I don't use a filter on my RF 200-800mm as I find a small decrease in IQ with a usually good filter (Marumi). It's just noticeable when pixel peeping on high resolution charts. A Maven filter was a disaster on it.

jjanusz said:

No news on Canon retro camera? I was hoping to see it released early 2026

Click to expand...

I came here to say that!

Click said:

Thanks for sharing your pictures, ISv. We are in that time of year when everything becomes dark and dreary here. It makes me feel good to look at your photos.

Click to expand...

It is darker than the inside of a cow by 4pm around here

So frustrating!! November 16 & 26 pass without announcing the 300-600 f4-5.6. This is the upgrade to my 100-500mm. I want this lens. Canon has been ignoring the high end long glass community for awhile now. Canon should give us an idea what's going on!!!!

ronbyram said:

thanks for the feed back I have a B&W filter will see how it works out happy Thanksgiving!

Click to expand...

I have the RF200-800mm and use it with a B&W 95mm UV filter: the lenshood fits in the reverse position.

homebodyMacro2 said:

Regarding the rumored price, I'm not willing to be that optimistic yet lol. Ultimately, the ~$11k 100-300L f/2.8 has essentially the same front element size we'd expect on a 600 f/5.6, so Canon is certainly capable of being greedy and/or overpriced. That's not to say that the 2x zoom 300-600 is fully analogous to the 3x zoom, but IMO Canon was some combination of cost-ineffective and greedy on the 100-300L.

On the other hand, if Canon is about 2x Sigma pricing, the f/4.0 = 2* f/5.6 glass (and cost) rough conversion could suggest that comparable pricing to Sigma's 300-600 is possible. This is a bit of a crude estimate though, so it could be way off. Especially with the tariff BS going on, I'm not quite willing to get my hopes up on the price starting with a "6" lol. That would be nice though, and I think they'd sell a lot of lenses that way.

Click to expand...

I’m not that optimistic about the price either. The rumored price is +/- 50-55% of the EF200-400mm f4 L launch price of 2013.

P-visie said:

The poster on DPReview forgot to mention the RF 600mm f11 and RF 800mm f11 lenses. The rumor has a rumored price for the RF300-600mm of $6499-$6999 USD.

Click to expand...

Like I mentioned, I was the poster lol. I didn't include those two because I'd consider them a tier down from the ones I mentioned. That's not to say they don't have their uses, but f/11 is dreadfully slow.

I think those are good low-tier long lenses, and then there are slightly more premium lenses that I listed in the roughly $2300-3300 range, and then of course there are the ultra-premium lenses that basically no one can afford. In any case, there's a glaring hole there in the upper-middle.

Regarding the rumored price, I'm not willing to be that optimistic yet lol. Ultimately, the ~$11k 100-300L f/2.8 has essentially the same front element size we'd expect on a 600 f/5.6, so Canon is certainly capable of being greedy and/or overpriced. That's not to say that the 2x zoom 300-600 is fully analogous to the 3x zoom, but IMO Canon was some combination of cost-ineffective and greedy on the 100-300L.

On the other hand, if Canon is about 2x Sigma pricing, the f/4.0 = 2* f/5.6 glass (and cost) rough conversion could suggest that comparable pricing to Sigma's 300-600 is possible. This is a bit of a crude estimate though, so it could be way off. Especially with the tariff BS going on, I'm not quite willing to get my hopes up on the price starting with a "6" lol. That would be nice though, and I think they'd sell a lot of lenses that way.

Zadak said:

Huh?

Click to expand...

He's right on resolution too. R5ii has slightly less resolution than the R5. They have been compared by optyczne.pl, and we discussed them in another thread.

GMCPhotographics said:

It's just seems to loose some of it's resolution advantage and some DR over the original R5

Click to expand...

Huh?

EricN said:

49 mm filter size design by Harryflim?

Click to expand...

This is the solution! But it would be more practical if it could use the old Leica M 39mm filter size, used ones are dirt-cheap!

So has anyone actually installed 1.2.0 in their R5m2? No problems? I do not
shoot video - if that matters.
- Jim in the PNW

PinholeR5 said:

I have been salivating over the Sony 50-150mm F2 ever since it came out. I love the RF 28-70mm F2 and a 70-135 F2 would certainly complement it very well. That said, the 50-150mm range is much more useful.

Click to expand...

While the Sony 50-150mm F2 is really nice, it kind of hits a different tone. 50-150mm is according suited for sports (of course, portraits as well) and that is what Sony intended according to their marketing while a 70-135mm seems more like a classic portrait focal length(s?), although you could use it for sports as well.

I´d love a Canon F2 lens to be as light as possible and therefore a 70-135mm F2 sounds more appealing to me. If Canon has sports in mind just like Sony, I´d prefer 70-180mm F2 (if possible). In the end, I am pretty sure I´d purchase any kind of 50-150mm, 70-135mm, 70-180mm F2 zoom as long as it weighs around 1 kg (max). The current 28-70mm F2 is just too heavy... I was tempted several times and I rented three times already

PinholeR5 said:

If they could pull-off a 35-135mm F2 at the same IQ as the 28-70mm it would be a real dream come true.

Click to expand...

That sounds dreadfully heavy imo. Tamrons offering with a variable 2-2.8 is already near 1.2 kg and the f2.8 starts at around 60mm already. I simply can't image how heavy a constant F2 aperture would be that covers the 35-150mm zoom range.

Del Paso said:

And an extremely compact one with a tiny front lens...

Click to expand...

49 mm filter size design by Harryflim?

Zadak said:

Canon: I sleep

Click to expand...

Other priorities

I think the MTF chart of the Laowa lens beats the pants off of the Canon one. There's roughly twice as much aberration in the Canon glass. I went to The Digital Picture to look up their independent MTF readings, and the Canon TS macro one did even worse. I was thinking I'd pick up this TS lens from Venus later, when some used ones came available, but now I'm thinking I might actually purchase a new lens for the first time in quite a long while. I (and the previous owners) have worn out the tilt controls on my old 45mm TS.

You all can thank me when I receive my Laowa lens, thus causing Canon to finally release its new TS series.

Richard CR said:

it's faster with 17% more lines to read. Canon did a bang up job.. AND it is still FSI. bonkers.

Click to expand...

Amusingly, it's slightly faster than Sony's semi stacked sensor. Qudos to Canon for matching and exceeding Sony's design without stacking.
I wrote a comment here about 4 years ago about how sensor readout speeds will be the big new feature over the next decade. Everyone laughed at me and mocked me....but here we are. The megapixel war is well and truely over....the sensor read out speed war is in full flight. The difference in real world shooting between 24mp through to 45mp on Canon is suprisingly slight. But, being able to shoot at 30/40 fps in 14 bit Electronic shutter mode without readout artifacts can make or break a picture.
With the R7 and R5, the max of 20 fps ES compared to 15/12fps FCS isn't enough to justify the risks of high ES frame rates. The drop in DR and the artifacts aren't worth the bother...especially with the R7's REALLY slow read out speed. The R6ii 's EC can function at 40fps and that's a whole different ball game. The diffrence between 12fps and 40fps is massive.
I'm wondering if in the future (R6iv?) we'll see a ES mode with 14 bit, but isn't stacked but limited to say 20 or 30 fps.
The R5ii's stacked sensor is amazing with it's read out speed in the same region as the R6ii/iii's 1st Curtain shutter. It's just seems to loose some of it's resolution advantage and some DR over the original R5. Once all the tests are availablem it's possible we could be seeing that the new 32mp R6iii sensor actually matching the current R5ii's resolution. The R5ii's sensor is resolving notibly less detail that the original R5.

I noticed with the e-shutter comparison, at +6, the Nikon does lose some detail as part of the noise reduction compared to the R6 III. That's something to be considered.

Overall, the increase in pixel density and faster readout (slightly) are a good tradeoff.

EricN said:

Let's challenge them and hope for f/1.4!

Click to expand...

And an extremely compact one with a tiny front lens...

Canon: I sleep

rombe3jr said:

Is anybody else interested in the last of the STM zoom holy trinity? They already have the 16-28 f/2.8 and 28-70 f/2.8 so the only lens missing now is the 70-180 f/2.8 STM. They just filed a patent this fall so does that mean it will be “years” before release or sometime sooner?

Click to expand...

I am interested in the 70-180 f/2.8 STM but I don´t see myself buying this lens because I own the marvelous (imo) 70-200mm F4 lens. I'd only be interested in the rumored 70-180 f/2.8 STM if it really reaches 180mm and weighs less than 500 gr.

Currently, there is a Black Friday offer: R8 and 28-70mm F2.8 for 1.899 €. I am thinking about this combo and selling my 24-105mm. Like the lighter weight, the higher magnification and lower minimum focus distance and maybe even 2.8 for some situations. Mostly importantly, the 2.8 balances better on the R8 than the 24-105mm F4. But I might miss going to 105mm and especially having 24mm. Plus, it was my first RF lens I am a bit torn on this matter.

The 16-28 f/2.8 seems to be really good, but the weight savings compared to the 14-35mm F4 are too small, price difference isn't that big and you really loose two valuable mm of focal length. Plus, with the L lens you get better magnification.

neuroanatomist said:

I count 6 new lenses for 2025 (5 RF, 1 RF-S):
- RF 16-28mm f/2.8 STM
- RF-S 14-30mm f/3.5-6.3 IS STM PZ (missing from your list)
- RF 75-300mm f/4-5.6
- RF 20mm f/1.4L VCM
- RF 85mm f/1.4L VCM (typo on your list, duplicate 20/1.4)
- RF 45mm f/1.2 STM

Click to expand...

I stand corrected. Thx. I really forgot about the RF-S 14-30mm f/3.5-6.3 IS STM PZ and it didn't show up on my quick google search.

neuroanatomist said:

Close to the 7-8 lenses per year they suggested was to be their pace through 2025, but not quite hitting the target.

Click to expand...

Yeah, and with the RF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 not needing any kind of R&D and the R&D of the VCM basically (at least the theoretical part) taking place when the first VCM´s were announced, it is kind of disappointing imo.

neuroanatomist said:

Personally, I quite like the RF 20mm f/1.4L VCM but that was the only lens that interested me this year.

Click to expand...

I purchased the 50mm VCM and I really, really like it. I tested the 35mm and 85mm in a camera store and they are also very good. But I'll stick with 35mm F1.8/ 85mm F2 because the vcm´s are just very expensive. I am really curious to see how the 50mm VCM compares to the 45mm F1.2. I'll rent the latter and make test shots side by side.

The 20mm would be of great interest to me, but 1.899 € is too much for a lens I (unfortunately) use to rarely.

I do hope the VCM will be expanded in the next couple of years and that prices will drop.

Is anybody else interested in the last of the STM zoom holy trinity? They already have the 16-28 f/2.8 and 28-70 f/2.8 so the only lens missing now is the 70-180 f/2.8 STM. They just filed a patent this fall so does that mean it will be “years” before release or sometime sooner?

Thanks for sharing your pictures, ISv. We are in that time of year when everything becomes dark and dreary here. It makes me feel good to look at your photos.

Mine came last night from adorama. But I don’t have my ring yet so I got a brick right now. Lol ring is suppose to be here today now.

GMCPhotographics said:

This is some very interesting reading. It's looking like the R6iii is about a 1/3 stop worse in high Iso noise vs the R6ii....which is impressive! Where as a R5 vs R6ii comparison has the R5 about a whole stop worse. If some one shoots identical images on both cameras (R6iii and R6ii) at high iso and then prints them to the same size, say A2...the R6iii would show less noise due to the higher pixel count.

Does anyone know the R6iii's sensor readout speed yet? Ah...I see them measured on the main DPreview R6iii review page specs:
R6iii ~13.5ms vs R6ii ~14.7
About 1ms faster than the R6ii

Click to expand...

it's faster with 17% more lines to read. Canon did a bang up job.. AND it is still FSI. bonkers.