David Franklin

The RF 24-70 f/2.8 is, for me at least, the best compromise between fast aperture, size and focal length range. It’s the “Goldilocks” lens, if you will. If tiny size is your priority, the 50 or 35 ...

If I remember correctly, “Dehaze” raises the contrast of mostly mid tones while not affecting shadows and highlights as much. The “HDR” effect is actually a step in a series of actions wherein ...

I have been a pro photographer for over 40 years, and the best shoulder type bag for my uses that I have ever had is the one I use now. It's the Tenba DNA 16 Slim Camera Messenger Bag. Mine is ...

Your recommendations are exactly what I was about to post. I happen to have had a client for whom I shot thousands of small figurines -almost all of them done with the Ts-E 90. Very sharp stopped ...

Detail in the magenta/red/orange range is always the most difficult color range in which to capture detail in very saturated areas. I don't know all the truly technical reasons why that is, but ...

The idea of anti-theft accomplished by bricking the objects function, as we see today in so much of car audio, could very easily be applied to cameras right now; lenses - not so much today. For...

The non-DS, which I would prefer if I had the cash for either these, has a wider effective aperture, which seems to correlate to the obvious larger diameter, more spread out, out-of-focus ...

As a longtime professional, I have tried to always have two identical bodies with me on all shoots - in my case, currently R5's - and sometimes have a third body with a smaller format (maybe an R7 ...

Of course, that is correct. They are using the Sony that is new and much more expensive than the R5, making the R5 seems like a bargain (it kind of is) at $3,899.00 or whatever it is now. This is a ...

After watching this, if you would be relying on their tests and evaluations, most any neutral observer would come to the conclusion that the R5 is still considerably superior for almost all stills ...

That was nearly the entire point of my post. From experience I know that the very good EF 16-35 f/4.0 is NOT "optically clearly superior in basically every aspect." Your assertion is just not ...

I had the EF 16-35mm f/4.0 for many years and, just recently, I bought the RF 14-35. My copy of the 14-35 is clearly just a small bit better in "sharpness" at every focal length, except at 35mm, ...

I agree about the 5D4; it was a wonderful camera for me. Unfortunately, even though, or maybe because I am still a working pro after all these many years, I am always evaluating my gear to make it ...

These are all great lenses. I have just a few reservations and agree with you. I now have the RF 14-35, the 24-70 and 70-200 f/2.8’s, the 85 f/2.0, and the 100-400 f/5.6-8.0. They are all, in some ...

It would not significantly change minimum focus difference, if at all, but, by magnifying the image, it would change the reproduction ratio to 2X whatever it originally was.

I have shot from helicopters several times in my career for clients. Here's a couple of things to keep in mind. One is that you may encounter times when the copter can't bank hard enough to get the ...

Same with me. I wanted the new RF 70-200 f/2.8 for its size and weight advantages- along with the expected great optics, etc. - but I was disappointed with the lack of extender capacity. But I had ...

Yes, it's a great lens. The size and weight was reduced without really losing a single thing -  and actually gaining in some areas - a little bit better in terms of sharpness, focus and stability ...

Almost forgot to mention my other recommendation. If you can't afford the new 14-35, definitely try to pick up a used 16-35 f/4.0. It's the best of the rest for the money, no doubt.

I have been a happy owner of my 16-35 f/4.0 lens, even after my switch to the R and R5’s and the turnover of most of my other EF lenses into their RF equivalents. I loved that lens and had no ...