cs3is wrote:
Fall colours at late evening..
EF 100-400 II on R7
the ef100-400mk2 is an outstanding lens - my wife "stole" it from me and I am now considering if I want the Rf version.....
That said, the new RF lenses are great, but for most mortals, the upgrade reward might not be worth the cost. I will replace them when an EF breaks or disappears/get stollen/chupa-cabra-takes-a-bit-on-it.
Bacalhau wrote:
the ef100-400mk2 is an outstanding lens - my wife "stole" it from me and I am now considering if I want the Rf version.....
That said, the new RF lenses are great, but for most mortals, the upgrade reward might not be worth the cost. I will replace them when an EF breaks or disappears/get stollen/chupa-cabra-takes-a-bit-on-it.
Nice shots
The EF 100-400 II is my go-to lens for daytime field sports. It focuses fast and is sharp enough to withstand major cropping. When the RF 100-500 launched, I wanted it, but now I'd rather keep my 100-400 and add a 200-800 for other purposes. I'm sure the 100-500 is great, but I'm not sure it's better enough to justify the upgrade cost.
Mike_5D wrote:
The EF 100-400 II is my go-to lens for daytime field sports. It focuses fast and is sharp enough to withstand major cropping. When the RF 100-500 launched, I wanted it, but now I'd rather keep my 100-400 and add a 200-800 for other purposes. I'm sure the 100-500 is great, but I'm not sure it's better enough to justify the upgrade cost.
exactly....I have the 200-800 too, so it would quite the overlap, but the 100-400 has a better IQ; getting another 100-400 is not exactly my first choice either. I bought the rf 14-35 because the ef 16-35f4 also got kidnapped. otoh I could always grab the 70/200mm mk2(?) and with either the 1.4 or 2x extender get similar range, but is yet another item to carry. At this point I am actually contemplating getting the Oly 150-600 but the EM-1mk2 lacks a little bit in the AF side. I am going to have to rethink a lot my choices.
The only argument I have in favor of the RF100-500 is that pushes me a little further into the transition to RF lenses, which will never be a full take - I have the Otus lineup, and won't give or trade them away
Earlier I adapted my old EF 70-300L to my R8
It is the only lens I have bought new since the mid 90’s. I used it every weekend on crop bodies until I stepped up to full frame and added the mighty 100-400Lii. That’s 4-5yrs ago and my 70-300L hasn’t been touched since.
So today I decided to try it on the R8.. as predicted it worked flawlessly. The hood is too big and bulky for casual use so hoping to find another to chop down.. like I always do these days.
The 70-300L sure is compact after wrestling with the 100-400Lii.
Bacalhau wrote:
exactly....I have the 200-800 too, so it would quite the overlap, but the 100-400 has a better IQ; getting another 100-400 is not exactly my first choice either. I bought the rf 14-35 because the ef 16-35f4 also got kidnapped. otoh I could always grab the 70/200mm mk2(?) and with either the 1.4 or 2x extender get similar range, but is yet another item to carry. At this point I am actually contemplating getting the Oly 150-600 but the EM-1mk2 lacks a little bit in the AF side. I am going to have to rethink a lot my choices.
The only argument I have in favor of the RF100-500 is that pushes me a little further into the transition to RF lenses, which will never be a full take - I have the Otus lineup, and won't give or trade them away ...Show more →
The 100-500 with 1.4x TC is supposed to be as sharp as the 200-800 and almost as long, but the loss of 200-420 in that configuration is a turn-off. But in the week I rented a 200-800, 64% of my keepers were at 700mm+ and only 13% were under 400mm, most of which were probably over 400mm equivalent FOV when cropped. That's from an air show and two birding sessions.
I don't have tc's for the RF just the EFs.
In the end, the Ef100-400 is a keeper and I see no need to upgrade. Half my lenses are MF, so actually I benefit from the MIL system and using the RF with filter adapter. I have to get a better ND filter - the Canon branded is not that great. OTOH, I have now a box of CPL's and ND's that have been sitting since I got the R3 and the adapter.
People still using old FD lenses, so I expect the EF types to be around for a while too. If you want to sell, there is now a substantial loss...but if you willing to buy a receding system (EF) then most will be a bargain. For sure there is an economic/cost perspective on my stand - but if Canon would trade per equivalent new (ROTFLMAO) RF, I would still keep most EF mount lenses
Makeup Girl | I was at Ala Moana Center and happened upon a MAC Cosmetics expo with live models being painted by makeup artists. They were under a canopy with flat and rather dim lighting, so I used a little fill flash to help the colors pop and add a catchlight to the eyes. | Canon EOS 50D and EF-s 17-55 2.8 IS USM at F4.5, 1/60 and ISO 400
It sure looks like a 2D painting - did you use a filter in post processing?
Gochugogi wrote: Makeup Girl | I was at Ala Moana Center and happened upon a MAC Cosmetics expo with live models being painted by makeup artists. They were under a canopy with flat and rather dim lighting, so I used a little fill flash to help the colors pop and add a catchlight to the eyes. | Canon EOS 50D and EF-s 17-55 2.8 IS USM at F4.5, 1/60 and ISO 400
I had a clear B&W protection filter on the lens. That's it. The makeup artists were doing a body painting demonstration—so real paint. The backdrop was also painted with real paint. The models were painted so they blend into with the backdrop and appeared to be part of the background canvas.
The RAW file was converted to TIFF and I adjusted levels in PS. I used a Topaz plugin to sharpen the image after reducing it in size for web display.
Here's a little BTS showing the arm of the artist touching up one of the body paint models:
Nov 02, 2026 at 08:56 AM