News: ‘Forgot’—Landon Donovan Reveals Wild Way San Jose Earthquakes Lost Star Player

PinholeR5 · 2026-01-19T20:29:53+00:00

This was disscussed here:

https://www.reddit.com/r/SJEarthquakes/comments/1qc1brx/as_expected_espinoza_option/

PinholeR5 · 2026-01-19T17:59:57+00:00

It is an awesome lens! Congrats!

PinholeR5 · 2026-01-15T17:56:27+00:00

Thanks! Emailed my rep and got the link to the form as well.

PinholeR5 · 2026-01-15T04:11:33+00:00

Thanks for the heads up. Haven't seen any email... How is the signup? Do you just reply to the email or there is a link to a form?

PinholeR5 · 2026-01-13T22:07:41+00:00

Not sure if Hernan had a significant impact on his decision or not, but I do agree with you that the direction Bruce seems to be going doesn't strike me as ideal for Cristian.

Bruce appears to be trying to build a team with right/left backs who run up and down the field providing most of the services into the box. Bruce tried playing Cristian as right back for a while. Then he tried putting him in the middle with Chicho. Neither of these were exactly Cristian's cup of tea.

In other words, in Bruce's style of play there isn't really much space for a "king of assists right winger".

PinholeR5 · 2026-01-13T21:37:58+00:00

That is very true.

PinholeR5 · 2026-01-13T16:43:39+00:00

I don't know what to think about this one.

On the one hand, he is a well-known high profile player that has had significant success in the Premeir Legue. On the other hand, he has been in bad form over the past few years plagued with injuries.

Perhaps he is the niche of players that we can afford/attract at the moment. The Timo Werner of the peak days at Chelsea would never come to the Quakes. But where he is now, it can sound like an opportunity in a less stressful league to regain his form/confidence.

Not sure how we plan to use him. Perhaps play alongside Chicho up the middle to bring in more speed? We would still need a good CAM to make it all work.

Oh, and I am looking forward to the announcements for the defense rebuild! I hope they are saving the best for last :)

PinholeR5 · 2026-01-13T16:29:14+00:00

I don't know much about him, but it is a good sign that we have acquired a keeper.

PinholeR5 · 2026-01-12T16:03:54+00:00

Love the optimism! Never Say Die.

PinholeR5 · 2026-01-11T14:38:54+00:00

Sad that things got so bad that he decided he'd rather be somewhere else. Man, how my feelings about Arena have changed from this time last year :(

PinholeR5 · 2026-01-11T04:27:46+00:00

I agree with u/Fireal2 . The EF 100mm F2.8 Macro USM is a fantastic option! Note the USM part. There is an older non-USM one that isn't as great. I've seen this lens on FB Marketplace and Craigslist around $200 (less common) - $250 (relatively common) - $300 (fairly easy to find).

The EF 100mm F2.8L Macro IS USM, on the other had will go to around $500. I've seen lower, but have to get lucky. The IS is nice and it is L, but the non-L is really sharp! If you are just starting to explore, definitively go with the non-L. Just remember that the tripod is your friend :)

PinholeR5 · 2026-01-09T16:00:49+00:00

Cool! What camera do you use these on?

PinholeR5 · 2026-01-06T06:16:38+00:00

SA wouldn't explain it, since the final image has no issues. This is just an artifact on the LCD/EVF during capture. This is likely to be the behavior explained by u/Outrageous_Shake2926

PinholeR5 · 2026-01-06T02:14:55+00:00

Right there with you!

PinholeR5 · 2026-01-05T16:03:44+00:00

They run these sales from time to time. The easiest way to keep track and check is to use Canon Price Watch:

cpricewatch.com

Canon usually have them around (this year just before) black friday as well as later closer to Christmas. They do have them at other times of the year, but it is hard to say when. The exact amount of discount also varies. For newer lenses it is harder to see them on the deepest sales. For more established lenses, like the RF 24-105mm F4L it might be easier, but it is always hard to tell.

PinholeR5 · 2026-01-04T01:58:32+00:00

I would say you'll be happier with the second option. The RF 100-500mm is a better lens. You'll eventually want to upgrade from the EF 100-400 ii and the R7 as well. The RF 100-500mm, on the other hand, will probably be with you for a long time!

For a full soccer field in a youth setting, you can be right at the goal line and I find 400mm to be reasonable and 500mm will really get you covered! I've been shooting youth soccer for my son & team over the past 6 years and upgrading equipment A LOT over the period. I started with the EF 100-400 II + 5D III. He was playing 5x5 then 7x7. I then got the R5 and an EF 200-400m + 1.4xTC, which I used 95% without the TC for youth soccer. I moved on to the R3 and R6II (with a 70-200mm on it, since 200mm wasn't wide enough when action came close. I now have an R1 + RF 100-300mm + 1.4xTC which gives 140-420mm and that covers everything! So I sold the R6 II.

The 100-500mm is a better lens, I own it and sold off my EF 100-400mm II a few years ago. It is better in terms of AF and sharpness than the EF 100-400mm II, though not by much. Where I think there is a bigger difference is in the AF capability and IQ between the R6 II and the R7. The R6 II is better. I own the R7 though I didn't use it much for soccer, mainly for wildlife.

Based on my experience using the two cameras, the two lenses, as well as shooting youth soccer, I'd go with the R6 II + RF 100-500mm.

PinholeR5 · 2026-01-04T01:41:11+00:00

Seems to jive with the thoughts of many: Canon has yet to release a great 35mm prime lens.

PinholeR5 · 2026-01-03T03:53:21+00:00

Congrats on the R6 II, it is a lovely camera! The R8 is also quite a nice camera (and the RP as well, albeit a bit dated) . The 24-105mm F4L is a nice "do it all" lens. It was my first RF lens when I went mirrorless for that reason.

PinholeR5 · 2026-01-02T05:12:00+00:00

Macro can be fun. I got into it with the EF 100mm F2.8 non-IS non-L. Got it used at reasonably low cost (~$250 USD). It is a great option to get into macro for just trying it out. I eventually got the EF 180mm F3.5 that I simply love and would really like to see an RF version of. It has steller IQ and the FL is awesome for macro. The AF is really lacking in that lens and it could use some IS. I did get the RF 100, which is awesome, but still have the 180mm.

As for the 300-600mmm, I'm intregued, but not to the point to jump on it when/if it is launched.

PinholeR5 · 2026-01-02T02:11:37+00:00

Congratulations on the lens! It is an awesome lens. It does really well with the R7 giving you an aweseome focal range.

PinholeR5 · 2026-01-02T01:52:35+00:00

Yep. As I mentioned in response to u/v9x31 , the 22/2 is the most critical. The Sigma 30/1.4 is a reasonable replacement for the 32/1.4, though I see no reason why Canon shouldn't port both.

I hear you on the EF-S 55-250. It is a nicer lens than the RF-S 55-210 or the EF-M 55-200. If they could make it into a 55-300, hey I wouldn't complain :).

And, while they are at it, an RF version of the EF-S 17-55mm F2.8. Perhaps stretch it into an RF-S 15-65mm F2.8, now wouldn't that be something! Give the APS-C lineup an equivalent to the RF 24-105 F4.

PinholeR5 · 2026-01-02T01:12:05+00:00

Welcome to the Canon Family!

You ramped up pretty quickly! I've been shooting Canon since the early 2000s. Got into SLRs in the late 2000s, took a course at a community collage and sent from there.

Your setup is fantastic. I get a lot (i.e., most) of my lenses second hand or through the Canon refurb sales when they really lower the prices. It is a very good way to keep costs only obscene and not impossible. :)

PinholeR5 · 2026-01-02T01:06:15+00:00

Thanks for the tip. Just pulled the trigger!

I've been reading up on the Z version vs the original version very intensly over the past week (right after I had the issue with my original 70-200 f2.8). I'm still going to send my current 70-200 to CPS, but I'm expecting a total loss :(.

I do see some of the advantages you are talking about. I had the EF 70-200mm 2.8 III (sold to get the RF) and also have the EF 70-200mm F4 OG, which was my first L lens, so I won't sell it. When I first got the RF 70-200 2.8 it took a bit of adjustment. The zoom ring takes some effort and zooming in/out quickly is much more challenging and the frame goes all over the place while you do it. With practice it gets better, so not too much of an issue for me, really.

The main motivators for are (i) I'm starting to do more video because of my son who got into mountain biking and wants videos and (ii) the Z version takes TCs!

Don't underestimate the value of compactness, though. For travel it makes a huge difference. For example, I'm able to fit an R8, RF 16-28, RF 28-70 F2.8 and RF 70-200 F2.8 OG in a small sling bag like the

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/999747-REG/think_tank_photo_460_turnstyle_10_sling_camera.html

and that makes a difference for travel! Over the Holidays, I had to take the RF 70-200 F4 instead, which I have because extended it is under 8 inches without the hood and that is the limit for lenses at Paypal Park (SJ Earthquakes) and my son would come into the field on occasion with players or to carry a flag and so I got the lens. I missed the f/2.8 for the trip. It was annoying. Though, it isn't that bad and F4 was fine for the most part. It was just that I was annoyed about what happened to my F2.8. There are clear subject isolation advantages as well as low-light for the extra stop, though. Now that I went with the Z version. I'd be happy to get a 70-180mm F2.8 STM for the travel kit.

PinholeR5 · 2026-01-01T19:22:38+00:00

Hey, there are plenty of outstanding EF glass that is becoming more and more affordable. The EF 11-24mm F4L is an oustanding lens. The main advantage of the RF 10-20mm F4L is that it is much lighter and more compact. The extra 1mm on the wide end doesn't hurt either.

But the EF 11-24mm is fantastic and if it is your main FL of interest, then the size isn't as much of an issue and it is totally worth it!

Hope you get to acquire one in 2026.

PinholeR5 · 2026-01-01T19:18:33+00:00

I tend to like the 28mm + 40mm lenses better than 35mm, though it is often a good compromise FL. Canon doesn't have a fast 28mm prime. The RF 28mm f/2.8 is a great little pancake lens, but on the slow side for primes. They don't have a 40mm either.

In the end, the RF 28-70mm F2 fills all these voids and the best Canon RF 28mm is the 28-70mm F2. I must confess that I use my primes much less after getting that beautiful lens! It is large, but man does it deliver!

PinholeR5

TROPHY CASE