Latest activity

Murkle · Nov 29, 2025

creative1 said:
I just received mine a few minutes ago. It is still a brick until I get some memory cards, but there is one thing I noticed that is pretty concerning to me, and I am not sure if this is normal, but it feels like something is rattling when I hold the camera. Is this normal? Not that this should matter, but I have not even powered up the camera.

Its the IBIS, when powered off there's nothing holding the sensor still. It's nothing to worry about. Will disappear as soon as you power on the camera.

m4ndr4ke · Nov 29, 2025

neuroanatomist said:
My focal length range is more widely distributed, with about 50% between 20 and 74mm.

View attachment 226961

I scanned my hard drives a few days ago, but I didn't load the information to a graph, and I didn't save it

I have the largest amount of photographs taken at 28mm, then 70mm (where the two zoom lenses meet), then 50mm.
I remember that, out of a sample of 39k photographs from 2025, about 30k were taken at 28, 45 to 55 and 70mm, even without considering the other focal lengths in-between. I was scanning the hard drive from a prime lens perspective, because I'm considering adding the 45 to my kit, and that's why I was looking at specific focal lengths.

So yeah, it's a massive domination of the standard zoom here, which is understandable, considering most of my photography is running and gunning, shooting reportage.

scyrene said:
I still think of anything under ~500mm as a bit short

I don't own any lens longer than 200mm

HMC11 · Nov 29, 2025

I quite like the portrait images produced by the RF 70-200 f2.8L, but the weight and size of this lens puts me off somewhat for use when travelling. If there is a 70-150 (or so) f2.8L with IQ closed or better than that of the 70-200 f2.8L, and is lighter and smaller (both by a factor of about 30%), then I would be most interested to get it. Unfortunately, as most things in life, Canon probably doesn't care what I wish for

. Although there seems to be a chance of a 70-150 f2.8 STM which might work (for me)

.

DocInfoSci · Nov 29, 2025

Richard CR said:
You aren't paying x dollars per megapixel, you're paying for the camera on the whole.

True that. I'm looking at this as an existing R6 owner who bought the camera for the pixel quality as-is, so for the most part the interesting part is the sensor itself -- the rest is mildly interesting. I'm not "upgrading" from an R8, or a DSLR, etc. Nor would I be "downgrading" from an R1 or R5. Body robustness, vendor SLA, customizability, etc. all have their part in total value. I think the R6 III is overall a great total value, based on what I'm reading.

Richard CR said:
In this case, objectively, just downsizing is the worst-case scenario, as I mentioned in the article.

Yes, you did mention that — I saw your later remark about downsizing. It was very interesting to note.

Honestly, I was partially grumbling out loud in the background of my day job when I saw the downsizing remark — and many other times in the forums people have been like, "well I just use my ($2K more expensive camera) to down size and then I'm good to go if I need that quality." And, hey — that's not wrong. But I think that attitude mostly misses the point about whether the sensor for the R6 line moved forward, held steady, or lost capability in one or more ways; let alone the fact that many people making the move will not be gaining more in terms of body (not much changed from the R6 -> R6 III in the body department) but rather will be purchasing for more megapixels — so downsizing an image just to reclaim their prior capability in noise (etc.) seems to miss the point of the purchase for that crowd. I mean, the R6 -> R6 II was effectively the same quality in all regards for more pixels and without the need to downsize. Win all around.

I'm also an engineer and scientist responsible for the day to day operation of an analytics company focused on advanced medical research at the cellular level. How a comparison happens, and what that comparison informs, really matters to my teams. For most people it probably is a "close enough" situation.

You did a nice job with the article, and it was the first such piece that answered many of the questions that I had about the new sensor.

In the context of what I mentioned above, the fact that downsizing is the worst case scenario was very interesting to me: contrary to the oft-heard chant of "just downsize to get the same quality" that does not seem to apply here -- downsizing doesn't get a person back to square one in all quality factors if the "one" was the prior R6 or R6 II. And Canon did leave the R6 II as an option. People get a real vote here with that choice of R6 II vs R6 III when both are left on the market. Aside from a desire to clear old stock, I wonder if Canon is watching for the hint of any other purchasing preference / attitude while both remain.

Thank you and the team for all of the interesting reads of late on histories, capabilities, etc.

EricN · Nov 29, 2025

AlanF said:
Voles aren't easy to find. This one was friendlier than most.

View attachment 225542 View attachment 225543 View attachment 225544

This one looks quite different from the aprox 5cm gray North American variety I'm familiar with.

scyrene · Nov 28, 2025

m4ndr4ke said:
It’s absolutely true. I sold my 85mm over four years ago, after years of making 100 shots/year or less with it — and those were the days I intentionally decided to take it out.

About 80% of my photography is shot between 28 and 70mm, mainly with the 28-70mm f/2. And no, it’s not often that I shoot at f/2.

To be completely honest, I barely use any prime lens but the RF 16mm. I have three others, but essentially for fun or personal stuff.

I still think of anything under ~500mm as a bit short

homebodyMacro2 · Nov 28, 2025

amorse said:
Honestly, I'm not the traditional user of this lens, but I am interested. I'm more optimistic that they're going to price it a bit more competitively than what we might initially expect. A few (maybe misled) reasons:

There's been reports that another lens is going to be released which might cannibalize sales of the 100-500. I think there's been 4 articles on Canonrumors that made that assertion, and several linked back to this super-zoom with a moderately fast aperture. If this was going to be priced in the 5-figure territory, would it really be competition for the 100-500? That tells me it'll be a bit closer to the 100-500 price point, though likely a ways higher than the 100-500.

While Canon always does what Canon wants without much consideration for what others are doing, Sigma's 300-600 has to be noticed at $6600. At that price point, for those who want to shoot high-end wildlife but don't have the capital for a true big white, there could be temptation to buy the lens and a Sony body just for that one subject. When this lens and a body is cheaper than the Canon lens equivalent alone, there's could be a market positioning problem. Canon will always be more expensive, but the math needs to make some sense.

I've seen there are some steep discounts on the (theoretically) most comparable currently-available Canon lens in the 200-400 f/4 with extender. That EF can be had for 10k right now on a black Friday sale, down from $12,400 - not a bad discount. Maybe that implies they're just trying to move some inventory before a replacement comes along, or maybe it implies a change in their vision of where this lens needs to sit in the lineup.

Anyway, I've been wrong before and I'll be wrong again, but I am optimistic that it will be expensive but not necessarily in the same range as we'd see from the other big white lenses.

I agree there's some evidence pointing in that direction! My confidence in rumors is always pretty limited, as that's the only reasonable approach to rumors imo.

I also agree about the logic in general, very much including the fact that being able to buy a premium Sony body + the 300-600 Sigma for the price of a Canon f/5.6 should be a market deterrent to Canon pricing that high. That's very much my reasoning as well, along with the enormous pricing gulf in Canon's 400mm+ RF lens lineup.

I really don't see how Canon could justify another ~$11k+ supertelephoto lens when it would be right next to the 100-300L (which can be doubled to a respectable 600mm f/5.6), as well as the "true" 400 and 600mm big whites. 5 figures is industry pro pricing, and they already have equal or better gear. Not to mention the Sigma+Sony body price comparison as you mentioned. It would have no compelling reason to exist at that pricing (imo). So, I'm at least somewhat hopeful Canon will be less greedy. Hopefully we don't have to wait another year to find out lol.

grilled_rooster · Nov 28, 2025

blackcoffee17 said:
That's my opinion of any 24-70 type of lens. After the 24-105, the 70mm feels really short, especially for a big and heavy lens.

The look of the 28-70/2 is special. Not the typical "boring" 24-70/2.8. When I need more reach I'm using the 70-200/2.8. I thought about switching to the 24-105/2.8. But I would lose the f/2.0 look. And I the 24-105 is as big as the 70-200/2.8 Z (which I own). Two long lenses would be difficult to pack. And I don't like my lenses to overlap (here from 70-105mm). Useless. And I don't mind carrying two cameras to an event. I sometimes bring three

blackcoffee17 · Nov 28, 2025

MarioGC said:
28-70mm? I owned one once. It was the most useless lens I have ever owned. Always too long at the short end and too short at the long end. It doesn't matter if it is f/2.8. I wouldn't buy one even if it were a f/2.
24-70 is ok, 24-105 still better.
Just my 2 cents.

That's my opinion of any 24-70 type of lens. After the 24-105, the 70mm feels really short, especially for a big and heavy lens.

justaCanonuser · Nov 28, 2025

R7 II please, Canon, for birders who thirst for a high res APS-C body with standard layout and a decent up in overall performance

creative1 · Nov 28, 2025

I just received mine a few minutes ago. It is still a brick until I get some memory cards, but there is one thing I noticed that is pretty concerning to me, and I am not sure if this is normal, but it feels like something is rattling when I hold the camera. Is this normal? Not that this should matter, but I have not even powered up the camera.

candyman · Nov 28, 2025

Click said:
Very nice shot, candyman.

Thank you Click

P-visie · Nov 28, 2025

roby17269 said:
Regardless of whether that is true or not (it isn't since these price-demand relationships are not linear), there is also the question, from a production standpoint, whether the lens would bring enough profit at $6000 to justify making it. Consider that Canon, shippers, retailers and governments (taxes) all need to make a profit out of that lens. And that, logistically, if you make a high end lens which will see limited (relatively) sales, you want to see a high profit from each sale.

As I posted in the RF300-600mm thread: the rumored price of 6000-6500 US$ would be 50-55% of the 2013 launch price of the EF 200-400mm f4 L lens. That seems unlikely low to me.

Exploreshootshare · Nov 28, 2025

I don´t believe the 2.8 STM version will go from 70 to 200mm. With the first two lenses, Canon really gave the market a great f2.8 option, but they've also done some market segmentation since both zooms are noticeably shorter, especially the UW 16-28 which is missing 9mm or 10mm in comparison to F2.8/ F4 L´s. Even compared with the 15.30mm ,it is shorter. Therefore, I believe Canon will make a 70-180mm F2.8 STM in terms to segment the market. They'll do it even if they could give us a full 70-200mm F2.8 STM.

roby17269 · Nov 28, 2025

Zadak said:
There should be many people that can afford 6000$ but not 10000$ for a lens, enough to make sense economically to make it.

Regardless of whether that is true or not (it isn't since these price-demand relationships are not linear), there is also the question, from a production standpoint, whether the lens would bring enough profit at $6000 to justify making it. Consider that Canon, shippers, retailers and governments (taxes) all need to make a profit out of that lens. And that, logistically, if you make a high end lens which will see limited (relatively) sales, you want to see a high profit from each sale.

roby17269 · Nov 28, 2025

Canon Rumors said:
I continue to use the EF 200 f/2 (I would buy an RF variant).

Aw I regret selling the EF 200 f/2L IS - loved that lens

neuroanatomist · Nov 28, 2025

m4ndr4ke said:
About 80% of my photography is shot between 28 and 70mm, mainly with the 28-70mm f/2. And no, it’s not often that I shoot at f/2.

My focal length range is more widely distributed, with about 50% between 20 and 74mm.

m4ndr4ke · Nov 28, 2025

m4ndr4ke said:
I don't own any prime lens longer than 50mm because I know I won't use them

scyrene said:

It’s absolutely true. I sold my 85mm over four years ago, after years of making 100 shots/year or less with it — and those were the days I intentionally decided to take it out.

About 80% of my photography is shot between 28 and 70mm, mainly with the 28-70mm f/2. And no, it’s not often that I shoot at f/2.

To be completely honest, I barely use any prime lens but the RF 16mm. I have three others, but essentially for fun or personal stuff.

scyrene · Nov 28, 2025

m4ndr4ke said:
I don't own any prime lens longer than 50mm because I know I won't use them

neuroanatomist · Nov 28, 2025

Zadak said:
You're saying that as if we have some good equivalents for them.

I'm saying it doesn't matter what 'we' have. What matters is what Canon's market research determines 'we' will buy. Note that 'we' means the market as a whole, not the niche microcosm that is CR forum.

Zadak said:
The Sony 200-600 with internal zoom is bigger, but seems to be more desirable than the 200-800 to me and some people I talked to.

You and some people you talked to. Are you suggesting that such a group is somehow representative of Canon's market for high end lenses?

Zadak said:
There should be many people that can afford 6000$ but not 10000$ for a lens, enough to make sense economically to make it.

Based on what? The broader economic data disagree with you, the gap between the haves and have-nots is only widening, and it's the disposable income of the former that drives high-end lens sales. It seems logical that someone willing and able to spend $6K on a lens could also spend $10K on a lens.

Zadak said:
And for a fast ultra-wide prime, still missing anything remotely interesting from Canon. Rip night-shooters

20mm is ultrawide and the 20/1.4L VCM is great for night shooting. If you need wider, then there are 3rd party options.

scyrene · Nov 28, 2025

Canon Rumors said:
I continue to use the EF 200 f/2

Zadak · Nov 28, 2025

neuroanatomist said:
It's not hard for Canon to design and produce such lenses, from a technical standpoint. From a strategic standpoint, Canon doesn't care what you personally want, they care what a significant number of users will buy.

You're saying that as if we have some good equivalents for them.

The Sony 200-600 with internal zoom is bigger, but seems to be more desirable than the 200-800 to me and some people I talked to. There should be many people that can afford 6000$ but not 10000$ for a lens, enough to make sense economically to make it.

And for a fast ultra-wide prime, still missing anything remotely interesting from Canon. Rip night-shooters

neuroanatomist · Nov 28, 2025

Zadak said:
I just want a 300-600 that is around 6k USD that works with extenders + internal zooms

And an 14 or 16 mm lens with large aperture. Why is it so hard Canon?!

It's not hard for Canon to design and produce such lenses, from a technical standpoint. From a strategic standpoint, Canon doesn't care what you personally want, they care what a significant number of users will buy.

Zadak · Nov 28, 2025

I just want a 300-600 that is around 6k USD that works with extenders + internal zooms

And an 14 or 16 mm lens with large aperture. Why is it so hard Canon?!

Latest activity

Latest activity

Filter

Forum statistics

Gallery statistics