garyvot wrote:
For those who have shot with the EOS R1 and R3: which do you prefer ergonomically?
I do rather like the more compact size of the R3 vs. the 1DX Mark IIs I used to use. The R1 seems to be a bit larger, and I am wondering if that is a detriment or a not?
Other than size, are there any control point differences of note?
I own an R3, and when I rented the R1 and R5II to decide which one to get, I was tempted by the R1's functionality, but I felt that the R3 was still the most comfortable camera for my small hands. I ended up purchasing the R5II, because even though it's less comfortable, especially for shooting in portrait orientation, I decided it provided most of the functionality of the R1 plus a 45 megapixel sensor that neither the R3 or R1 had. I concluded it was the ideal companion for my R3, and it's now my primary camera.
Hoagie058 wrote:
Anyone else bothered by the fact that we can’t get a Sigma 200 F2 for RF? How about the 135 1.4?
I like Canon’s usability but this type of thing makes me rethink my switch from Sony to Canon 18 months ago.
I’m not generally bothered by this too much, since I can get just about any type of lens I need for my photography from Canon.
There are various reasons why a company might not share its mount with third party manufacturers. Certainly the fact that most of us probably invest more in lenses than in cameras over time isn’t missed by Canon, and they have not traditionally felt a big need to encourage owners to spend their money on third party products instead of their own.
As long as Canon is/was the biggest fish in the pond, this was probably OK. But the market is changing and I think we’ll soon hit a point where restricting third-party options won’t work, leaving Canon in a difficult spot.
One issue is that Canon’s biggest competitor, Sony, does allow third-party lenses. From what I understand, not all products work perfectly (there are performance issues when using some third party lenses) but overall there’s a thriving ecosystem of third-party lenses in Sony-land. That gives Sony a competitive edge over Canon in some ways.
Another issue seems to be the speed with which the Chinese lens manufacturers are expanding and upping their game. At first it seemed like the appeal from most of them was simply their absurdly low prices, though the lenses had various functional issues: quality concerns, manual only, etc. But more recently it seems that the quality of manufacture, the feature set, and the integration of these lenses is improving greatly… while the prices remain way below those of the camera manufacturers’ lenses.
If this continues — and it almost certainly will — we’ll soon likely see a market full of truly high quality third-party lenses at low prices, lenses equaling the performance of the expensive brand name products.
That’s going to be a problem for Canon. For a while they can ride on the reputation of the cameras and many buyers will continue to shell out for the expensive Canon lenses. But that market is going to start slipping away, and Canon is going to have some real challenges, I think.
Pixelpuffin wrote:
Can I ask what your views are on the 180 macro please? I have the 100Lis which on crop gives 160mm equivalent. However I hear the 180 highly regarded… Can I ask your views please??
Sorry for detailing the thread
Sorry for the late reply. I incorrectly embedded a link to a photo but FM blocked the post. My copy of the 180mm L macro developed focus ring slipping, which required service by Canon. After that I always stored it vertically, never on its side. Although I loved the way the lens rendered, especially out of focus transitions, I found the mechanical focus to not be fine enough. A lot of my photos were just slightly off. Below is on that hit, taken in 2006.
As for adapting to Sony, only the Metabones adapter worked. Focus magnification can really help. I think the Sony wireless remote focus buttons worked with the Metabones adapter for finer focus control.
Canon (as of this writing) states "Advanced USM for high-speed, quiet AF" on their website description of this lens. The person who wrote this never used this lens. There are few (if any) Canon lenses that focus slower than this one. Though it has Ring USM (Ultrasonic Motor) and focuses quietly, the 180 L' AF is anything but high speed. Fast AF is generally not important for a macro lens being used for macro purposes (MF is frequently used), but this lens can easily be used as a normal 180mm telephoto lens. And for this purpose, fast AF could be useful. A focus limiter switch enables the minimum focus distance to be restricted to 1.5m or full range (.48m to infinity). You will likely want to use this switch if your subject is not close. As slow as AF is on this lens, it seldom bothers me during use.
Af used to be not necessarily too accurate and mf in the ovf generally difficult. Not to mention if you move even a little between the time you focused and the shutter going off youre oof. I used to want an focus limiter on the 180 Tamron until one lens had a focus limiter and i didn't like it, really
stanj wrote:
I still have both although the R3 is now officially my son's, as life goes. To be honest I can't tell a real difference ergonomically at all, switching from one to the other felt completely intuitive and not an issue at all. Yes The R1 is a bit bigger but not in a way that I would think about after a few seconds.
From a usage perspective, the only thing I notice all the time is the two stage AF-ON button. It is helpful, and I'm pretty sure I'm not using it to the max.
I agree with Stanj. I've owned and sold the R3 after buying the R5II and R1. I've got large hands and they all work great for me. I prefer the larger pro body feel because I spent years with the 1D series and my hand size. But R1 vs. R3 there is no deal breaker in terms of size and handling.
IlyaSnopchenko wrote:
Re: the Canon 180mm L macro, from Bryan at TDP:
Canon (as of this writing) states "Advanced USM for high-speed, quiet AF" on their website description of this lens. The person who wrote this never used this lens. There are few (if any) Canon lenses that focus slower than this one. Though it has Ring USM (Ultrasonic Motor) and focuses quietly, the 180 L' AF is anything but high speed. Fast AF is generally not important for a macro lens being used for macro purposes (MF is frequently used), but this lens can easily be used as a normal 180mm telephoto lens. And for this purpose, fast AF could be useful. A focus limiter switch enables the minimum focus distance to be restricted to 1.5m or full range (.48m to infinity). You will likely want to use this switch if your subject is not close. As slow as AF is on this lens, it seldom bothers me during use....Show more →
That's fair. This isn't a birding or basketball lens. This is a macro. Works wonderfully with small flora and fauna. I often use it with focus peaking on a SmallHD or similar. If you want something for basketball get a 200/2-ish. I have the Canon EF. Although for the price the Venus Optics 200mm f/2 AF FF Telephoto Prime Lens (Canon EF) with an EF-to-RF adaptor interests me. All reports indicate it is compact and works well for that type of task. I can't vouch for it but $1799 it may be worth a look versus buying the Canon EF 200/2. But that's an entirely different type of lens that just happens to overlap with the focal length and not the purpose and design. The 180/L is heads and shoulders above the 100. Although an RF update with better auto-focus?
AmbientMike wrote:
I much prefer having af on a macro lens.
Af used to be not necessarily too accurate and mf in the ovf generally difficult. Not to mention if you move even a little between the time you focused and the shutter going off youre oof. I used to want an focus limiter on the 180 Tamron until one lens had a focus limiter and i didn't like it, really
That's the nature of macro. You gotta use quality support, macro lighting, focus peaking and remote shutter triggers.
wzok wrote:
Sorry for the late reply. I incorrectly embedded a link to a photo but FM blocked the post. My copy of the 180mm L macro developed focus ring slipping, which required service by Canon. After that I always stored it vertically, never on its side. Although I loved the way the lens rendered, especially out of focus transitions, I found the mechanical focus to not be fine enough. A lot of my photos were just slightly off. Below is on that hit, taken in 2006.
As for adapting to Sony, only the Metabones adapter worked. Focus magnification can really help. I think the Sony wireless remote focus buttons worked with the Metabones adapter for finer focus control.
vbnut wrote:
I own an R3, and when I rented the R1 and R5II to decide which one to get, I was tempted by the R1's functionality, but I felt that the R3 was still the most comfortable camera for my small hands. I ended up purchasing the R5II, because even though it's less comfortable, especially for shooting in portrait orientation, I decided it provided most of the functionality of the R1 plus a 45 megapixel sensor that neither the R3 or R1 had. I concluded it was the ideal companion for my R3, and it's now my primary camera.
The R1 and R5II uppped the game for sure. Can't wait for the R3II to disrupt the system. Something new is brewing.
wzok wrote:
One of my grips also. The last Canon EF lens I let go was the 180mm macro. However, the new Sony 100mm macro with 1.4x or 2x converter changes that.
I used to use Tamron 90/2.8 1:1 Adaptall-2 and a 2x Vivitar macro before upgrading (also used it on m4/3 later.) Of course on the older tc's youre supposed to stop down 2 stops for best performance, leaving me at f/11, although not a deal breaker for macro.
Had a 1.4 pretty much permanently on the 180 Tamron, could use it especially sans tc <5.6 too. You'd probably have to stop down the 2x on the 100, I'd guess, for really top performance, you could get good performance even on the older tc's though but you needed 2 stops down for best performance. And the 100+ 2x is 5.6 wide open, seems pretty heavy at 1.4 lbs
netexpress wrote:
That's the nature of macro. You gotta use quality support, macro lighting, focus peaking and remote shutter triggers.
Usually used 180 hh, ambient light, although I've used flash a lot of the time, especially recently. You have to take a lot if extra photos to be sure to get one in focus, though, imo, and I keep ss up. 180 Tamron best in center f/4 anyway so that helps, really better to stop down most of the time, though
AmbientMike wrote:
Usually used 180 hh, ambient light, although I've used flash a lot of the time, especially recently. You have to take a lot if extra photos to be sure to get one in focus, though, imo, and I keep ss up. 180 Tamron best in center f/4 anyway so that helps, really better to stop down most of the time, though
Tamron is fantastic!
My next adventure is to use Helicon Focus for macro focus stacking. That should be fun!
netexpress wrote:
The Canon EF 180mm f/3.5L Macro USM is one of their finest. If you can find one buy it while they are still cheap and few realize how incredible it is.
Thanks have not thought about that lens , just had a look , see what you mean they are reasonably priced second hand
I sold the R3 to get the R5ii, it’s added megapixels and improved af. That said, it’s much noisier at the high ISO’s that I work at when shooting figure skating under spotlights, or Friday night football. I love it other than that, but man, that R3 sure has a nicer output under those circumstances.
In case you wonder, I really don’t want to pony up for both and have an R8 for backup right now. 😊
vbnut wrote:
I own an R3, and when I rented the R1 and R5II to decide which one to get, I was tempted by the R1's functionality, but I felt that the R3 was still the most comfortable camera for my small hands. I ended up purchasing the R5II, because even though it's less comfortable, especially for shooting in portrait orientation, I decided it provided most of the functionality of the R1 plus a 45 megapixel sensor that neither the R3 or R1 had. I concluded it was the ideal companion for my R3, and it's now my primary camera.
