The bogus 3rd party corrections have been an issue for many years. I always suggest turning off all of the corrections anyway one is better off seeing how the lens performs natively and of course shooting RAW since jpegs suck anyway.Meanwhile, back in the mundane world, the only thing I've bought recently is a Tamron 85/1.8 IS. At around $800 AU it's a mid-price lens, vastly cheaper than the Canon 85/1.4 IS and 85/1.2 and the Sigma 85/1.4 Art, quite a lot more than the ancient Canon and Nikon 85/1.8s.
More importantly, it is vastly smaller and lighter than the 1.4s and 1.2, though still a significantly bigger lump in your bag than the cheap 1.8s. It's built to high standard: all metal, none of that flimsy feel Tamrons used to have. In reality, I don't use an 85mm prime all that much: for me it's a nice little luxury. I can't justify spending $2000-odd on the only other one I seriously considered (Canon 1.4 IS) given that it won't get a ton of use, and even if you gave me one, I wouldn't cart it around with me 'coz it's just too big and heavy. The Tamron, though, is a sensible size and I don't mind slipping it into my shoulder bag if IO go for a walk with, say,j the 24-105 and/or the 16-35. So apart from being less than half the price, I'll actually use it much more often than a Sigma Art or an L Series Canon.
F/1.8 is fine for my purposes; I'd seldom if ever use f/1.4 (I reckon I've used f/1.4 on my Canon 35mm twice, ever) and the review sites all reckon the Tamron is optically very good. I'm not into test shots and pixel peeping; I just take pictures. Results are everything I expected, which is to say just fine.
One gotcha. It's really Canon's problem, but worth mentioning. If you have PIC (software vignette correction) switched on with a 5D IV, you get horrible dark rings on the picture, but only at wide apertures. Really obvious.
(Yes, the background is supposed to be out of focus. It's plenty sharp at the focus point)
It does this at all apertures below f/2.8, does it to a lesser extent at f/2.8, and is fine from f/3.3 on. It ONLY does it with the 5D IV (and possibly some other newish full frame models). It is fine with a 5D II. The workaround is simple: turn off off PIC. Or work from the raw file. Or use a different camera. Easy-peasy. No hu-hu.
Anyway, I'm happy with the lens, and it's perhaps worth mentioning that this is the first time I've ever bought a Tamron. I've been happy with my two or three Tokinas, but always regarded Tamron and Sigma as cheap and flimsy (Tamron) or cheap and buggy (Sigma) things, but those days seem to be passing.
The one thing I'm still missing is something around the 50mm mark. Nearly all the 50mm lenses are ancient, crappy, flawed, very heavy and expensive, or some combination of these things. I'd use a 50 even less than the 85, so expensive products need not apply. Tokina have an interesting 50/1.4 on the way (but as always with Tokina, a lot heavier than it looks - though I actually don't mind weight so much as bulk), otherwise, there is Tamron's sister to the 85, a 45/1.8 with IS at around $730. I'm not sure that I really need a 45 when I already have Canon 35/1.4 and 40/2.8, neither of which I use much, so I'm still thinking about it. Prefer a 50 really. The senjsible thing to do, of course, is nothing.
Updated to CR2. Well not exactly. Rumor is the first Canon RF super-tele lens will be an DO lens. Whether it's the RF 300mm f/2.8L IS that's mentioned in the rumor or the long wished for 600/4 DO, we'll have to wait and see.CR1, meh. There have been rumors and test models of a 600/f4 for 15 years.
Although the 400/4 DO II is excellent, it doesn't hold up to a 2x like the series II regular superteles.
This morning I found the computer at a screen indicating the Windows needed a repair and it kept doing that after each reboot.Your link isn't about any dSLR equipment, but instead, refers to a page in this web site that doesn't exist or is empty: storageforum.net/forum/newreply.php?do=postreply&t=6694
Perhaps. But there is no advantage to RF over EF when it comes to sport lenses. None. Zero. RF, exactly like EFS, offers a shorter distance between the back of the lens and the film plane. That is useful for wide-angle lenses, marginal for normal lenses, and offers no advantage whatever for telephoto designs.^^^^^ Right now, creating a 600/4 DO in the new RF mount would be silly, but you'd think that before the 2020 Olympics Canon/Nikon will have a pro level mirrorless camera. And such a lens might lead a few people to the mirrorless camp.
Fancy new RF lenses:
Canon's going to produce a ton of bad-ass lenses to stir excitement for their new RF mount mirrorless cameras. The 24-70/2.8 IS lens will be in RF mount before EF.
It's just an excuse to force people to buy new products. I'm really concerned about the adapter + TC stack.Perhaps. But there is no advantage to RF over EF when it comes to sport lenses. None. Zero. RF, exactly like EFS, offers a shorter distance between the back of the lens and the film plane. That is useful for wide-angle lenses, marginal for normal lenses, and offers no advantage whatever for telephoto designs.
So, if they do that, it will be for shoddy marketing reasons. Nothing whatever to do with engineering or quality optical design.
Canon uses CFast not CFex. Or are you saying that Canon will also move over to CFex. I think, going forward, CFex and SD (or SD express) will be the only memory slots used in cameras. Speed or small size.At last the better Nikon and Canon cameras will unify under CFExpress in the future. I don't know about S*ny. Maybe we will see SDExpress with the PCI interface in their bodies.
Even at my age it's quite feasible to handhold one on a 5D IV for reasonable periods. The 600/4 IS III is so much lighter than the old 500/4 IS that I really like it. It's too bad that Canon did not also lighten up the 500/4 as I usually prefer the versatility of that focal length. Apparently that won't happen until the RF version, which may take years for general availability.I would rather like 600/4 III, but I'm not sure I want to sell my house just yet.