Hi Guest!
Hey - did you know if you click on the title of a thread it will take you to the first unread post since you last visited that thread?
but were afraid to ask: 
STOP!! Never post your email address in open forums. Bots can "harvest" your email! If you must share your email use a Private Message or use the 
smilie in place of the real @
Pretty Please - add it to our Events forum(s) and add to the calendar! >> 
Share this page
Offline
Didn't expect to see a public welcome, but thank you.
Bought a new toy today. A Canon R6 MkII with a 24-105mm f4 lens. Still have a Canon 50D with several lenses. Usually taking pictures at British car events and the images sit and collect dust in my computer.
Bought a new toy today. A Canon R6 MkII with a 24-105mm f4 lens. Still have a Canon 50D with several lenses. Usually taking pictures at British car events and the images sit and collect dust in my computer.
OP
Offline
I was gonna take out an add in the New York Times, but I thought that might be a little over the top
OP
Offline
That is one heck of. nice camera! I actually had that sitting in my cart at B&H and was about to pull the trigger, when a lightly used R5 poped up on the B&H site. The price was a bit more than the R6 II, but not ridiculously so. I decidded to get the R5, but onlt for the added megapixles since I do a lot of agressive croping when I shoot birds in flight. Aside from the pixel count, the R6II is actually a better camera is many ways. That RF 24-105 is the same lens I got with my R5 as well. Do you plan to use any of your EF lenses with an adaptor?
Offline
Most of the time I used a 17-40mm lens on the 50D. So the 24-105 should cover that. A friend has offered me an adapter - he sold off his EF lenses.
OP
Offline
I got an adapter from a friend for half price of new one after he sold all his EF lenses. I’ve sold some of my EFs but there are a few I am keeping (for now at least).
I find the 24-105 to be a very good range for a lot of situations. If I only feel like taking one lens, it’s usually that one.
Offline
Bob, get the adaptor. Too many EF lenses that are sharp and bargains out there. The shot I posted earlier of a lizard was with a MF F-Mount Vivitar I've had since 1977, still viable glass. 
So far I've resisted the temptation to go to the expense of the Z-series Nikon but if I do, the existing glass both MF and AF F-mount will stay here. The adaptor will be the first buy with the body.
So far I've resisted the temptation to go to the expense of the Z-series Nikon but if I do, the existing glass both MF and AF F-mount will stay here. The adaptor will be the first buy with the body.
OP
Offline
I recently watched several review videos comparing the new RF 135mm f/1.8 ($2100) with the 35 year old EF 135 f/2 (which I own and bought used for under $700). The conclusion of most of these comparisons is that the new RF version is sharper than the old EF, but you really have to pixel peep to see the difference. The new RF has Lens IS, where the EF has no IS, but since my R5 has IBIS, this is not really an issue anyway.
The reviews all say that "chromatic aberration is more apparent on the older EF lens, but I have to say I don't see any issues at all with CA on my copy of the EF 135.
I just went into Lightroom and looked at several pictures with high contrast areas (RAW files) and turned "Correct Chromatic Aberration" setting on and off to see if I could detect any CA. To my amazement, I honestly could not find ANY CA in this lens on any of my images (and I really looked hard). If it's there, I could not detect it - and I was looking at areas of the images with high contrast where one would expect to see CA. Now, I don't now if it's just that I have an unusual copy of this EF 135 lens, but I can tell you that CA is absolutely not an issue for me with this lens. It's a keeper as far as I'm concerned. Would the RF 135 f/1.8 be "better"? Probably, but only marginally and not worth $2100 when I already have a fantastic lens for that focal length. If I were inclined to spend more money on another RF lens, it would probably be something like the 14-35 f/4 or the 15-35 f/2.8.
Here's a picture of my Granddaughter taken with the EF 135mm. I'm quite happy with the sharpness and the background blur at f2 is all I could ask for.
The reviews all say that "chromatic aberration is more apparent on the older EF lens, but I have to say I don't see any issues at all with CA on my copy of the EF 135.
I just went into Lightroom and looked at several pictures with high contrast areas (RAW files) and turned "Correct Chromatic Aberration" setting on and off to see if I could detect any CA. To my amazement, I honestly could not find ANY CA in this lens on any of my images (and I really looked hard). If it's there, I could not detect it - and I was looking at areas of the images with high contrast where one would expect to see CA. Now, I don't now if it's just that I have an unusual copy of this EF 135 lens, but I can tell you that CA is absolutely not an issue for me with this lens. It's a keeper as far as I'm concerned. Would the RF 135 f/1.8 be "better"? Probably, but only marginally and not worth $2100 when I already have a fantastic lens for that focal length. If I were inclined to spend more money on another RF lens, it would probably be something like the 14-35 f/4 or the 15-35 f/2.8.
Here's a picture of my Granddaughter taken with the EF 135mm. I'm quite happy with the sharpness and the background blur at f2 is all I could ask for.
Offline
That's where I was going with the "old glass" comments. Some (maybe not all) of the older ones are still viable alternatives to spending some long dollars for the "luxury" of AF & VR (IS). Particularly where fast primes are concerned. I'll admit to getting a 50mm ∱1.4 AF ED and a couple others, but won't give up the old AiS 50 ∱1.4 I've had for decades. The new ones don't have manual aperture control, needed with a slide copier and some other uses.
And "pixel peeping" on even your size-reduced image of the grandkid is case in point.
Offline
Not quite apples-to-apples, as the crop-sensor puts it at an equivalent of 450mm, compression will be the same and DoF too. This with the Soligor 135 ∱2.0 I recently disassembled and cleaned of fungus. Focus point is the windshield wipers. Wide open at 1/500 sec, ISO 800. DoF is TIGHT. Gonna put the camera on sticks 'n get a better shot.
