Latest activity

ISv · Feb 22, 2026

Click said:
We don't see this species in my area. Thanks for sharing.

They should be common on the entire west coast of Canada. It means they are in your area (Canada

)! On Oahu any area is "my area" - the advantage of the small islands.

Click · Feb 22, 2026

We don't see this species in my area. Thanks for sharing.

David - Sydney · Feb 22, 2026

bluezurich said:
I'm always amazed how longer macro focal lengths and higher than 1.0 lenses get left out of the equation due to manual focus. I get that AF is great for 100mm glass what with portraiture and such but macro, real fucking macro. You've got a rail, a tripod perhaps even software for stacking. Are these folks using auto focus? My vote is no. All the macro lenses I could ever ask for are available now, mostly from Venus Laowa. (not to mention adapted EF glass)

Maybe you should get a grip on reality. Macro means many things to different people.

Sure, I have done stacked macro in manual focus in controlled light enclosures but there is no way I could setup something like that shooting small critters underwater.
Similarly for insects (bees in one shoot I did) or butterflies shot handheld needs good AF and the RF100/2.8 is reasonably priced.

It is great that you have options from Laowa for your requirements although nothing exists like the MP-E for instance. Canon doesn't want to make a lens for your use case.

I would love a reasonably priced, manual focus, good coma etc 14/1.4 that would fit on EF/RF but it doesn't exist.
I either use what I have or pony up some $$$$ for the RF14/1.4

scyrene · Feb 22, 2026

Del Paso said:
Same here!
Even though I almost never use AF for static subjects, things get different when motives move.
AF can be very valuable for butterflies, dragonflies etc, or when I'm tired.
PS: I never use a tripod, but often a ringflash.

I have used AF for quick-and-dirty focus stacks of stationary subjects - rapidly select points over various parts of the animal and you can cover a lot, although it can be rather hit and miss.

ISv · Feb 22, 2026

Glaucous - winged Gull. Old photo, after that encounter I never saw that species again. There are no nesting Gulls on Hawaii, just rare vagrants.
First winter plumage.

Larus glaucescens - Glaucous-winged Gull 8.jpg

Del Paso · Feb 22, 2026

scyrene said:
For live insects (and I gather reptiles and amphibians) in the wild autofocus can help a lot. I've done macro with rails, but it's not often practical with eg butterflies (unless they're dead).

Same here!
Even though I almost never use AF for static subjects, things get different when motives move.
AF can be very valuable for butterflies, dragonflies etc, or when I'm tired.
PS: I never use a tripod, but often a ringflash.

Skux · Feb 22, 2026

People say they want optical correction and then they see the 1.2kg Sigma 40mm f/1.4 Art

justaCanonuser · Feb 22, 2026

bendilts said:
Example shot from the 600x1.4 wide open; I don't buy the "have to stop down to get focus" argument.

Stopping down does expand depth of field, but with very long focal length the gain is limited, of course. Here is an example shot with my EF 600mm F/4.0 III and my R7, stopping down to f/8.0 allowed me to get the spectacled eider nearly fully sharp from head to tail:

Plüschkopferpel Texel 2025-20-30 3 Copyright.jpg

scyrene · Feb 22, 2026

bluezurich said:
You've got a rail, a tripod perhaps even software for stacking. Are these folks using auto focus? My vote is no.

For live insects (and I gather reptiles and amphibians) in the wild autofocus can help a lot. I've done macro with rails, but it's not often practical with eg butterflies (unless they're dead).

scyrene · Feb 22, 2026

Canon Rumors said:
I had no idea how popular the 180 was. I hear it a lot. Does max aperture matter with long macros? Is 200 f/4 fine for example?

Depends what you're using it for. I use a 180 macro primarily for flowers and smooth out of focus backgrounds are an important part of that. 200 f/4 might be okay, but any narrower and imo you're butting up against the 100-400, which can produce very good semi-macro insect portraits where you want more in focus (as its max aperture is so much narrower).

HenWin · Feb 22, 2026

dolina said:
I want to see a

RF 135mm f/1.4L IS USM

RF 200mm f/1.8L IS USM

RF 300mm f/2.0L IS USM

RF 500mm f/4L IS USM

But I'd be surprised to see further lenses later in 2026.

As for the Series II RF 400mm f/2.8L IS USM & RF 600mm f/4L IS USM. It would likely be out approx 10 years later after Series I's 2021 release. By early 2030s to be used at the 2032 Summer Olympics in Brisbane, AU. A R1 Mark III & R5 Mark IV would be released with those 2 lenses as well hopefully with CFexpress 4.0's 4.0GB/s for 80-120fps @ 2x the MP of today's R1 & R5 Mark II.

What improvements to expect from these Series II fast white long primes at a higher price?

- physically squatter
- lower weight
- more stops of IS
- better USM
- shorter MFD
- optical improvements for higher MP FF image sensors
- >40fps continuous shooting support

We then can expect a Series II RF 800mm f/5.6L IS USM & RF 1200mm f/8L IS USM a year later. Likely with a permanently placed 2.0x TC to keep R&D cost down and profit margins up.

Then again Nikon's 400mm and 600mm lenses with built-in 1.4x Extenders are so desirable that Canon may push up the release of the RF 400mm f/2.8L IS USM & RF 600mm f/4L IS USM replacements to 2030 in time for the FIFA World Cup or Winter Games.

You can't have everything...like lighter weight and a faster lens...well not until you successfully break the laws of physics. Same probably goes for the other options: longer and lighter or longer and faster. Or maybe you can have them if your name is on this list: https://www.bloomberg.com/billionaires/. Fortunately for me, I've got the lenses I want and I can rent the others........

HenWin · Feb 22, 2026

Richard,

You described one of the lenses as using a VCM and then spelled that out as "Voice Coils Motor". But it's not. It's "Voice Coil Motor"...as in only one coil.

thanks,

P-visie · Feb 22, 2026

Canon Rumors said:
I had no idea how popular the 180 was. I hear it a lot. Does max aperture matter with long macros? Is 200 f/4 fine for example?

The EF 180mm is a very sharp lens, ideal for when you need more distance to the subject (e.g. insects). A 200mm f4 macro would be fine. The 300mm f4 macro from the patent application would be, for me, even better, but even more niche than a 180-200mm macro, so not very likely

.

bluezurich · Feb 22, 2026

Uneternal said:
Canon has a big gap in their APS-C lineup, which they treat like a stepchild. Before they release more lenses for full frame, they should rather fix the missing parts in their APS-C patchwork blanket.
The only half-decent standard zoom so far is from Sigma (18-50mm), and it doesn't even have stabilization.
So, how about a lighter successor of the EF 17-55mm? And I'm still waiting for an alternative to two of the greatest Canon APS-C primes ever produced, the EF-M 22mm f/2 and the EF-M 32mm f/1.4. Would've been easy enough to port them over, since they're already calculated for a similar flange distance.

How many years did it take for the EF lineup to be mature? Many more years than the RF has been with us. I guess if I were many years younger I'd be in the 'I want it now Daddy' crowd but, well, I'm not. What do they say about it being a virtue?

kreb's cyclist said:
A replacement for the old 180mm Macro would be very welcome, perhaps 180mm or 200mm. But I'm not going to hold my breath. Higher end RF-S lenses are obviously needed and allow third party manufacturers, other than Sigma, to issue zoom auto focus lenses!

I'm always amazed how longer macro focal lengths and higher than 1.0 lenses get left out of the equation due to manual focus. I get that AF is great for 100mm glass what with portraiture and such but macro, real fucking macro. You've got a rail, a tripod perhaps even software for stacking. Are these folks using auto focus? My vote is no. All the macro lenses I could ever ask for are available now, mostly from Venus Laowa. (not to mention adapted EF glass)

InternalRevenue · Feb 22, 2026

Fingers crossed for a 15-60/85 RF-S lens, whether bright or not. Zoom lenses starting at 17 or 18mm on Canon APS-C just aren't quite wide enough for true general purpose use IMO, and as decent at the EF-S 15-85 might still be IQ-wise on high res sensors, it's got plenty of QOL deficiencies by modern standards, especially for video.

kreb's cyclist · Feb 22, 2026

A replacement for the old 180mm Macro would be very welcome, perhaps 180mm or 200mm. But I'm not going to hold my breath. Higher end RF-S lenses are obviously needed and allow third party manufacturers, other than Sigma, to issue zoom auto focus lenses!

Ian K · Feb 22, 2026

benperrin said:
Yeah it's just another thing to take around however it's probably worth it for perfect focus. Do you have a filter/plate system that will work with both the canon rf 14mm vcm and the 15-35mm? The guy who created focus on stars is an astrophotographer and he seemed to suggest that many bahtinov masks don't work properly at wide angles like 14mm.

I can’t see why it wouldn’t work. Obviously I haven’t tried with the RF 14mm f/1.4L VCM but I used it with the RF 15-35mm f/2.8L IS USM and it worked a treat.

Rather than try and mount it to the lens you could just hold the 100mm square version in front of the lens.

Stig Nygaard · Feb 22, 2026

Not next from Canon, but probably next to Canon....

Sigma RF-S 15mm f/1.4 DC DN (to replace their current RF-S 16mm f/1.4)

The old 16mm was equivalent to 24mm on fullframe when mounted on a 1.5x APS-C camera.
The new 15mm is equivalent to 24mm on fullframe when mounted on a 1.6x APS-C camera.

It is probably putting too much significance into this, if thinking Sigma has prioritized Canon's 1.6x crop-factor higher than 1.5x when considering fullframe equivalence of their new lens?

neuroanatomist · Feb 22, 2026

Uneternal said:
Canon has a big gap in their APS-C lineup, which they treat like a stepchild. Before they release more lenses for full frame, they should rather fix the missing parts in their APS-C patchwork blanket.

Why? Meaning, what is the business justification for filling in what you believe is a gap vs. releasing more lenses for full frame? I get that you want them to do that, but you wanting something doesn't mean it's something Canon should do.

Personally, I couldn't care less what lenses are available for APS-C R-series bodies. I don't have one and have no plans of buy one. So I think what Canon should do fill some of the gaps in their FF RF lineup. So, how about a TS-R 14mm? How about a 600/4 with built-in 1.4x?

Regardless of what you and I think Canon should do, what Canon will do is develop and launch lenses for which there is the best business justification, based on their experience of leading the camera market for over 20 years.

Uneternal · Feb 22, 2026

Canon has a big gap in their APS-C lineup, which they treat like a stepchild. Before they release more lenses for full frame, they should rather fix the missing parts in their APS-C patchwork blanket.
The only half-decent standard zoom so far is from Sigma (18-50mm), and it doesn't even have stabilization.
So, how about a lighter successor of the EF 17-55mm? And I'm still waiting for an alternative to two of the greatest Canon APS-C primes ever produced, the EF-M 22mm f/2 and the EF-M 32mm f/1.4. Would've been easy enough to port them over, since they're already calculated for a similar flange distance.

loicsans · Feb 22, 2026

Like Nikon did with the ZF, this is the only release I wish from Canon in 2026, Is this realistic?

Click · Feb 22, 2026

Beautiful shots, danfaz. You should crop closer to the bird in the 4th one to eliminate the mass at the bottom.

Well done, Sir!

EOS 4 Life · Feb 22, 2026

John Wilde said:
Rumor has it that there will never be one.

I do not take "never" rumors very seriously.
Canon never planned to make full-frame mirrorless cameras, but now they are the only full-frame cameras that Canon makes.
Never is a long time and you can't ever be proven right.