jbpriolo

It's a shame, because I quite liked my 77d, and on the tele end the EF-S 55-250 was an amazing value. If I could have found a sharp ultrawide EF-S lens, I probably would never have sold that...

I (and probably many) would be willing to pay $800 for a semi-pro Canon branded 10-22 f/2.8 IS; $600 for a well-built 10-22 f/4 IS, but Canon doesn't seem interested in that corner of the market....

150g is certainly enticing, especially for hiking/backpacking landscapes. The EF-S 10-18 was light (though not this light), but both copies I had of it were badly decentered & just not sharp...

C'mon 50-140. Do it Sigma, we believe in you.

Oh, I'm clear on the MFT/FF equivalence/inequality; not trying to troll. Still, for landscapes in reasonable lighting, I find the 8-25 on an E-M1.3 be superbly sharp and pleasingly light. The 8-25...

The full-frame equivalent to the Oly 8-25 f/4 Pro? Nice, Tamron... now a ~500 gram 70-180 f/4 and I might just buy a Sony body...

I really do enjoy the Canon ecosystem, and would like to jump into an APS-C RF mount camera, but the lack of any decent prosumer RF-S lenses is killing me. Currently my only Canon camera is an R6. ...

Wish Canon would port their better EF-M lenses to the RF-S ecosystem. I'd love an R10 for backpacking/travel, with a decent, lightweight, compact wide-angle, like the 11-22.

I've put hundreds of hard backcountry miles on two Canon FF bodies (R6, 6DmkII) utilizing the PD clip without any evidence of structural compromise to their respective tripod sockets/baseplates. ...

I bought an EM1.2 last year, and just took it on a 120+ mile backpacking trip through the Sierra Nevada, where it was a revelation. I'll probably never take my FF gear into the backcountry again, ...

As someone who's backpacked for many miles with a Canon R6, EF-to-RF adapter, and the Canon 70-200 f/4L IS II (total weight of ~3.5lbs) all hanging from a Peak Design Capture Clip on the shoulder ...

First impressions of the 40-150 f/4: I'm not crazy about the twist-to-deploy mechanism. And while build quality seems fine, it's noticeably a bit less solid/more "rattly" than the Pan 35-100 f/2.8 ...

Yeah, I guess that's exactly the rub. Most of my telephoto shots are shot outdoors during daylight hours, and are stopped down for sharp focus across the field. I rarely shoot the Pan 35-100 wide ...

To start, I already own the Pana 35-100 (Mark I) which I'm using on an E-M1Mk3. Along with the PL 8-18, this is my current "lightweight" backpacking system. I've been considering picking up the OM ...