Etnaphele said:

the 100-300, taking it firmly outside the amateur range. The Sony 300 2.8 is much much more approachable. In which world 6k is the comparable with 12k?!

Click to expand...

Since when any of those lenses is amateur level? The 600 and 800mm f/11 are amateur level, and the 200-800mm is a stretch at 2k, but some amateurs may go for it for the specs.

Lenses that cost 4k, 6k 10k are absolute professional tools that you see on the sidelines at stadiums, paired with the highest end bodies, because that’s who they’re designed for. Amateurs are not even a consideration on the development of such products.

neuroanatomist said:

Fair, but those are your ideas of value. Anyway, it's a sliding scale. Nikon and Canon 600/4 lenses are $15K, give up 1-1/3 stops for the Nikon 600/6.3 knock 70% off the price, then give up an additional 1-2/3 stops and knock 80% off that price. Nikon gives us the middle option, Canon gives us the bottom one.

Click to expand...

Sure, I can only express what my mind thinks, every comment is subjective. In your sliding scale, going down the aperture as much as Canon went brings unsuitability in many scenarios. Value is often found mid of the way, not all the way the cheap route.

neuroanatomist said:

There we disagree. I was just holding the RF 14/1.4 in my hand, it's small and light and requires digital correction. I know what the Sigma 14/1.4 feels like (because it's close to the EF 11-24/4 that I owned for years) and it's a beast. No, the 14/1.4 is not cheap. Being able to easily carry a lens on a trip is a lot of BANG.

Click to expand...

Nope, no lens you mention here is good value. The Sony 14 1.8 would be.

neuroanatomist said:

Lol, yes it did and fair. But funny that you mention the Sony 300/2.8. Where are the 100(120)-300/2.8 zooms from Sony and Nikon? You seem fixated on two specific Nikon lenses and/or one specific price range. I suspect that many people willing and able to spend $4-6K on a lens could also spend $10-15K on a lens.

Click to expand...

Canon chose to go the premium route with the 100-300, taking it firmly outside the amateur range. The Sony 300 2.8 is much much more approachable. In which world 6k is the comparable with 12k?! I read an article last week of someone thinking of 2 Sony 300 2.8 instead of the 400s and 600s, such is the value of that lens.

Going back to the original point: many just wish Canon would give more choice in more balanced price ranges, because they love many things Canon is now offering and Canon themselves put on themselves the role of sole lens provider for the system.

AlanF said:

There certainly is:

https://www.canon.co.uk/pro/infobank/neural-network-technology/

I have asked twice here if anyone has paid to use it, but with no response.

Click to expand...

I've just started a subscription There’s a 30 days free trial period included, so I've decided to try it out.

Beyond the afformentioned lens, I have also had a few suggestions that Canon will be updating the the RF 24-70 F2.8 L IS USM with a VCM version at some point in 2026. I think it would be great to see it before the peak July and August wedding season.

Click to expand...

How real we will have a new RF 24-70 2.8 L VCM Z soon? I'm too excited for this one..!

roby17269 said:

have they for real? Who's going to pay to use DPP? those add-ons must be really enticing....

Click to expand...

There certainly is:


I have asked twice here if anyone has paid to use it, but with no response.

neuroanatomist said:

Nikon specifies 998 g without the foot and collar. so maybe DPR is including those?

Click to expand...

Yes, DPR is including the collar, which is removable and replaceable with a cover for, I think, aesthetics. It’s really interesting what Nikon has done with this lens.

Beautiful series, antonn.

Etnaphele said:

Value is usually measured technically in BANG for BUCK, so the Nikkor primes, banging much higher than they are bucking, have a good value, as they are seen as alternatives for the big fluorine elements primes. The RF 100-400 is ok value but leaning on the cheap side, the 600 and 800 also pretty good value.

The two Nikkor primes are excellent value, particularly in comparison to the bottle bottom that is the 45mm F1.2 (which I have and like very much, but value? It's a fun lens but not good value. RF 28mm F2.8 is good value! Canon VCM series, bad value but nice lenses for whom needs the video features and not being able to recognise which lens they're picking up (joking of course). Nikkor 1.2 monsters? Worse value of all.

Click to expand...

Fair, but those are your ideas of value. Anyway, it's a sliding scale. Nikon and Canon 600/4 lenses are $15K, give up 1-1/3 stops for the Nikon 600/6.3 knock 70% off the price, then give up an additional 1-2/3 stops and knock 80% off that price. Nikon gives us the middle option, Canon gives us the bottom one.

Etnaphele said:

You're talking to the wrong person if you think I have anything against digital corrections. But when digital corrections - which should enable to bring sharper and more compact lenses for a lower price - are sold at premium prices, than value is gone (no digital correction will bring back those BUCKS!)

Click to expand...

There we disagree. I was just holding the RF 14/1.4 in my hand, it's small and light and requires digital correction. I know what the Sigma 14/1.4 feels like (because it's close to the EF 11-24/4 that I owned for years) and it's a beast. No, the 14/1.4 is not cheap. Being able to easily carry a lens on a trip is a lot of BANG.

Etnaphele said:

Out of curiosity, does the 75-300 count in the 12 Canon zooms? That should be a -1. Jokes apart, it's clear that Canon has a big hole in the 4k-6k range for bright telephoto (Sony 300 2.8, Nikkor PF, Sigma 300-600). You are blinding yourself with side arguments imo.

Click to expand...

Lol, yes it did and fair. But funny that you mention the Sony 300/2.8. Where are the 100(120)-300/2.8 zooms from Sony and Nikon? You seem fixated on two specific Nikon lenses and/or one specific price range. I suspect that many people willing and able to spend $4-6K on a lens could also spend $10-15K on a lens. For me, at least, a better argument is the one I made above for the 14/1.4 – the Nikon 600/6.3 is under 1.5 kg and 278mm long, the Canon 600/4 is over 3 kg and 472mm long and I know which one I would take on an airplane and which one I would not.

Etnaphele said:

And just to end on a friendly note, I love Canon gear and respect much of your opinions, I always learn from your comments here

Click to expand...

Thanks, and I'm enjoying this discussion, as well.

Etnaphele said:

EDIT: forgot to show appreciation for Hendrix. Here's to digital corrections and being forced to use DPP to get a decent JPG! (joking... maybe?)

Click to expand...

Oh I get decent JPGs out of DxO. Better than DPP, IMO. Wow, that's a lot of abbreviations!

m4ndr4ke said:

Not heavier But I know what you mean.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the correction. I was using info from DPReview since I was already in their timeline tool, and they list the new Nikon lens at 1180 g.



Nikon specifies 998 g without the foot and collar. so maybe DPR is including those? Or maybe they just messed up. The Canon collar is not removable, the foot is and weighs about 100 g, but I don't know if Canon includes that in the 1110 g specified weight of their lens (but they do include paint, because the white version weighs in at 1115 g).

AJ said:

I wish that lens manufacturers, including Canon, would share this information readily and freely. You'd think it would be a competitive advantage to have corrections ready to go at dxo, lightroom, darktable, and whatnot, the very day a new lens hits the street. Yes there is DPP, and out-of-camera jpeg, but photographers are looking for lenses that fit their streamlined workflow.

As an example of how things can go south, there was a widely circulated "review" of the RF 14/1.4 recently whereby the authors used the 16/2.8 profile because they didn't have a profile for the new lens.

Click to expand...

I'd say that's down to the reviewer, though, since DPP is free, available, and uses the profile stored on the lens.

Having said that, I certainly agree with the idea that 3rd party support for new lenses is better sooner than later. But I'll also say that while Canon's DLO sounds impressive (using the mathematical model of the lens to correct the image), in practice when I compare DxO to DPP I find the former yields better image quality even in the extreme corners of a lens like the RF 14-35/4, where the most stretching is occurring.

Specifically regarding the RF 14/1.4, DxO will reportedly support that lens with their April update (was mentioned here and I confirmed that a DxO employee provided that information). That's pretty fast (faster than some prior lenses), but I'll still have the lens before DxO supports it because according to FedEx my copy is on a truck that just turned onto my street.

Sporgon said:

They were little jewels in those days. I think the ME/MX, OM-1/2 and FM/FE were the pinnacle of ‘consumer’ grade manual focus slrs. I have a lovely, mint ME, but having had it for a few years I realise it would never have stood up to the use my Nikon FMs did.
The only problem with the original FM is that its vertical run metal shutter created a lot of shutter shock. This was improved in the FM2

Click to expand...

I had an FE, because I disliked the exposure reading (LEDs) in the FM, even though I used it exclusively in manual mode.
And then, I made a "mistake"...
For my summer vacation, I bought a Leicaflex with 560mm tele and the APO 180mm. Back home, I compared the Kodachromes, went to my camera store, and put the entire Nikon gear (F2, FE, 24mm, 60 macro, 300mm) on sale. For optical reasons, but also because 2 months old Nikkors, the 24 and the 60mm, were far too dusty inside, unlike the SL lenses. Both systems were used simultaneously and kept in the same bag, not even used in dusty conditions. Never had such issues with Minoltas.
I still regret having sold the F2...

neuroanatomist said:

Value is a personal choice. What 'many categories' are you talking about? From your comments, it's apparent that you believe Nikon's 600/6.3 and 800/6.3 lenses offer 'more value'. I would argue that lenses costing ≥$4K are niche products, and that Canon's RF 100-400, 600/11 and 800/11 lenses offer much better value to a much larger number of people.

Click to expand...

Value is usually measured technically in BANG for BUCK, so the Nikkor primes, banging much higher than they are bucking, have a good value, as they are seen as alternatives for the big fluorine elements primes. The RF 100-400 is ok value but leaning on the cheap side, the 600 and 800 also pretty good value.

neuroanatomist said:

You also mentioned f/1.4 primes. Do two lenses, one wide angle and one standard, comprise a category? Or is the category 'f/1.4 primes'? If you are going to compare them to Canon's f/1.4 primes of the same focal lengths and ignore that the latter are L-series lenses, then you would also say that Canon's RF 45/1.2 is a much better value than any of Nikon's f/1.2 S-series primes? Or would you say that's not a fair comparison?

Click to expand...

The two Nikkor primes are excellent value, particularly in comparison to the bottle bottom that is the 45mm F1.2 (which I have and like very much, but value? It's a fun lens but not good value. RF 28mm F2.8 is good value! Canon VCM series, bad value but nice lenses for whom needs the video features and not being able to recognise which lens they're picking up (joking of course). Nikkor 1.2 monsters? Worse value of all.

neuroanatomist said:

The VCM lenses are L-series lenses, with L-series optical quality. Calling them a worse value than consumer-level lenses is silly, IMO. Yes, they are more expensive...and they are professional series lenses. I get that you don't like that the RF 35/1.4L (like other wide/ultrawide VCM lenses) requires digital correction of distortion. So let me leave you with an image from a review of the Nikon 35/1.4 without CA correction. Would you be happy with that uncorrected image, or would you say that digital correction is needed? If it helps, you can view the image while listening to the appropriate music.

Click to expand...

You're talking to the wrong person if you think I have anything against digital corrections. But when digital corrections - which should enable to bring sharper and more compact lenses for a lower price - are sold at premium prices, than value is gone (no digital correction will bring back those BUCKS!)

fox40phil said:

Yesterday I had the chance to test the Z8 + 800mm f6.3 for two hours. It was awesome! I know exactly one like this won’t ever come from Canon - even not for this nice price!

Click to expand...

Summed it up pretty well!

neuroanatomist said:

For the their respective full frame mirrorless mounts with focal lengths in the telephoto/supertelephoto range:

• Canon – 12 zooms, 12 primes
• Nikon – 10 zooms, 9 primes
• Sony – 12 zooms, 10 primes

How is Canon is lagging way behind? I suspect your answer boils down to something like, "They're not making the telephoto lenses that I personally want." IMO, it's always good to be in touch with objective reality.

Click to expand...

Out of curiosity, does the 75-300 count in the 12 Canon zooms? That should be a -1. Jokes apart, it's clear that Canon has a big hole in the 4k-6k range for bright telephoto (Sony 300 2.8, Nikkor PF, Sigma 300-600). You are blinding yourself with side arguments imo. And just to end on a friendly note, I love Canon gear and respect much of your opinions, I always learn from your comments here

EDIT: forgot to show appreciation for Hendrix. Here's to digital corrections and being forced to use DPP to get a decent JPG! (joking... maybe?)

neuroanatomist said:

The new Nikon lens is heavier, longer and fatter than Canon's 70-200/2.8 Z lens, and costs the same $3200.

Click to expand...

Not heavier But I know what you mean.

Etnaphele said:

the VCM line is overly expensive in my opinion

Click to expand...

…in your opinion. Half of them are incredibly affordable, for what they are. If I’m not mistaken, there’s one or two that are even cheaper than their predecessors.

neuroanatomist said:

So let me leave you with an image from a review of the Nikon 35/1.4 without CA correction. Would you be happy with that uncorrected image, or would you say that digital correction is needed?

Click to expand...

Wow, I think that may be worse than the RF 45mm f/1.2

fox40phil said:

Canon lags way behind the others in terms of tele lenses

Click to expand...

Do they? It doesn’t feel like that at all…

Accipiter nisus, R1/R1/R52 + RF600/4

Got the lens today, huuuuuge improvement over the 8-15.

First, the weight feels like half of the old 8-15, it’s light!

Unlike the 8-15 where the outside shell was two parts connecting in the middle (and being a damage point), this is one solid shell with a feel like the recent VCM lenses.

Lens cap is improved too, the cap fits the lens hood tighter and has the squeeze grips in newer lens caps. The lens hood is more sturdy and attaches tighter with a more recessed button to take it off.

Will use it for photos this weekend and i’m assuming will be a big improvement there.

PhotonShark said:

I wish there was a way for manufactures to share their lens correction data properly.

Click to expand...

I wish that lens manufacturers, including Canon, would share this information readily and freely. You'd think it would be a competitive advantage to have corrections ready to go at dxo, lightroom, darktable, and whatnot, the very day a new lens hits the street. Yes there is DPP, and out-of-camera jpeg, but photographers are looking for lenses that fit their streamlined workflow.

As an example of how things can go south, there was a widely circulated "review" of the RF 14/1.4 recently whereby the authors used the 16/2.8 profile because they didn't have a profile for the new lens.

Lenses these days are a two-part system: the physical lens, and the software/profiles needed for mandatory corrections. It seems to me that for manufacturers, the value is in the lens and not the software or profiles. If anything, giving away the profiles adds value. Having companies like dxo retro-engineer the corrections seems counterproductive to me.

I'd even go as far as to say that when corrections are free and are easily and efficiently applied, checking a box with a single click of the mouse, without having to complicate the workflow, you may pull in people from the "hate distortions" camp to the "love it" camp.

fox40phil said:

It’s CP+… Canon lags way behind the others in terms of tele lenses… and they only show this concept?!?! Are they serious?!

Click to expand...

For the their respective full frame mirrorless mounts with focal lengths in the telephoto/supertelephoto range:

• Canon – 12 zooms, 12 primes
• Nikon – 10 zooms, 9 primes
• Sony – 12 zooms, 10 primes

How is Canon is lagging way behind? I suspect your answer boils down to something like, "They're not making the telephoto lenses that I personally want." IMO, it's always good to be in touch with objective reality.

There is one advantage to files shot with barrel-distorted lenses I'd like to mention here, and it is this: there is more leeway for rotating images to correct leveling. For files without distortion, any rotation will result in having to crop. In contrast, distorted files can often be rotated quite a bit before additional cropping is necessary.

It’s CP+… Canon lags way behind the others in terms of tele lenses… and they only show this concept?!?! Are they serious?!

Even not the r7 ii …

Soooo many nice and interesting lenses on the CP+!! But NOT for RF!
What a big^2 shame! Imho… we look like a outsider… one who watch the party through the window…

Yesterday I had the chance to test the Z8 + 800mm f6.3 for two hours. It was awesome! I know exactly one like this won’t ever come from Canon - even not for this nice price!

AlanF said:

It would not surprise me if they were encrypted. Canon have now introduced a subscription model for using their higher level add-ons to DPP, and they like putting restrictions on 3rd parties.

Click to expand...

have they for real? Who's going to pay to use DPP? those add-ons must be really enticing....

Etnaphele said:

If you cannot see how Nikon is currently offering more value in many categories than Canon, I won't insist.

Click to expand...

Value is a personal choice. What 'many categories' are you talking about? From your comments, it's apparent that you believe Nikon's 600/6.3 and 800/6.3 lenses offer 'more value'. I would argue that lenses costing ≥$4K are niche products, and that Canon's RF 100-400, 600/11 and 800/11 lenses offer much better value to a much larger number of people.

You also mentioned f/1.4 primes. Do two lenses, one wide angle and one standard, comprise a category? Or is the category 'f/1.4 primes'? If you are going to compare them to Canon's f/1.4 primes of the same focal lengths and ignore that the latter are L-series lenses, then you would also say that Canon's RF 45/1.2 is a much better value than any of Nikon's f/1.2 S-series primes? Or would you say that's not a fair comparison?

Etnaphele said:

I was just wondering what could sway Canon in either lowering some prices - the VCM line is overly expensive in my opinion - and/or let 3rd party lenses on the RF mount: as corporations understand only money, I see financial setback as the only factor. As said, just daydreaming

Click to expand...

The VCM lenses are L-series lenses, with L-series optical quality. Calling them a worse value than consumer-level lenses is silly, IMO. Yes, they are more expensive...and they are professional series lenses. I get that you don't like that the RF 35/1.4L (like other wide/ultrawide VCM lenses) requires digital correction of distortion. So let me leave you with an image from a review of the Nikon 35/1.4 without CA correction. Would you be happy with that uncorrected image, or would you say that digital correction is needed? If it helps, you can view the image while listening to the appropriate music.

neuroanatomist said:

Yes, that was clear. But…do we know those data aren’t readable by other developers? Have DxO, Adobe, etc., come out and stated that they cannot use Canon's in-lens correction profiles that are presumably written into the .CR3 files? Those developers have established workflows for building lens profiles that work for all manufacturers' lenses. I can certainly see those developers deciding that modifying their software and processes for Canon RF lenses alone would not be a worthwhile investment of resources, given that the current processes in place have been working and continue to work for them.

Click to expand...

It would not surprise me if they were encrypted. Canon have now introduced a subscription model for using their higher level add-ons to DPP, and they like putting restrictions on 3rd parties.