fredmiranda.com

Moderated by: Fred Miranda

New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site

New Feature: SMS Notification alert

New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist

FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

end

Frustration that canon�.

Sy Sez
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #1 · Frustration that canon�.

Pixelpuffin wrote:
Seems to be a lot of hate here towards me for raising issues with canon.

.

It's not about hate.
it's more about boredom with someone who obsessively whines and complains about thigs that are either irrelevant, or that nothing can be done about, seeking others to feel sorry for you, or mimic you're whining.

If you're dissatisfied with something, replace with something more favorable.

No one on a forum can do that for you!

Mar 24, 2026 at 08:37 AM

Steve Spencer
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #2 · Frustration that canon�.

Pixelpuffin wrote:
Seems to be a lot of hate here towards me for raising issues with canon.

Says more about you fellas

I have the sigma 1.4 trio in ef-m
It�s ok, but they�re big and bulky

The ef-m 22/2 and 32/1.4 are superb
They were built to cover aps-c sensor on mirrorless bodies. I don�t understand why those two lenses cannot be produced for rf-s mount??
I�ve not actually researched this, but am I right thinking every single ef-s lens has a plastic mount??

I�ve bought a used 14-30 for the R100 for a upcoming trip to Paris next month
But I might instead take the M50ii...Show more →

Sigma now has five f/1.4 primes and not a trio (12, 15, 23, 30, & 56). They are a little big, but not really for the aperture. Fuji APS-C f/1.4 primes are if anything bigger and Viltrox f/1.2 APS-C primes are a lot bigger. You aren't going to get f/1.4 primes that are much smaller.

Now if you want f/1.8, f/2, or f/2.8 primes they can be quite small. Canon does offer a quite decent trio of pretty tiny primes. The RF 16 f/2,8, 28 f/2.8, and 50 f/1.8 are quite small and pretty capable and cheap even if they are FF lenses. Those are great options if you want really small. And the 24 and 35 f/1.8 Macro IS lenses are pretty small too and make really good options on APS-C cameras.

Between Sigma APS-C and Canon FF lenses, I don't see a lot missing. Yes, the 22 f/2 on EF-M was nice, but I don't think it is that much different from the 24 f/1.8 IS macro that is now available. And although the 32 f/1.4 was quite nice for EF-M, the Sigma 30 f/1.4 is in my view very similar.

I don't think the lens availability has gotten worse on RF-s, it is simply that more of the availability has moved to Sigma and FF Canon lenses.

Mar 24, 2026 at 09:05 AM

garyvot
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #3 · Frustration that canon�.

Pixelpuffin wrote:
I�ve not actually researched this, but am I right thinking every single ef-s lens has a plastic mount??

No, only a handful of the least expensive models: chiefly the kit lenses, the 10-18, and the various 55-250 models. Most others had metal mounts, just like most full frame EF lenses.

Mar 24, 2026 at 11:27 AM

tsangc
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #4 · Frustration that canon�.

I guess you'd have to ask yourself the questions:

a) Do you want small RF-s primes because then the whole camera package is smaller?

and

b) Do you want small RF-s primes because they might be cheaper?

The problem with question a) is that on a whole, the RF crop bodies are not as small as the M series cameras. So while you could make some of the EF-m series lenses again, the bodies like R10/R50 seem 20% bigger than say the M50. So you're already at a disadvantage.

With question b), none of the EF-m series lenses were ever that inexpensive.

What instead you have right now is a choice of expensive RF L primes or cheap RF consumer primes. The RF consumer primes (plus the aforementioned Sigma RF-s primes) at least answer requirement b). I don't know if anything from Canon will ever satisfy requirement a) given the relative size of the RF lens mount.

Mar 24, 2026 at 03:41 PM

melcat
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #5 · Frustration that canon�.

Pixelpuffin wrote:
I�ve bought a used 14-30 for the R100 for a upcoming trip to Paris next month
But I might instead take the M50ii with 15-45

It�s generally considered a bad idea to buy new gear to take on a trip just before you go. Reasons are unfamiliarity, the elevated risk of failure, and general cost. If I were to go on a similar trip next month, say to Sydney, I�d take my 10 year old compact camera. (It�s a Sony RX1 that cost a lot a the time, but as the saying goes �pay once, cry once�. The AF sucks by modern standards, but I�m fine with that, the aim is to enjoy the trip rather than stressing out about gear or spending excess time figuring out how it works while losing the shot.)

I seem to remember you buying new gear and dithering about whether to take older gear instead before another trip, to Prague I think. Has it become a kind of Japanese tea ceremony with you, with the gear acquisition phase of a trip part of a travel routine? Now many of us have fallen into that trap a bit (in my case, to get the weight down) but most of us are reformed.

Mar 24, 2026 at 08:49 PM

EB-1
Online
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #6 · Frustration that canon�.

I've often purchased or received rental equipment a day or two before using it. Years ago I received a brand new Canon cropper DSLR at lunchtime, took a half dozen images to confirm it worked, threw it in the luggage, and left the continent that evening. You can do it with a bit of planning.

EBH

Mar 24, 2026 at 09:46 PM

Pixelpuffin
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #7 · Frustration that canon�.

melcat wrote:
It�s generally considered a bad idea to buy new gear to take on a trip just before you go. Reasons are unfamiliarity, the elevated risk of failure, and general cost. If I were to go on a similar trip next month, say to Sydney, I�d take my 10 year old compact camera. (It�s a Sony RX1 that cost a lot a the time, but as the saying goes �pay once, cry once�. The AF sucks by modern standards, but I�m fine with that, the aim is to enjoy the trip rather than stressing out about gear or spending excess time...Show more →

Japanese tea ceremony� 🤣

It probably has 🫣

I�ve said before I never intended to amass so much
Buying is really easy and fun when buying used
The hard part is selling (been scammed pretty badly in past ) so I tend to just put the stuff in storage. But as we all know with adapters everything within the canon eco system is interchangeable, so I often try various configurations

So your Japanese quip is apt 🤣👍🏻

On a side note
should my luck ever change �say lotto win�
I�d hire a huge dumpster and physically destroy everything I own out of sheer spite towards scammers and free loaders�.even selling to retail you are offered peanuts they then sell on for a profit. I hate lining peoples pockets.. hate it. So I don�t
Yet I�ve gifted close friends photo gear for free as I know they are genuinely not in a position to buy. But the scammers and flippers can go to hell. I�ll happily sooner destroy than line their pockets.

This is why I�ve amassed so much - because I won�t let go

It�s crap, but it�s the way society has made me

Hope that explains things.

Back to topic
I just don�t understand canons love affair with such slow lenses and cheap plastic mounts. It�s such a raw deal constantly being forced to use high iso and the real risk of snapping a corner off those plastic mounts�. Hence why I buy used, because it�s cheap junk not worth the exorbitant retail price.

Mar 25, 2026 at 12:17 AM

tsangc
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #8 · Frustration that canon�.

EB-1 wrote:
I've often purchased or received rental equipment a day or two before using it. Years ago I received a brand new Canon cropper DSLR at lunchtime, took a half dozen images to confirm it worked, threw it in the luggage, and left the continent that evening. You can do it with a bit of planning.

Same here. Sometimes it's fun to try a new piece of equipment on a trip. Last year I bought a new to me EF24-105mm f4L IS v1 the week before travelling abroad.

Mar 25, 2026 at 12:51 AM

Imagemaster
Online
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #9 · Frustration that canon�.

Pixelpuffin wrote:
I just don�t understand canons love affair with such slow lenses and cheap plastic mounts. It�s such a raw deal constantly being forced to use high iso and the real risk of snapping a corner off those plastic mounts�. Hence why I buy used, because it�s cheap junk not worth the exorbitant retail price.

Maybe take a course in Economics. Just like all other companies, Canon is in business to make money. Guess what? Consumers are buying their slow lenses with cheap plastic mounts. They do so freely with no pressure from Canon. That is basic business logic by Canon, not some conspiracy.

Here you are doing the same thing and bitching about it being Canon's fault when it is your own fault.

And guess what else? Most people buy their Canon gear knowing what it is and what they want. Too bad you can't do the same.

Mar 25, 2026 at 01:06 AM

Pixelpuffin
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #10 · Frustration that canon�.

Imagemaster wrote:
Maybe take a course in Economics. Just like all other companies, Canon is in business to make money. Guess what? Consumers are buying their slow lenses with cheap plastic mounts. They do so freely with no pressure from Canon. That is basic business logic by Canon, not some conspiracy.

Here you are doing the same thing and bitching about it being Canon's fault when it is your own fault.

And guess what else? Most people buy their Canon gear knowing what it is and what they want. Too bad you can't do the same.

You come across as such a nasty person
Guessing you�re old??

Mar 25, 2026 at 01:55 AM

EB-1
Online
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #11 · Frustration that canon�.

tsangc wrote:
Same here. Sometimes it's fun to try a new piece of equipment on a trip. Last year I bought a new to me EF24-105mm f4L IS v1 the week before travelling abroad.

Unfortunately that's one of the worst lenses I have in EF mount. My first copy was recalled (and IIRC destroyed) due to the manufacturing defect and the second one is not so sharp, has CA, and is especially bad at 24mm. In 2005 it was pretty cool to have IS as compared to the 24-70/2.8 that did not have it. Hopefully yours was not too bad and stopped down adequate on the low-res bodies of the era.

EBH

Mar 25, 2026 at 04:53 AM

TomSchriefer
Online
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #12 · Frustration that canon�.

---------------------------------------------

Pixelpuffin wrote:
You come across as such a nasty person
Guessing you�re old??

I went to digital in 2008 when my last film camera (Yashica FX-3 S2K) died. After much wailing and gnashing of teeth, I went with Canon. I also considered Pentax and Nikon. At that time, Canon had - hands down - the best glass in mass production for attainable prices. (For reference, I was coming from mostly Contax C/Y mount glass.) That got me into Canon. So far, I remain happy with that decision. Once that lens environment was chosen, I had to select a body that suited my needs. Since I was coming from all-manual-don't-even-need-a-battery film cameras, I found the huge array available quite astounding. No, fascinating. Initially, I shopped in the used market because all of digital photography was new to me. The 450D would do amazing things my FX-3 never dreamed of! What could all these other bodies do? For a few years, I bought (used) almost every camera Canon made. i.e.: 450D, 500D, T4i, 50D, 60D, 70D (Canon's greatest blunder), 80D, 90D (current body) 1D, 1D2, 1D3, 1D4, 5D, 5D2, 6D, 6D2. Favorites? 90D and 1D4. Throughout the entire process (over 12 or so years), I came to appreciate the variety of features available on various Canon bodies. The 1D4 was a do-everything behemoth, built like a tank. The XSi was a down-scale, entry level camera with minimal controls. The point? Both gave me the opportunity to make very nice photos. I have never considered any Canon body 'cheap junk'. To coin a politically correct phrase, they were 'differently featured'. Buying used afforded me the opportunity to play with everything Canon had to offer. If I thought Canon was 'cheap junk', I would take my money elsewhere. I remain a Canon user.

For what it is worth, perhaps a year ago, I bought a used R10, found it 'not for me', and sold it. Canon re-enticed me to R-land with a refurbished R100 + 18-45 + 55-210 for $400 in December. After using for a bit, I decided it was a bit downscale for my tastes. Yesterday I took delivery of another R10. It is nice to have options.

PP, you may be onto something there. I am old(er), 69. And nasty.

Mar 25, 2026 at 05:14 AM

Steve Spencer
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #13 · Frustration that canon�.

Pixelpuffin wrote:
Japanese tea ceremony� 🤣

It probably has 🫣

I�ve said before I never intended to amass so much
Buying is really easy and fun when buying used
The hard part is selling (been scammed pretty badly in past ) so I tend to just put the stuff in storage. But as we all know with adapters everything within the canon eco system is interchangeable, so I often try various configurations

So your Japanese quip is apt 🤣👍🏻

On a side note
should my luck ever change �say lotto win�
I�d hire a huge dumpster and physically destroy everything I own out of sheer spite towards scammers...Show more →

It strikes me that you have made some pretty clear decisions. You like to buy lots of gear and you hold onto it and don't sell it. You typically aren't satisfied with the gear that you buy, yet you want Canon to offer even more gear that is different in some way that you can buy. You think that if you could buy that gear that doesn't yet exist that would break the cycle and you would be satisfied with the decisions you are making about your gear. Do I have that right?

Might I offer that the problem might not be what Canon offers, but rather how you are thinking about gear. You seem to be thinking that buying the next piece of gear will make you satisfied. If Canon only offered different APS-C gear with metal mounts and faster apertures you could buy it and be satisfied. Perhaps that is true, but I have my doubts. Society may well have made you to think that simply buying the right products will be what satisfies you, but you can make other choices and think about gear in different ways. You still have agency and can make new decisions about gear and recognize the way you are thinking about it and the patterns you have developed aren't bringing you satisfaction.

You might start by recognizing that all gear has it strengths and weaknesses and in some ways will help you accomplish some specific objectives, but in other ways will be frustrating. Then think about what objectives you want to accomplish that you aren't accomplishing now and try to map out a plan to obtain those objectives. So, let me simply ask what specific objectives do you want to obtain that your current gear is not allowing you to obtain? Perhaps we can help you think about how you can obtain those objectives. Keep in mind, however, that this is just gear and will be frustrating in at least a few ways and that is ok because gear probably doesn't satisfy broad important things that matter most. It is up to you to figure out what those broad important things are and how to pursue them, but that is outside the scope of talking about gear.

Mar 25, 2026 at 06:16 AM

chez
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #14 · Frustration that canon�.

Mar 25, 2026 at 08:11 AM

Imagemaster
Online
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #15 · Frustration that canon�.

Pixelpuffin wrote:
You come across as such a nasty person
Guessing you�re old??

Nasty because you don't want to hear logic. Yeah, older and wiser when it comes to photography gear from all major brands.

Check out all the gear I have bought and sold on this site in the last 20 years. Plus 100% feedback for a nasty guy.

https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/feedback/27146

PM me if you want to buy some capable photo gear. No, wait, I don't think you would be happy with any gear you would buy.

Mar 25, 2026 at 10:08 AM

tsangc
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #16 · Frustration that canon�.

EB-1 wrote:
Unfortunately that's one of the worst lenses I have in EF mount. My first copy was recalled (and IIRC destroyed) due to the manufacturing defect and the second one is not so sharp, has CA, and is especially bad at 24mm. In 2005 it was pretty cool to have IS as compared to the 24-70/2.8 that did not have it. Hopefully yours was not too bad and stopped down adequate on the low-res bodies of the era.

It's alright for me. I bought it with the understanding that it was a compromise but with an extremely useful focal length range. It only cost $350 Canadian, so about $250 US and it was in perfect shape. I wanted a lens that I wasn't going to worry about too much, but was slightly better than the kit I've been using the past ten years on crop--EF17-40mm f4L, 50 f1.8 and 100mm f2. Out went the big glass, in went baby formula and kid snacks.

It is indeed, like yours, soft on the edges at wide. It's reasonable at f8 attached to the lower resolution EOS RP. It makes for a pretty light walkaround lens, with the only complaint being the fact it creeps out when pointed downward.

On that trip, at the top of the Kiyomizu-dera temple hill in Kyoto in 39 degree heat...as I flopped onto park bench needing a rest, I saw a guy with an R5v2 and a RF24-105mm F2.8 L IS USM Z. I felt tired just looking at it--seemed a lot heavier than needed, especially given the summer sun you'd be stopped down anyways to f8 or beyond. I used to be that guy, except with two 5Ds and 24-70/70-200s.

I guess I'm trying the casual FF one lens approach until the day I'm back to travelling on my own with only photography in mind.

Mar 26, 2026 at 12:03 AM

mborozny
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #17 · Frustration that canon�.

I remember paying a lot more for that lens, which is part of the reason I still use it. You got a great buy! I totally hear you on a lighter kit. Even the EF 24-105 feels too heavy some days.

tsangc wrote:
It's alright for me. I bought it with the understanding that it was a compromisef but with an extremely useful focal length range. It only cost $350 Canadian, so about $250 US and it was in perfect shape. I wanted a lens that I wasn't going to worry about too much, but was slightly better than the kit I've been using the past ten years on crop--EF17-40mm f4L, 50 f1.8 and 100mm f2. Out went the big glass, in went baby formula and kid snacks.

It is indeed, like yours, soft on the edges at wide. It's reasonable at f8 attached...Show more →

Mar 26, 2026 at 10:33 AM

1 2 end
FM Forums \| Canon Forum \| Join Upload & Sell 1 2 end