-= Canon EOS R6 owners unite! Post photos and discuss.

basketballfreak6 wrote in post #19548754
Yes and no. AF is better in the sense that you have a bit more options and control and I think from my limited shoots dark current noise is less compared to the original R6. I actually like the colour better on the original R6 though. Definitely more of a refinement.

I only upgraded because my mate at the camera store gave me a great trade in price, camera was on sale and there was cash back going on haha.

I thought about upgrading from my R6 to the R6 II, but decided against it. Now if the next R6 version (R6 III or IV) would have a 28-30MP sensor, then I would upgrade. As the R6 is now, I am quite happy with it.

About RF lenses versus EF lenses for the R6, I am having a difficult time deciding the pros and cons of these two lenses, the RF 15-35mm f/2.8, and the EF 16-35mm f/2.8 L USM III. According to some reviews I have read, the front lens element of the RF rotates, but not the case with the EF lens. The RF has IS, and the EF does not, but...
https://versus.com …-rf-15-35mm-f-2-8l-is-usm

RayinAlaska wrote in post #19549067
I thought about upgrading from my R6 to the R6 II, but decided against it. Now if the next R6 version (R6 III or IV) would have a 28-30MP sensor, then I would upgrade. As the R6 is now, I am quite happy with it.

About RF lenses versus EF lenses for the R6, I am having a difficult time deciding the pros and cons of these two lenses, the RF 15-35mm f/2.8, and the EF 16-35mm f/2.8 L USM III. According to some reviews I have read, the front lens element of the RF rotates, but not the case with the EF lens. The RF has IS, and the EF does not, but...
https://versus.com …-rf-15-35mm-f-2-8l-is-usm

Yea I think for the mass majority going from OG R6 to the Mark II is not really worth it unless it's like my case where everything aligned in terms of sale/trade in/cash back as it's more refinements than "must have" features. Though I will say it's cool that you have the option now to use eye detect while using whatever AF mode you want which allows for more control (though you still do have some control in R6 pending on how you setup your AF even in the full auto mode). But the (what I perceived as and unexpected) better dark current noise performance is great for someone like me that shoots astrophotography.

IIRC the RF version is on par with the EF optically correct? If I had to choose I'd take the RF for that one extra mm as it does make a difference also for being native (not for performance but rather just not needing the adapter). Myself ended up getting the RF 14-35 f/4 though because my UWA zooms are used stopped down 99% of the time (for landscapes) and that 14mm is more useful to me and I prefer faster than f/2.8 for astro use not to mention the ridiculously heavy vignette (like 6 stops I remember?) wide open makes it a non-starter for me for astro use anyway.

R6 100-400 II from my deck.

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/2oUE​23u

2cruise wrote in post #19549193
R6 100-400 II from my deck.

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/2oUE​23u Our Resident Hawk by Clyde Cornett

Beautiful image Clyde!

Dave63401 wrote in post #19549203
Beautiful image Clyde!

Thank you!

basketballfreak6 wrote in post #19549124
Yea I think for the mass majority going from OG R6 to the Mark II is not really worth it unless it's like my case where everything aligned in terms of sale/trade in/cash back as it's more refinements than "must have" features. Though I will say it's cool that you have the option now to use eye detect while using whatever AF mode you want which allows for more control (though you still do have some control in R6 pending on how you setup your AF even in the full auto mode). But the (what I perceived as and unexpected) better dark current noise performance is great for someone like me that shoots astrophotography.

IIRC the RF version is on par with the EF optically correct? If I had to choose I'd take the RF for that one extra mm as it does make a difference also for being native (not for performance but rather just not needing the adapter). Myself ended up getting the RF 14-35 f/4 though because my UWA zooms are used stopped down 99% of the time (for landscapes) and that 14mm is more useful to me and I prefer faster than f/2.8 for astro use not to mention the ridiculously heavy vignette (like 6 stops I remember?) wide open makes it a non-starter for me for astro use anyway.

For taking photos of the Auroras I have been using a Tokina 16-28 (Canon EF mount for FF sensors), and the most useful has been 16mm over f/2.8, from 4 to 5-second exposures at 1,200 ISO (or so). The RF 16mm f/2.8 would be very useful to me, except that it does not have a full M/AF switch on the barrel. The fact is that any 15mm to 16mm f/1.4 lens would be even better. No idea why Canon decided against a M/AF switch on some of the RF lenses. For taking photos of the auroras I don't like to waste time in the menu switching the lens to manual focus. And yes, I will probably buy the RF 15-35mm f/2.8.

RayinAlaska wrote in post #19549445
For taking photos of the Auroras I have been using a Tokina 16-28 (Canon EF mount for FF sensors), and the most useful has been 16mm over f/2.8, from 4 to 5-second exposures at 1,200 ISO (or so). The RF 16mm f/2.8 would be very useful to me, except that it does not have a full M/AF switch on the barrel. The fact is that any 15mm to 16mm f/1.4 lens would be even better. No idea why Canon decided against a M/AF switch on some of the RF lenses. For taking photos of the auroras I don't like to waste time in the menu switching the lens to manual focus.

Yea for sure some odd design choices with their RF lenses, but then I guess that's how Canon upsales you to the more expensive lens.

I am currently adapting the Sigma 14mm f/1.8 as my ultra wide astro lens...though I will say the RF 28-70mm wide open at 28mm surprised me in a very good way.

Sigma RF can't come soon enough; I've been drooling over that 14mm f/1.4 lol...

2cruise wrote in post #19548669

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/2oTc​rkw Headed for the sunset shots by Clyde Cornett

Great photo of a very happy couple.

WoodturnerJohn wrote in post #19549530
Great photo of a very happy couple.

Thank you!

basketballfreak6 wrote in post #19549463
Yea for sure some odd design choices with their RF lenses, but then I guess that's how Canon upsales you to the more expensive lens.

I am currently adapting the Sigma 14mm f/1.8 as my ultra wide astro lens...though I will say the RF 28-70mm wide open at 28mm surprised me in a very good way.

Sigma RF can't come soon enough; I've been drooling over that 14mm f/1.4 lol...

Agree about the "Sigma wish." I would buy any Sigma or Tokina f/1.4 to f/1.8 prime wide angle in these focal lengths: 15mm, and 16mm. F/2.8 is "barely" OK. For photographing the Auroras I would prefer to keep the ISO around 800/4-second exposure.

Having fun with the RF 100-500, but I just noticed a day ago that the front lens element seems to have a small scratch. I have no idea how and when this scratch was created, since the only thing I do is to dust the glass using a very soft lens brush that has a bulb one can use to blow air over the lens. The scratch doesn't seem to interfere. Still, I will have the lens repaired after the summer.

Trient, Switzerland

Photo from Tounis's gallery.

RayinAlaska wrote in post #19550169
Having fun with the RF 100-500, but I just noticed a day ago that the front lens element seems to have a small scratch. I have no idea how and when this scratch was created, since the only thing I do is to dust the glass using a very soft lens brush that has a bulb one can use to blow air over the lens. The scratch doesn't seem to interfere. Still, I will have the lens repaired after the summer.

Are you sure it's really a scratch? Brushes can leave fine oil lines on a lens if you've touched the brush with bare fingers. Also I've occasionally left a mark on a front element while fumbling with the lens cap and assumed it was a scratch, only to see it vanish with a gentle wet clean (pecpads and ROR).

GammyKnee wrote in post #19550405
Are you sure it's really a scratch? Brushes can leave fine oil lines on a lens if you've touched the brush with bare fingers. Also I've occasionally left a mark on a front element while fumbling with the lens cap and assumed it was a scratch, only to see it vanish with a gentle wet clean (pecpads and ROR).

I dusted and wet-wiped the lens, and it seems to be a very narrow scratch on the lens coating. I used a camera sensor's loupe (SensoMag). I will probably leave it like it is, but I wonder if the lens coating can keep-up with the expansion and contraction of the glass when shooting under very cold ambient temperatures? I have used this lens to take photos of the local sled dog races in Alaska with ambient temperatures between -20 and -30 degrees F. After I gently and thoroughly wiped the lens, it seems that the scratch became narrower.