วีดีโอ

As a Canon and MFT (Pana/ Olympus) guy, I say YES and NO. I started my photographic journey with kit lenses and entry level cameras, and when starting to have money, moved to hi-end cameras, premium, then pro lenses (Canon L, Leica, Zuiko PRO), and YES I recommend to move to pro lenses but also NO, because PRO lenses create big expectations, in terms of picture quality (I mean technical and not artistic). Meaning, it makes you focusing on details (resolution, sharpness) more than on the actual picture itself.

I decided on the Mark2 of this lens myself after owning the Sigma version. I couldn’t justify the upgrade on my R6. At some point I will upgrade if the need is truly there. I use mine for Sports and I shoot Soccer. I do like the fact that I don’t have to carry the adaptor with me and just slapping on the RF. I have a RF24-7. I did see the Sigma 105 f1.4 and was thinking I can put that on my R50 crop sensor for better low light in some places where stadium light is bad. Thoughts?

Couldn't sneak that sign past me! I know Szalay's when I see it! Awesome video!

Thanks for this!

Thanks!!

You can rotate the digital back on the camera, just switch it to the R on the right sight of the camera and rotated, you got the adapter plate. You don't have to switch to another camera, put it in the R and rotate.

I fortunately got a 70-200mm f2.8 iii on Marketplace for $900 and I was shocked the whole way back home after in person meet at how extremely clean the lenses is, now I don't have to worry about RF version in my mind with that extending tube mechanism anymore. I use for wildlife with R7 and crop is just insanely sharp. Best 70-200mm of all time.

I Love your content. Very very relatable. Speak about winning mindset in the future many photographers get stuck die to a mindset issue.

Any dude with a beard that also owns a cat - must be a pretty alright kind'a guy! I subscribed!!! Now, on your next video show us the cat.... lol.

love the angle! here for more

Interesting glass.... i use and have several smc f series glass from the pentax line. I shoot pentax so its an easy one for me. Cool video review.

I just wanted to check your channel out& though I'm not into photography it's interesting to see how you approach your Occupation,and as I suspected ,I enjoyed it because I believe you are a great communicator! This channel will grow easily man,just keep talking!😉👍

Still an EF user and I use the Macro 24-105 for landscape and macro and a Sigma 150-600 for wildlife. Now you know my entire set up 😂

I sold the same lens and adapter to help pay for a RF 100-500 F4.5-7.1 and glad I did. The EF 70-200 F2.8 is a very heavy lens to carry around. Just curious, the Canon RF 70-200 F4 is about the same price as what you paid, but shorter and much less in weight. Did you need the EF F2.8 for the wider aperture? I'm seriously considering the getting the RF 70-200 F4.

I just found your channel and I really like it. Your comment on skipping at least one generation on new models is a principle I've used for some time. It works really well for cell phones too. As a hobbyist I've found if you can make the most of what you have in gear is sufficient for the quality of images you are trying to achieve, then you don't need anything new. When your needs exceed that capability is when to start looking. I'm not a fanboy of Canon but like you, it's what I started using and continue to do so. I started with a Canon EF film SLR (showing my age) and now have an R5 upgrading from a 5DS. If Canon comes out with a R5S someday, it will be mine. If not, then maybe a medium format.

You make some good points. Many people tend to measure a "successful" photographer to the guys who have a massive following on social media, are super specialised etc. I'm a pro of 25 years, and yes, in time things do niche down a bit, BUT, like you, I do whatever comes across my way, and being a generalist is probably where most people who make a living from photography are. My TH-cam channel just gave me an excuse to start playing with my old film gear again and really helped me reignite the love for shooting and the analogue process.

I’m enjoying your photography content. My son still falls into the hobbyist category, though he uses photography in his journalism major. His most recent toy has been a Canon EOS Rebel 2000, which works like new and cost home about $10.

Ha, didn't recognize you without the beard.

Recently subscribed to both of your channels. I'm into both topics. Hanging out and nerding out about cameras sounds cool. I really dig platforms like Josh Sattin's Camera Talk live stream and The Moe and O Photo Show Podcast (though it's been months since they've published an episode). Best wishes on growing this channel!

Pleasantly surprised! Thought I was in for a biking video, then realized this is a new channel. Photography and cycling are my passions too. Keep it up, please.

I, too, got the kit 24-105 with my R6m2 and fell in love. But it wasn't until I got my EF 70-200 m1 that I really started improving my photography skills.

Great vid! You sound like you have a wealth of experience and knowledge to share with us

Hey, great info! I couldn't agree more...the best investment is in good glass👍. Thanks for sharing!

really enjoyed your video brother man

Oh dear. The lenses are made to be durable, but it pains me every time you slap the most vulnerable parts in it right away lol. You dont need to beat it like that!

RF16 and RF 50mm were 2 of the first RF lenses I bought since going RF mount, 3rd was the RF 100-400, 4th the RF 24-105 cheap one, then the RF14-35L. For simple just want to run and gun like biking or hiking I think these cheaper lenses work well for just that. I don't always want to lug my bigger RF cameras with cages out and about so I picked up a R50 for just going out on no missions to do anything and just shoot whatever with these smaller RF lenses, it's fun for me and the weight reduction is noticeable.

I was so excited to get my first 70-200L.. got it from a pawn shop for 400.00..yeah..70-200L F4 with no IS... It was still a great deal and one of my first L lenses probably 5 years ago. surprisingly it was tack sharp on the 90D, but any camera shake omg it sucked at times with that 32mp sensor. I decided I wanted to invest in a version II with is and 2.8. That was the most expensive lens I had ever bought in my hobbyist shooting since 2008. After taxes it was right at 1500.00 a couple years ago. Was a mint lens with no scratches on it and little use. One of my best investments I think for a lens at the time, used it for portraits, wildlife, sons track meets it's just a great freaking lens to use and versatile. But somewhere in that time period I got a interest in wildlife photography and oh boy..what a rabbit hole that is!!! 70-200 did great at subjects up close but it shows it lack of mm pretty quick when out and about trying to shoot raptures and other birds like that. Got the EF 100-400L IS ver 1 and for its time period it was probably a good lens for the lower MP FF cameras and apsc but it did not work well with the 90D and eventually sold it and got the sigma 150-600C and it was a better combo for the 90D and gave me more mm for subjects but birds in flight was a struggle so invested in the R7, a decently great camera all around but got the FF bug and bought the R6MII which was so much better shooting with. Sold the Sigma and got 1 of 3 RF 200-800 that was available in my state the day after it was released to sell and I am pretty happy now with my setup and adding the 1.4 extender I'm up to 1120mm for wildlife. Photography is my main hobby and I don't spend money on much else so for me even as a hobbyist I make that my validation for overspending probably more than I should. I've looked at the RF 70-200's don't think I could ever justify the 2.8 version having an ef version that works great. Almost got a F4 used for 900.00, but again..why... for what you do I think it is a great investment for your business and you saved a lot of money going with the EF version, I still have a ton of EF glass even though the only EF body I have now is a 70D my daughter uses once in a while and it works great with the EF L glass I own and the lenses work great with the adapter for the RF, I thought I was the only person with 2 EF-RF adapters, good to know I am not hahaha. I do like doing video so the overheating of the R6 and R5 honestly was a turn off for me when they first came out and that has stuck in my brain on spending money on either of those bodies. It's nice to watch a video of someone that utilizes what they have and makes it work for them for their business and career, I admire that. I'm not much of a people person anymore so wanting to go pro with what I have doing weddings or portraits really has no interest for me, although I do like doing portraits of people. Liking your channel so far, hope it grows for you. Subbed.

"Date your cameras, but marry your lenses" You made some good points. New Subscriber.

I have an old Sigma 70-200 2.8 with no IS that needs upgrading. I've had it for a decade, and the aperture randomly sticks, that said, it has been a very good lens image-wise. I've been contemplating getting the Canon EF version, but I don't like the white lenses because they make you stick out like a sore thumb, and at certain events people/security see you as a paparazzi. I might just keep it Sigma for my upgrade, and plus I'll be saving a truck load of cash. Tamron makes a good one that some of my Nikon friends use, and it is very tempting too…

Hey Fitz, I just upgraded my wife from a Rebel T6 to an M50 for $350 because she wants to start taking her photography more seriously. Was that a good choice in your opinion? I also picked her up a Canon 70-200 f/4 (she specifically requested a Canon 70-200 lol) and Sigma 17-50 2.8 for her upcoming world travels. How did I do?

I love that lens! I have the non IS version, as I used it when I bought it, for sports. I could swear that my EF 100-400L WITH IS works perfectly, mounted on my R6 MII with the adaptor, I can hear it. If I turn the switch on it off, the sound stops. Interesting.

70-200 my most used glass. Super versatile.

Good move! Every time I switched camera systems I would always get a 24 to 70 2.8 and a 70-200 2.8 or equivalent. I wish I knew you were in the market for one, I have one I don’t use, but it’s a series one and has a lot of marks on it. Works great though. One of the two sharpest lenses I’ve ever shot with.

I think you made the right choice with native Cannon. I shoot Nikon and bought the Tamron and its not really sharp at 2.8. I’ve often wondered if it would be sharper if I spent the few extra doll-hairs and got the Nikon 70-200. Dont get me wrong, its sharp enough for what I do. Its simply the OCD.

Tim, Nice video! You make valid points. Here is my journey so far. I was a Minolta film shooter. Digital came out at the same time that my girls started playing youth softball and I bought an Olympus something or other and started sharing sports photos. I was discovered by a local newspaper and my journey as a newspaper sports photographer began. To be brief, I upgraded to a Canon Rebel and like yourself, quickly discovered its limitations. Next was the Canon EOS 1D, then a Canon EOS 1D MII X (in order to have a second body and not swap out lenses). I used that camera for, what, 14/16 years now? I am no longer shooting professionally but still shooting, "normal stuff" I guess you could call it and I upgraded to the Canon EOS R6 mark II with a lens adapter because I own too many quality, fast, L lenses. I love this camera, and I'm glad I made the move but look how long it took !

The last Cannon I had was an AE1, what a glorious unit to use. For some reason I moved from that to a Pentax K30 which I still use.. Such a shame they are not around anymore..

Sony a7r5 61mp 😊

Thanks for the content. Nikon's mirrorless products would benefit from the RED acquisition codec and color science. RED could benefit from a better autofocus system similar to the Sony Burano. Mutually, Nikon could sell more glass. The marketplace for content & film production is becoming more crowded. There are no bad camera anymore, phones all the way up to cinema cameras. Which has kinda makes camera a commodity at this stage. Margins are shrinking on the camera and client side of the equation. The deeper dollars of parent company could be useful for RED as R&D is the lifeblood.. Equally, the acquisition could be a golden parachute for the owners. Nikon still has an formidable uphill battle to gain more market share. Sony and Canon are well entrenched with good products (camera's and lenses). ARRI is still dominate in the cinema production business. Nikon would really need to create a compelling product proposition to encourage a heap of people to abandoned their current camera/lens ecosystem. In the commercial space, name cache remains a useful sales tool. The Nikon is the first name that pops up in popularity. With Nikon being a public company, what is their pain threshold for bleeding edge tech? Will the internal economics and company ethos demand that RED I.P. be gutted and transplanted to consumer products that sell in the hundreds of thousands vs to the niche cinema production market. My last Nikon product was the D90. My journey has taken me to Canon, Sony and RED. With me finally settling on Sony and RED as my production tools. I hope any future disruption will be market positive. RED, albeit not perfect, has keenly stayed focused on providing the highest quality image capture from their camera lineup. So, yeah, I hope nothing crazy happens.

As a fun sideline hobby for his journalism major, my son enjoys film photography. He has recently been purchasing expired film, which gives him a surprisingly consistent vintage outcome. For him, it’s about capturing the experience with his college friends, not photorealistic quality.

Nice work I love the canonets I have the QL25, and the Ql17 which I have not shot yet, looking forward to trying it tho. liked and subbed.

change to the yellow..hehehe

Excellent analysis, and I like your DA2 ;))

debating on the x100vi. The V is my only digital camera - use it for everything that's not film. The upgrades in megapixels, sensor, and IBIS has really got me thinking. It's a hot debate but kinda seems worth it. I'd probably have to unload my Nikon F5 and a couple lenses to make it work though.

I picked up the ZF this fall and am in love. Perfect balance between iq, performance, adaptability, design and price.

Like many people who came out of the still photo world, you missed a big chunk of what was happening. It was video and the inevitable rising of digital cinema. While you were caught up in still photography, Sony and Panasonic were making camcorders and early digital video, including broadcast equipment. I'd have to check exact dates, but if you were watching TV, maybe back around 1990's, Sony and its affiliates ("Columbia" as in CBS TV) was a part of what you were seeing. Combining the Minolta photographic development stream with Sony's video and broadcast television development streams gave them their basis to "go anywhere" in these fields.

a LOT of the Z lenses are nearly par focal and have limited breathing. Makes me wonder if the big Z mount on RED would be decent.

Sony make Red Cinema and Nikon sensors - the battle is on

Canon should buy Red that would solve a lot of problems except for Nikon of course.

alwsome insights, although i don't think the global shutter sensor is a major factor when Nikon purchased red. 1. the sensor is super expensive too expensive even for professional photographers. 2.the electronic shutter reads out fast enough so the advantage of the global sensor is not that big, with the extremely high price it is arguably going to be a disadvantage for 99.999% of people. i think Nikon is just trying to catch up to Sony and canon's cinema line-up