivalent and if you need the aperture ring Fuji has you covered.
If the 17-40 matches the RF 28-70 in iq I'll sell it, I'm more than happy with the 10-18 vs the RF 16-28 2.8, a lens that just isn't appealing to me for some reason, plus the Sigma goes wider. The 24-240 isn't doing it for me either and as Canon has no compelling lightweight 70-300 offering, just some legacy lens from yesteryear the only thing keeping me in the Canon system is the 100-500/200-800 both excellent lenses but for my purposes I'll probably swap them for a Fuji 500 5.6 prime and a 100-400, probably lots of missed shots but I'm not looking to win wildlife photographer of the year award.yeah, I was just teasing you - you got the right idea with longer portrait primesNo, I decided not to go with that 50-150mm f/2.0. At the end of the day an affordable f/1.4 at 85mm wins over zoomability at f/2.0 and a sky high price point. 40-105mm f/1.8 would be harder to resist, but too much money and weight is spend in the +105mm range imo, which is nice for sports, but I don't need that desperately.good stuff
ahh my friend, you'll be looking to buy that 50-150 f2 at some point,One zoom giving a good telephoto range + a little wide angle, and the other giving a good wide angle range + a little telephoto.... that's pretty convenient if you ask me.
Also very convenient: not having too many lenses making it too hard to make up your mind what too put in the bag and what to leave at home.
enjoy!
anyway, Canon is in a real pickle imo - how are they going to get me to buy more unless they move to compact and powerful - my R8 was a blessing - but we shall see how they get me to buy more stuff
Sittatunga
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 7,793
- Solutions
- 33
- Reaction score
- 5,390
How nice It's not much more that twice the length of the Canon 22mm f/2.
I looked at X-E5 and found intriguing. In the US with the pancake and tax it is way over the top in pricing - greater than $2K because of tariffs. I know your European pricing is better but then it should not be priced similar to the (your) dual slot flagship X-T5. I hope you enjoy it alphaZ. Keep us apprised. And thanks for posting here.Why, I've just received the X-E5, its a miniature marvel
I'd agree it is small enough with ibis and a pancake and engaging controls. But Fuji was still protecting their fixed lens F2 offering by only kitting the X-E5 with an f2.8 pancake lens (an F4.2 equivalent lens). I researched and found other downsides though that I think Canon could beat, but Canon has not been willing to compete with this small and powerful apsc (they have larger R7 for birding though) since they are driving lower cost FF R8 instead to hook folks into their FF lens ecosystem.
Canon was on the cusp with the m6II but dropped the development. So sad about this.
What I wanted to see from Canon was developing a camera as small or smaller than the X-E5 with IBIS, engaging 3 dial controls, and their knock your socks off Digic X AF system - that you see in your R5II - and include a 22 F2 (FF equivalent of F3.2) Pancake as a kit -- all for less price than the fuji X-E5.
Fuji owners have complained about the low grade screen and evf that the new camera got. One of the biggest complaints reviewers make is that fuji still lags behind in their AF system. The M6II with Digic 8 would not do BIF properly, I appreciate the AF system in my R8 and the even better AF system in your R5II that is so capable it will do BIF.
It is great you get a 24 mm equivalent on your X-E5.
But IF Canon had the engaging small apsc camera I'm thinking of -- I'd run with an F22 F2 35 mm equivalent lens much of the time. And I'd probably buy two zooms
Sigma 10-18mm f/2.8 DC DN Contemporary
and Sigma 17-40 F1.8 - I'd only go with a portrait prime -- I watched ArthurR's review with his sony - the 17-40 has obviated the need for many of the siggy primes
and I'd buy one prime: Sigma 56 F1.4
The 32.5 mp sensor also works great with my 100L for macro giving a 160 mm fov working distance.
And I could put RF 100-400 and my RF 800 on it for BIF and have a TC effect
agree
yep - great combo - see my comments above
just use the siggy zoom
primes at lower mm are a pain for lens changes
it is not a Canon 22 F2 pancake
compact Canon 22 F2 pancake
as I said - my formula would be lower cost R-M6III with small, powerful apsc with ibis and engaging controls, siggy 10-18 f2.8, siggy 17-40 f1.8, but the main walkaround - the Canon 22 f2, and the siggy 56 f1.4 as the portrait lens. The siggy 10-18 and 17-40 obviate the need to carry primes at those focals
we're on the same wavelegth here -see above
except for the 22 f2, zooms are my thing until we get to the 56 f1.4, and though I'd like 24 mm to start a zoom, I could accept the two zooms 10-18 and 17-40 instead
agreeIf the 17-40 matches the RF 28-70 in iq I'll sell it, I'm more than happy with the 10-18 vs the RF 16-28 2.8, a lens that just isn't appealing to me for some reason, plus the Sigma goes wider.yeah, I was just teasing you - you got the right idea with longer portrait primesNo, I decided not to go with that 50-150mm f/2.0. At the end of the day an affordable f/1.4 at 85mm wins over zoomability at f/2.0 and a sky high price point. 40-105mm f/1.8 would be harder to resist, but too much money and weight is spend in the +105mm range imo, which is nice for sports, but I don't need that desperately.good stuff
ahh my friend, you'll be looking to buy that 50-150 f2 at some point,One zoom giving a good telephoto range + a little wide angle, and the other giving a good wide angle range + a little telephoto.... that's pretty convenient if you ask me.
Also very convenient: not having too many lenses making it too hard to make up your mind what too put in the bag and what to leave at home.
enjoy!
anyway, Canon is in a real pickle imo - how are they going to get me to buy more unless they move to compact and powerful - my R8 was a blessing - but we shall see how they get me to buy more stuff
the fuji Af system is the big rub - your BIF will be in jeopardy
Canon will not likely do what I'm suggesting - again they are pushing low cost FF (R8) so they can wrap up higher profits in FF lenses
Last edited:
I also received mine... It's a very nice camera in many ways, but I would not call it miniature! It is rather larger than my expectations. Especially my favorite travel setup, for which I got the 18-135 - X-E5+18-135 is 1.5x the weight of R50+18-150.Why, I've just received the X-E5, its a miniature marvel
Like many cameras, some quirks. Enjoying the image quality, as well as the many buttons and customizability, but some odd things missing (why am I stuck with ISO increments of 1/3 stop?). Learning that it's normal for it to require an extra +.5 to .7 stop to get the same exposure. AF good, but not as good as R50's.
The main attraction of the X-E5 for me is the 40MP in a relatively compact and capable body. I am holding on to my R50 and lenses; If Canon comes up with 32MP+ compact and capable RF-S camera I don't see keeping the X-E5.
That is the other lens I got, liking it so far - the size, performance, and price (especially given some of the outrageous Fuji prices). Haven't directly compared it with the 32mm f/1.4.
Last edited:
The 23 and 27 2.8 are the same size, actually I wanted 40mm
ok you lose 1/3-2/3 stop, but you gain built-in evf, ibis & joystick.
Fuji made the camera Canon have refused to make for RF, YES/NO?I also received mine... It's a very nice camera in many ways, but I would not call it miniature!Why, I've just received the X-E5, its a miniature marvel
Something like 18-150 is a "gap" with Fuji! what about 16-80 f4?
ok
ok
please compare it
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum