-= Canon EOS R owners unite! Post photos and discuss.

It wasn't terrible! Official numbers for June were announced when we were there in mid-July and they said it was down 30% from "normal".. No foreigners to be found.

Scott M wrote in post #19107677
I am of a similar mind -- in my case, it's the R and the 7D2, plus a M50 for light weight travel. What I would really like is for Canon to introduce an RF equivalent to the EF 16-35mm F/4 IS so I do not need to use the EF to RF adapter for my wide angle shooting.

Ditto I think the hole in the RF lens lineup is that mid-priced zoom lens niche, the 70-200 f4 and the 16-35 f4. I have about given up on seeing an affordable wide angle zoom any time soon. Canon Rumors starts to leak those things months ahead of the announcement, then Canon actually announces they are introducing a new lens, and then more months later it gets released and starts shipping, and we aren't hearing a peep anywhere about those lenses. That RF 15-35 would be great, but it costs more than the camera did.

Never expected to see this guy during a visit to Central Park!

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/2j5X​BGF

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/2j5Z​9ga

patrick j wrote in post #19107877
Ditto I think the hole in the RF lens lineup is that mid-priced zoom lens niche, the 70-200 f4 and the 16-35 f4. I have about given up on seeing an affordable wide angle zoom any time soon. Canon Rumors starts to leak those things months ahead of the announcement, then Canon actually announces they are introducing a new lens, and then more months later it gets released and starts shipping, and we aren't hearing a peep anywhere about those lenses. That RF 15-35 would be great, but it costs more than the camera did.

Just a thought here . . .

If the converter is $200 with a control ring, and $100 without, wouldn't buying a converter for each lens and keeping it attached be an easy way to avoid multiple lens/converter swaps for glass changes?

Logic is that selling E mount glass (used) would bring a couple hundred dollar "loss" over what was paid anyway, so replacing it with an RF version would be much more expensive that just dedicating a converter for each current glass. This in no way is saying E glass and RF glass is equivalent in optical quality . . . that is another discussion.

Just thinking out loud here . . .

golfecho wrote in post #19107954
Just a thought here . . .

If the converter is $200 with a control ring, and $100 without, wouldn't buying a converter for each lens and keeping it attached be an easy way to avoid multiple lens/converter swaps for glass changes?

Logic is that selling E mount glass (used) would bring a couple hundred dollar "loss" over what was paid anyway, so replacing it with an RF version would be much more expensive that just dedicating a converter for each current glass. This in no way is saying E glass and RF glass is equivalent in optical quality . . . that is another discussion.

Just thinking out loud here . . .

If you are just swapping between EF lenses, leave the adapter on the body. Remove EF lens, put on different EF lens, no need to swap converter between lenses.

If swapping between RF and EF and several EF multiple converters may be easier. I'd go with the 3rd party ones to save money though.

golfecho wrote in post #19107954
Just a thought here . . .

If the converter is $200 with a control ring, and $100 without, wouldn't buying a converter for each lens and keeping it attached be an easy way to avoid multiple lens/converter swaps for glass changes?

Logic is that selling E mount glass (used) would bring a couple hundred dollar "loss" over what was paid anyway, so replacing it with an RF version would be much more expensive that just dedicating a converter for each current glass. This in no way is saying E glass and RF glass is equivalent in optical quality . . . that is another discussion.

Just thinking out loud here . . .

I buy one control ring adapter per body and the adapters stay on the bodies. The only RF lens I own right now is the RF 35mm and that's the only time I ever need to remove the adapter.

Scott M wrote in post #19107677
I am of a similar mind -- in my case, it's the R and the 7D2, plus a M50 for light weight travel. What I would really like is for Canon to introduce an RF equivalent to the EF 16-35mm F/4 IS so I do not need to use the EF to RF adapter for my wide angle shooting.

Definitely waiting for a RF 15-35 f/4 to replace the 17-40, which I bought as an inexpensive stop-gap until then.

LoneRider wrote in post #19107980
If you are just swapping between EF lenses, leave the adapter on the body. Remove EF lens, put on different EF lens, no need to swap converter between lenses.

If swapping between RF and EF and several EF multiple converters may be easier. I'd go with the 3rd party ones to save money though.

And when you throw a DSLR into the mix it is a pain but an extra adapter won't totally take care of that. But it prevents fumbling with the lens that has the converter and swapping it to the other EF lens and finding the right caps.

This isn't the best shot, but geez, I can shoot with a Big Stopper and see through the viewfinder and even AUTOFOCUS while I'm doing it! That's an amazing thing, to me. This is the smaller of the two adjacent falls at Lundbreck, Alberta.

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/2jvN​F7R

Here is the scene just up from the falls, again, the Crowsnest River with a Big Stopper:

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/2jvM​GaP

golfecho wrote in post #19107954
Just a thought here . . .

If the converter is $200 with a control ring, and $100 without, wouldn't buying a converter for each lens and keeping it attached be an easy way to avoid multiple lens/converter swaps for glass changes?

Logic is that selling E mount glass (used) would bring a couple hundred dollar "loss" over what was paid anyway, so replacing it with an RF version would be much more expensive that just dedicating a converter for each current glass. This in no way is saying E glass and RF glass is equivalent in optical quality . . . that is another discussion.

Just thinking out loud here . . .

From a purely cost perspective, this certainly is a practical approach. However, I am also concerned about lens size, and adding an adapter actually makes the EF 16-35L f/4 larger than the RF 24-105L. My travel camera back pack is quite full when I take my entire travel kit -- two bodies, 16-35 f/4, 24-105 f/4, 100-400L II, RF 35mm f/1.8 (previously a 40mm f/2.8 pancake). By switching from a 5D3 to a EOS R, I am hoping to gain a little bit of space and weight savings in the bag, along with the other benefits of upgrading from the 5D3 to the R. With my current setup, the only lens in the travel kit that needs the adapter is the 16-35, as I use it, the RF 24-105L and RF 35 f/1.8 on the EOS R and the 100-400L II on a 7D2.

golfecho wrote in post #19107954
Just a thought here . . .

If the converter is $200 with a control ring, and $100 without, wouldn't buying a converter for each lens and keeping it attached be an easy way to avoid multiple lens/converter swaps for glass changes?

Logic is that selling E mount glass (used) would bring a couple hundred dollar "loss" over what was paid anyway, so replacing it with an RF version would be much more expensive that just dedicating a converter for each current glass. This in no way is saying E glass and RF glass is equivalent in optical quality . . . that is another discussion.

Just thinking out loud here . . .

Swapping the lenses out isn't that much of a chore, I only switch between 2. But the optics of the RF lenses are so good (I only have the kit lens to go by, but it's great) I'd like to be able to get an affordable wide angle RF version. Plus that control ring is nice. I am still waiting for that time when I leave an EF lens at home with the adapter on it and get out somewhere with the other one and can't use it...

Evidently I photographed a high altitude balloon...!?

Really tight cropped jpg because I had no idea what it was. Moved very slowly.

wxjef wrote in post #19108157
Evidently I photographed a high altitude balloon...!?

Really tight cropped jpg because I had no idea what it was. Moved very slowly.

Hosted photo: posted by wxjef in
./showthread.php?p=191​08157&i=i129252513
forum: Canon Digital Cameras

Hosted photo: posted by wxjef in
./showthread.php?p=191​08157&i=i216283634
forum: Canon Digital Cameras

Alien!

C Scott IV wrote in post #19108469
Alien!

They where like, nope!

lol