Latest activity

stillviking · Apr 17, 2026

What are the real chances of a new PRO standard zoom lens?

- RF 24-70mm 2.8L (optics)
- RF 28-70mm 2.0L (size/weight)

Are a little old right now...

EDIT: Nikon just won Tipa World Awards 2026 with their new 24-70 2.8 II.

Martin868 · Apr 17, 2026

In the latest sales reports in Japan, canon does not have even one camera in the top ten. I am not sure what your numbers are, for what region and if they are units or $.

dwkdnvr · Apr 17, 2026

Mr. Warbucks said:
If the R7Ii gets an R6 body with cooling it will most probably grow weight. The birding set up requires low weight. The Rf100-400 is pretty light, but apenditure comprise at the long end.
If the price really would be around 2300$, would an OM1 mark II with their oly 100-400 lens not a better value proposition? Micro 4/3 gives crop factor 2. Is the lower MP an issue? The sensor is smaller, hence probably not? Probably same weight range, however a bit more expensive?

I made exactly this evaluation when getting started in bird photography. The OM1 is a nice camera, but the M43 size advantage is undermined by the 100-400 lens being the same weight as the RF100-500. The R7 + RF 100-400 was substantially lighter *and* cheaper than the Olympus kit when I was comparing them - the Canon combo was only slightly more than the OM1 body and almost $1500 less when adding the lens. Furthermore, for birds pixel density is a better metric than crop factor since you're rarely 'filling the frame'. The OM1 and the R7 have basically identical pixel density, so in terms of 'pixels per duck' at equivalent focal length they're a wash. (that changes if you consider video though - crop factor will apply to video as it's typically full-width of the sensor)

The OM1 MkII does have better AF than the existing R7 (mostly in consistency rather than absolute capability). I think it's a working assumption that an R7II in line with these rumors will fix the AF weaknesses of the R7 and elevate it close to the R5II which is at least on par with the OM1. Of course, the rumored R7II seems like a mismatch with the RF 100-400 and pairing with the RF 100-500 will now likely end up being $1000-1500 more than the OM setup so the value question flips the other direction.

neuroanatomist · Apr 17, 2026

mimbu said:
Then we are talking about completely separate things. At least you're not QUITE as big a moron as I thought you were, you just can't write well.

mimbu said:
neuroanatomist said:

A 1x-1.4x switchable TC is NOT just a matter of 'adapting it into a separate teleconverter'.

Click to expand...

A 1.4x TC built into a lens does not have to be any different to a separate 1.4x TC added to a lens.

No, we were talking about the same thing. You quoted my reply about a 1-1.4x switchable TC and stated, "... separate TC added to a lens". Your words. You were just confused, and are now trying to move the goalposts after being called out on your idiocy. Yet another fail. You should quit while you're behind, but you're probably too immature and weak to do so, therefore on this issue I won't bother replying to more of your asinine drivel.

neuroanatomist · Apr 17, 2026

Martin868 said:
Canon is falling behind and the successful brands are not successful by doing this kind of stuff.

Do you realize how foolish stating something like that makes you look? This is Canon 'falling behind'.

Martin868 · Apr 17, 2026

blackcoffee17 said:
"F1 lenses are exotic products that a tiny number of users could benefit from"

They are also those kind of products that bring people into the system, even if those people will never buy them. Great for marketing.

That is the theory behind those products. In practice I don't think that is working. Canon is falling behind and the successful brands are not successful by doing this kind of stuff. Sony is great because of a broader ecosystem, great cameras in different form factors many of which Canon do not produce, and Fuji have interesting JPEG processing and compact systems. Canon seems to always be doing the same old same old. I am invested in Canon RF but I see the gaps and Canon does not seem to move in the right directions.

mimbu · Apr 17, 2026

The original leak on Twitter/X said "faster than 1.2" which doesn't necessarily mean f/1.0 or f/0.95. Could be f/1.1. Could be a lot of things, but f/1.1 is a third of a stop faster than f/1.2 so...

Anyway, Sigma was established in 1961 so 2026 is their 65th anniversary. So, 65mm.

I'm guessing they'll probably try to outdo Nikon and release a 65/0.95 that is also AF and doesn't cost nearly $9000. Wonder if they'll call it a Noct just to rub some salt in.

mimbu · Apr 17, 2026

neuroanatomist said:
The discussion was about a switchable separate 1x-1.4x TC (echoing previous discussions about a switchable 1x-1.4x-2x TC that resulted from online misinterpretation of a Canon patent). The desire is for a standalone optic that is added to and mounts behind the lens like the current 1.4x and 2x TCs. The explanation was about why that is not technically feasible without additional optics for use at '1x'.

Then we are talking about completely separate things. At least you're not QUITE as big a moron as I thought you were, you just can't write well.

neuroanatomist · Apr 17, 2026

m4ndr4ke said:
I don’t think it is clear in the article, but this rumour for the Sigma is for an autofocusing lens.

Even so, the blog post lists four other faster-than-f/1 manual focus lenses. Of course, those are for the RF mount...but then the article throws a non-RF 135/1.4 lens into the discussion.

The reason I think the Nikon 58/0.95 lens has relevance is that it's from another household camera name, which those four other lenses —Kipon Ibelux, Brightin Star, Mikaton Zhongyi and Laowa— certainly are not (Laowa at least is common for camera forum dwellers, but the difficulty I had fighting autocorrect to type all four of those manufacturer names into this post box speaks for itself).

m4ndr4ke · Apr 17, 2026

neuroanatomist said:
Probably worth mentioning the Nikon Z 58mm f/0.95 in this context. I don’t think Canon really cares about what Nikon does from a market perspective, but they probably do from a bragging rights perspective.

I don’t think it is clear in the article, but this rumour for the Sigma is for an autofocusing lens.

exquisitefacade · Apr 17, 2026

neuroanatomist said:
Oh, ok. Why are you here? What makes you different from the other trolls who show up here?

If you prefer APS-C for that use case, that's your choice.

@blackcoffee17 nailed this one...halo lenses are just that.

You mean the business model that has enabled Canon to lead the camera market for 23 years and counting?

Canon has done so, quite successfully. For example, what other manufacturer uses every pixel on the sensor for autofocus and has cross-type AF sensitivity like the R1? What other manufacturer offers a 24-105mm f/2.8 general purpose lens? As for in-camera processing, DLO is available in-camera and corrects for even challenging issues like field curvature.

Other manufacturers have developed different innovations, of course. The bottom line is that if you cannot take excellent pictures with any current ILC system, the problem is not the gear.

Troll on, bub.

neuroanatomist · Apr 17, 2026

Kiton said:
I would be very happy happy with a 65mm f2.
and a 28mm f2 and a 85mm f2!!

The RF 28-70/2 gives you the first two in one lens, and the RF 85/2 already exists.

Personally, I view my 28-70/2 as a set of portrait primes in one lens, and the 85/1.2L DS provides what the zoom doesn't for superior bokeh.

Kiton · Apr 17, 2026

I like 65mm for portraits, I have been known to tape a 24-70 or 24-105 at 65mm for a shoot.
I would be very happy happy with a 65mm f2.
OK, broken record alert:
and a 28mm f2 and a 85mm f2!!

neuroanatomist · Apr 17, 2026

Martin868 said:
I think this kind of R&D is total waste of resources for Canon. they are still way behind Sony in general

Oh, ok. Why are you here? What makes you different from the other trolls who show up here?

Martin868 said:
and Fuji for street/travel photography.

If you prefer APS-C for that use case, that's your choice.

Martin868 said:
F1 lenses are exotic products that a tiny number of users could benefit from.

@blackcoffee17 nailed this one...halo lenses are just that.

Martin868 said:
There are much more important and useful things to do. Canon need to change and doing these F1 one would be Canon hanging to the old business model.

You mean the business model that has enabled Canon to lead the camera market for 23 years and counting?

Martin868 said:
Instead invest in new innovative bodies, proper in-camera processing technology and solid general purpose lenses.

Canon has done so, quite successfully. For example, what other manufacturer uses every pixel on the sensor for autofocus and has cross-type AF sensitivity like the R1? What other manufacturer offers a 24-105mm f/2.8 general purpose lens? As for in-camera processing, DLO is available in-camera and corrects for even challenging issues like field curvature.

Other manufacturers have developed different innovations, of course. The bottom line is that if you cannot take excellent pictures with any current ILC system, the problem is not the gear.

Troll on, bub.

neuroanatomist · Apr 17, 2026

Bob Howland said:
I'm not sure if it's relevant but I just did some test shots with an R6-2 at ISO 12800 and f/1.4. That combination's images were almost 2 stops brighter than the actual scene. I couldn't easily read the book titles in the scene but could read them in the image.

IMO, an f/1.0 lens (or faster) is not really about 'more light'. This is not 1975 with Kubrik needing to shoot in candlelight at f/0.7 on film. Those lenses were developed for NASA to shoot the dark side of the moon, but they didn't bring that old Zeiss lens on Artemis II...the fastest lens was a 35/2 and the rest were f/2.8 zooms. Rather, it's about the razor thin DoF you can achieve with such a lens.

blackcoffee17 · Apr 17, 2026

"F1 lenses are exotic products that a tiny number of users could benefit from"

They are also those kind of products that bring people into the system, even if those people will never buy them. Great for marketing.

Martin868 · Apr 17, 2026

Canon Rumors said:
It's time for another Canon 50mm F0.95, who cares about price!

I have a savings account that is almost there for the Canon 7 version 50 F0.95 that I will have converted to M mount. It has been an 18 month process of self control.

I think this kind of R&D is total waste of resources for Canon. they are still way behind Sony in general, and Fuji for street/travel photography. F1 lenses are exotic products that a tiny number of users could benefit from. There are much more important and useful things to do. Canon need to change and doing these F1 one would be Canon hanging to the old business model. Let Sigma do these specialty products. Instead invest in new innovative bodies, proper in-camera processing technology and solid general purpose lenses.

Bob Howland · Apr 17, 2026

I'm not sure if it's relevant but I just did some test shots with an R6-2 at ISO 12800 and f/1.4. That combination's images were almost 2 stops brighter than the actual scene. I couldn't easily read the book titles in the scene but could read them in the image.

neuroanatomist · Apr 17, 2026

mimbu said:
Lenses with built-in TCs are designed to be optically correct at 1x in the first place, with open internal air gaps as part of the prescription. An air gap is just another design variable, and large air gaps are not unusual in supertelephoto optics.

The 1.4x mode is then created by inserting a matched negative afocal converter group into that already-corrected 1x system. That group modifies the ray angles and pupil imaging so the effective focal length and f-number increase, while the final image plane remains at the sensor.

So there is no physical requirement for some separate "1x compensating group" when the TC is out. The 1x state is the native solved state. The 1.4x group is the added perturbation that was specifically designed to work within it.

You are asserting a physics constraint that does not exist.

Did you rephrase what I already stated and illustrated all on your own, or did one of your 'friends' like Claude or Grok help you?

Let me remind you of what you asserted:

mimbu said:
A 1.4x TC built into a lens does not have to be any different to a separate 1.4x TC added to a lens. The lens is simply designed to focus onto the sensor without the 1.4x TC in place, and the 1.4x TC optics are designed so that they don't screw with that.

The discussion was about a switchable separate 1x-1.4x TC (echoing previous discussions about a switchable 1x-1.4x-2x TC that resulted from online misinterpretation of a Canon patent). The desire is for a standalone optic that is added to and mounts behind the lens like the current 1.4x and 2x TCs. The explanation was about why that is not technically feasible without additional optics for use at '1x'.

No one but you is arguing that a built-in switchable TC, which is something that has been done for decades by multiple manufacturers, is technically feasible and requires nothing flipped in when the TC optics are flipped out…that would be obvious even to an idiot.

Either you failed to understand the point of the discussion, or you failed to understand the response. Either way, fail.

neuroanatomist · Apr 17, 2026

Probably worth mentioning the Nikon Z 58mm f/0.95 in this context. I don’t think Canon really cares about what Nikon does from a market perspective, but they probably do from a bragging rights perspective.

AlanF · Apr 17, 2026

candyman said:
That is an interesting statement. Photographers of the past didn't have fancy cameras, but they knew how to take beautiful (award-worthy) photos of sports, wildlife, and other genres. So if it didn't do its job, it's usually the photographer.

It’s as always. Make the most of its strengths and work around its weaknesses.