Snapster said:

IQ should at least be on par with 50mm Sigma Art. And much better than the RF 50mm 1.8. Otherwise, whats the point?

Click to expand...

To be better than the RF 50mm f/1.8, it just needs to be as good at the same aperture and have the ability to go wider
Jokes apart, I imagine this lens at 1.4 could be similar to the Sigma at 1.4, yes.
And then there's rendering, colors, bokeh, coatings, build quality, autofocus (with the new STM)...there's a lot of aspects where this lens could easily be an improvement compared to the RF 50mm f/1.8.

Walrus said:

That's what I'm thinking; otherwise why people should spend 600€ on this vs 300€ for an used 50 Art? Yes, weight, size, extra bright kick, no adapter, I get it, but double the price for less sharpness at comparable apertures? I'd say nah.

Click to expand...

If this is released at 600€, I expect being able to buy it at 450€ or less, brand new, just with the usual weekend discounts.
The Sigma, with the adapter, weights about as much as three of these. You know I had it, and I'm not going back.

I still have the adapter, but I sold all my EF glass a year ago. I only keep the adapter for the case someday I need a specific lens, like a super telephoto, and I can't afford a RF, or if I want to adapt a completely different lens. Earlier this year I used a mirror lens, for instance.

G650ER said:

I don't see the usefulness of this range. I love my 100-500L but still hold onto my 500 f/4L for those low light situations. I'd much rather see an RF 500 F/4L DO type of lens or a f/5.6 version of the 100-500L as I truly find it versatile. Even 150mm on the low end is too much from my experience whereas 100mm works great as a landscape lens all the to its 500mm end.

Click to expand...

I'm the complete opposite - versus the 100-500, I gain a little more on the long end as well as 2/3 of a stop more light, which is pretty significant. I would like to see a little more range on the wide end, but it's a tradeoff I'm willing to make as is. Of course, it all boils down to price in the long run.

Tom R5R7 said:

I'd like to see it sitting next to the old EF 50/1.4 USM to see just how compact it really is. I suspect that it's about 1.5 times as long as the old EF lens.

And probably 1.5 times sharper too.

Click to expand...

This is what EF 50 1.4 look on Canon R against RF 50 1.8 and Sigma 40 1.4 Art


And no, it's not sharp

I'd like to see it sitting next to the old EF 50/1.4 USM to see just how compact it really is. I suspect that it's about 1.5 times as long as the old EF lens.

And probably 1.5 times sharper too.

Walrus said:

I remember you had problems with the 70-200 L classic, I showed in the past a sample from mine here https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/t...meras-lenses-update.44469/page-2#post-1024667 shot wide open handheld 1/160s (so slightly below security shutter) @200mm and even at 800iso the focus plane was crisp, I was really lucky with that lens, and that's why I have it since almost 20 years, while the average lens stay in my bag is around 2/3yrs

Click to expand...

YES, that! Looking back, perhaps I was a little optimistic. I don't think my copy of the lens was as sharp as I mentioned there
I don't miss it at all, I sold it almost three years ago, had the Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 G2 for a year, and then I finally bought the RF 70-200mm f/2.8.

The Tamron had decent glass and autofocus, but the build quality was not on par with Sigma Art lenses. My copy of the lens was less than three years old, I bought it from an amateur, and the lens looked worse than my 50 Art that had over 5 years in the hands of a wedding photographer. At first I though it was due to poor handling from the previous owner, but then I realised it was the lens really, I'd rub my hands and its letterings would come off Yes, that easily! Also, the matte finished plastics didn't age well.
Plus, the glass didn't have any "special rendering" like Sigma lenses do so, when comparing third party versus third party, the Tamron lens always felt a little lower grade. I used it for a year, sold it for 20€ less than I'd bought it for, and never looked back at Tamron.

Walrus said:

For camera bodies, in fact, if you remember in the following paragraph I stated that the gimmicks on AF are surely the most important of the gimmicks

Click to expand...

The thing is, I feel like the ratio of usable photos has increased massively with the mirrorless transition. Sure, glass is still more important, but now we're getting consistency levels that were unimaginable with DSLRs. You aim, you initiate focus, and you know you'll have something.

Not only that, but the ratio of photographs that are actually 100% in focus (not just "good enough to be usable") also increased significantly. How many of us used to stop down to have enough room to keep subjects in focus while recomposing or focusing continuously? Now we're tracking moving subjects continuously at f/1.2, f/1.4, f/2, and we still get files that are good enough for cropping, if we later decide to do so, because they're perfectly focused.
Also, now we're relying more on camera bodies for distortion corrections, we have stupidly high usable ISOs...
I think more credit goes to camera bodies now than it ever did in the past. These days, you may consider not buying the faster glass because you'll just crank up ISO in your camera and do the work that way.

Very nice. I especially like the 3rd shot, I like the contrast between the cold and the warm colours.

Snapster said:

IQ should at least be on par with 50mm Sigma Art. And much better than the RF 50mm 1.8. Otherwise, whats the point?

Click to expand...

That's what I'm thinking; otherwise why people should spend 600€ on this vs 300€ for an used 50 Art? Yes, weight, size, extra bright kick, no adapter, I get it, but double the price for less sharpness at comparable apertures? I'd say nah.

Would love to see an updated G1x mark iii, come back with improved sensor, lens and software. Still love using mine and weather sealing is fab, small and a much needed EVF.

IQ should at least be on par with 50mm Sigma Art. And much better than the RF 50mm 1.8. Otherwise, whats the point?

Maximilian said:

Guys, please don't expect wonders from this old and simple optical design basis. Canon hasn't found the philosopher's stone in optical designs.
But they could have found some tweaks to make it better than in the past.

Click to expand...

Agree. I imagine this lens may deliver slightly more center sharpness at 1.2, being "slightly" the keyword here. Many basic mirrorless designs have been giving us that.

Maximilian said:

And from what I've heard the Sigmas has a busy and not so creamy bokeh.

Click to expand...

Not in my experience. It's not as smooth than the 1.2, naturally, but I always found it to be smoother than the other options below.
One of the things that made me switch to the Sigma was the much higher resistance to specular highlights in the background. The EF 50 1.8 annoyed me with so much bubbles.


I imagine this lens to be a decent match to the RF 35mm f/1.8, with similar robustness, size, weight, perhaps general rendering and colors...and maybe as sharp at f/1.8 as the 35mm is at f/1.8, meaning I'm imagining it to be softer at wider apertures.

m4ndr4ke said:

To be honest, I think the transition to mirrorless changed that balance a little. The fact that EF lenses perform much better when adapted to mirrorless cameras is an example of the higher importance camera bodies have now.

Lucky you. My copy of that lens was crap
I even sent it to repair once, but it didn't make much of a difference, it just improved slightly. Beyond 100mm mine was crap, unless I shot it at like f/11. I could get better detail by cropping from 70mm to 200mm on the 24-70mm f/2.8 II (yes, I really tested that).

Click to expand...

For camera bodies, in fact, if you remember in the following paragraph I stated that the gimmicks on AF are surely the most important of the gimmicks

I remember you had problems with the 70-200 L classic, I showed in the past a sample from mine here https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/t...meras-lenses-update.44469/page-2#post-1024667 shot wide open handheld 1/160s (so slightly below security shutter) @200mm and even at 800iso the focus plane was crisp, I was really lucky with that lens, and that's why I have it since almost 20 years, while the average lens stay in my bag is around 2/3yrs

Morning fog, October 31st, 2025... There's a bit of motion blur in the first and second photos...

Maximilian said:

Then I guess the RF45 is far from becoming your tool. This has a different purpose.
Still I hope that the center sharpness is high, even wide open.

Click to expand...

We'll know it when we see it, it's just 5 days now, and I'm sure the usual reviewers already had tested it and are just waiting for the ban to be lifted for publish their findings.

I guess if we see reviews immediately, for me it's a sign that the lens is good, and Canon isn't scared of showing them so they can boost immediate sales...but if we don't see reviews for days or weeks, then it probably means that the lens sucks, and Canon wanted to get at least some early orders before people discover how bad the lens is

I didn't follow the 16-28 STM release, so I don't know how it went with reviews, but having bought it I remember fewer reviews then normal about 28-70 STM, which I felt wasn't really "pushed" by Canon, maybe to somewhat protect the 24-70 L
Also, just by my super domestic and UNSCIENTIFIC test on that lens, I felt my copy is way sharper in the corners, especially at 70mm, then what most of the reviews showed; is there a case where Canon may choose to send reviewers slightly less then perfect copies of such lenses, 45 STM included, just to have them being still very good, but not so good that may impact on their L counterparts sales?

Maximilian said:

Good catch! But honestly I don't see anything interesting on that camera, except that it really seems to be a new one.

But it would be interesting, which white lens is attached to that 2x extender
Could this be a new one? Or is it an already released one?

Click to expand...

To be fair, the R6 II specs looked pretty boring compared to the original R6 but the camera was much better in every department.

Maximilian said:

I'll keep my fingers crossed.
If there aren't any big mechanical or optical flaws and it delivers decently I am sure it'll find its way in my bag.
Not as a first adopter and not at MRSP, but pretty soon when first discounts are given.

The last f/1.2 lens in my families possession was my fathers FD 55mm f/1.2 S.S.C. (not the ASPHERICAL)

Click to expand...

I have one in my collection. Fun lens to use with obvious vintage characteristics. Would not mind getting the aspherical if I see one pop up for a good price.. interestingly they have halved in price in a couple of years. There was a lot of hype around especially FD lenses that use same glass as the K35 cinema lenses.. the 24mm f1.4, 85mm f1.2 and the 55mm f1.2, but also many others unicorns. I think the market became saturated after a while and those that lusted after them got their fill. The whole slowdown in Hollywood situation might have had something to do with it as well.

scyrene said:

Not every lens is replicated across each manufacturer's lineup.

Click to expand...

Of course, I'm not saying the range will be exactly the same for the 3 lenses, but the concept of trinity zoom is so anchored into photography world, is so versatile to different kinds of photographers + can attract people to a brand instead of another one (halo lenses) that I can't see Canon shooting themselves in the foot by not competing against Sony.

We're not speaking about a big very expensive white zoom that Canon could somehow avoid like Sony is avoiding doing a 100-300 f2.8 (for now) to compete against the Canon one.

I don't care that much about wide-open corner sharpness - it's enough if it's sharp when stopped down to maybe F2. I just hope it has nice contrast and rendering and some decent MFD. No need for 0.5 macro but 0.25X would be nice.

scottburgess said:

A "big departure" can be interpreted in many ways. For example, a full-sized body not requiring an extension grip (with a pro battery). A lower-resolution sensor around 22Mp which has better low-light capability, something potentially attractive as a professional small-sensor sports body. Beginning a large-scale changeover to CF-Express across the lineup. Introducing a new flash system with the camera. Focusing the 7-series not as the top APS-C camera, but as a top hybrid vlogger camera (with extra attachment ports). Integrating the R7ii with some third-party hardware (eg: a specialized Atomos?). And so on.

Instead of specific camera features, I suggest considering what might fill a market opportunity. Having a closer-to-pro APS-C body would align with that, but so would pushing it the other direction toward amateur interests: higher resolution, lighter weight, maybe retro-styling. And don't worry about abandonment of a market segment, as Canon can always introduce a new model number to fill any empty shoes (anyone up for an R4 or R14?).

While these vaguely-reported half-rumors about the R7ii suggest it might lean toward a more premium market, I think there's too little specificity and reliability to give these rumors any weight. We're in nothing-burger territory here.

Click to expand...

Pushing the R7ii the other direction and downmarket with the ideas you presented would dramatically reduce potential sales of the unit, especially when it's not what the target market for said camera wants. It would push more wildlife and sports photographers towards the R6ii, R6iii, R5ii, and R1 thus reducing any chance of recovery or growth for the APS-C segment as a whole.

The C50 fills the niche as a hybrid vlogging camera with its photo capabilities, along with the R6 lineup including the upcoming R6iii as vlogging is video-centric. Unsure if Canon will make a video-centric unit similar to the R7 or R7ii when it's released for vloggers, it's possible if they see value in such a unit.

Walrus said:

while it won't be tack sharp corner to corner wide open as the 40 Art, it needs to be at least better then the 50 Art at f1.4

Click to expand...

Hmm I'm somewhat hoping this 45mm is similar to the 50 Art wide open, but I doubt it'll be better at all. It would be great if I were surprised, though.

Walrus said:

Camera bodies are overrated, lenses are 10 times more important

Click to expand...

To be honest, I think the transition to mirrorless changed that balance a little. The fact that EF lenses perform much better when adapted to mirrorless cameras is an example of the higher importance camera bodies have now.

Walrus said:

hot and sharp) EF 70-200 2.8 L classic (non-IS).

Click to expand...

Lucky you. My copy of that lens was crap
I even sent it to repair once, but it didn't make much of a difference, it just improved slightly. Beyond 100mm mine was crap, unless I shot it at like f/11. I could get better detail by cropping from 70mm to 200mm on the 24-70mm f/2.8 II (yes, I really tested that).

Walrus said:

Today if wideangle is really needed I have the 16 STM, small and inexpensive, but it's too wide, even a fixed 18/20mm prime would be enough for me, in Canon there's nothing cheap (20 VCM is overkill and overprice, it's a lens that would shoot no more then 50/100 pics per year, so 300/350€ is the max I would invest in it)

Click to expand...

Similar scenario here. A few weeks ago I ran statistics of all my photographs from the last year or so, and the 16mm accounted for approximately 5% of the shots (5 point something).
By the way, I tried the 20 VCM last month, and I LOVED it. I had never tried something between 16 and 24, as I never had an ultra wide zoom lens for full-frame. I found 20mm so easy to use, I just felt it fits perfectly next to the 28mm wider end of the zoom, but I have no justification for such purchase.
I also have, at the moment, the 16-28mm f/2.8 available here for 943€, brand new, and it's tempting, but it still feels like too much money for such few shots.
I think I'd buy an RF 20mm f/2.8, if Canon made such a lens. The 16 sometimes is too wide, although I can usually manage.

SnowMiku said:

Is there a reason why the R6 series does not have the rubber grip material on the front left of the body? As a far as I know the R6 series is the only one missing it.

Click to expand...

Is it? I had no idea

DocInfoSci said:

There's probably an argument that the R8 also exists to placate those who used to buy the x0D series as well. Maybe it does double duty?

Click to expand...

For those using the xxD series, there's the R10, I had one for months, took a wedding with it, it's a war machine, has a joystick, AF is lightning fast and handles like a mini R6; I sold it for the RP as the latter, at VERY high ISO, still has a small advantage due to the FF sensor (and surely R8 is even better), so for my line of work RP/R8 it's a better backup body, even if all the other functions (for RP) are inferior to to R10's.
If I wouldn't shoot over 1600iso and/or don't need ultrawideangles, I don't see why buying a R8 over a R10 that cost nearly half of it.

Is there a reason why the R6 series does not have the rubber grip material on the front left of the body? As a far as I know the R6 series is the only one missing it.

Maximilian said:

Guys, please don't expect wonders from this old and simple optical design basis. Canon hasn't found the philosopher's stone in optical designs.
[..]
And from what I've heard the Sigmas has a busy and not so creamy bokeh.

Click to expand...

One can only hope...let's see what's coming with the various reviews and then I'll decide (considering that I want it better or on par with the 50 Art, but I own the 40 Art...so I'm pretty picky about wide open sharpness)

My interest is pure sharpness, AF absolute accuracy, especially in low light (and decent speed, but accuracy comes first), preferably well controlled flare (I don't mind few small ghosts, but contrast has to remain impeccable), close-up image sharpness not falling apart, and light gathering/transmission, which is something, unfortunately, very rarely tested by the reviewers; I'm not interested in buying this lens just for the sake of being f1.2 if the lens is actually closer to T1.8

Bokeh quality, frankly I couldn't care less, can be busy, with horrible onion rings and with cats-eye right in the middle of the frame, and I wouldn't even blink

rombe3jr said:

This R6 Mark III forum is by far the most popular on Canon Rumors. Well over 500 comments and climbing each day.

Click to expand...

I may be wrong but I think that CR previously didn't use one forum thread for all related articles. I'm not saying it's wrong, just saying that that can be the reason why this one got the most comments whereas previously it was spread among more articles (?)

If it is on par with the EF 1.2 50 I understand Canon's move: They want to profit from this lens category instead of supporting the 2nd lens market with these old EF systems which sell for ~900 bucks!

SnowMiku said:

For non IS lenses I use a shutter speed double the focal length I'm using, so for a non IS 50mm I'd shoot at 1/100sec or faster, it works for me every time. If you can hold your camera more steady then me then you can try using 1/60sec for a 50mm lens.

Click to expand...

While I tend to use the old rule shutter speed roughly equal focal length I have seen that this doesn't apply to modern digital cameras anymore. These are more in the medium format category when it comes to resolution and I think your rule is much better. And it works for "unsteady days"