Bob Howland said:

Wild guess: Canon starts with the 18-150 RF-S and 24-240 RF lenses, leaves the optical formula intact but changes the mechanical design to add zoom motors and jacks up the price by at least 50%.

Click to expand...

How well do video shooters / content creators like zoom lenses that change aperture as you zoom?

A cheaper way would be an external power zoom adapter, like the one for the RF 24-105/2.8 and 70-200/2.8 Z. The reason that one is the PZ-E2 is because the -E1 was specifically for the EF-S 18-135mm lens.

If this actually happens, any bets as to whether they can manage proper optical correction, or if they cheap out and rely on digital correction and the low-quality corners and edges that entails?

Knowing their recent trend of using digital correction as a crutch even on L-series (L-priced, importantly) glass, I'm not too optimistic.

+1 Well done, Sir!

Great shot. Well done, zajicekpavel.

foda said:

Golden-fronted Woodpecker with a palm fruit, seen while birding in Belize, April, 2026.

R5MkII RF200-800mm

View attachment 230140

Click to expand...

Awesome. Great shot, foda.

I suspect they will finally deliver an autofocus tilt-shift. That would be head-turning given the complexities. A quick check online suggests that no one else has released one yet, and Canon is long overdue to produce an RF tilt-shift — so two birds, so to speak.

Everything else has IBIS? What about C50, C70, C400, C80, etc - a 24-70mm f2 would be the perfect cine zoom, but without IS is tough. Hope it has it.

neuroanatomist said:

How do you define serious? The RF 20-50mm f/4L PZ weighs 420 g, and zoom can be controlled with the switch on the R6V and R50V bodies (and the C50, which is what I would like to get if I decided to shoot more video with an ILC).

20-50mm is nowhere close to the 25.5-382.5mm available on my Vixia HF G60 (same range as the XF605), but that 15x range is made possible by the 1" sensor that those cameras use.

Click to expand...

Wild guess: Canon starts with the 18-150 RF-S and 24-240 RF lenses, leaves the optical formula intact but changes the mechanical design to add zoom motors and jacks up the price by at least 50%.

What about those autofocus tilt shift lenses that were rumored years ago? Are those ever coming?

blackcoffee17 said:

$300 would be too expensive in many parts of the world. The whole point of this lens is to bring users into Canon ecosystem by offering a cheap but "professional" quality lens. Look at the RF 75-300. Canon could have improved it and make it $100-200 more but they choose to offer it for dirt cheap instead.

Click to expand...

If $100 more for a lens makes it too expensive I doubt those folks are buying the $x,xxx camera bodies to mount it to. They could also keep the price the same and just make a better new version.

Peter Ebel said:

I am not interested in those lists, I am just interested in the lens in my hands.

These days street work with the RF45 1.2 on the R5 II.

There is no time to think about those stupid discussions.

Click to expand...

You would prefer using the RF45 1.2 than the 24-70 f2.0 for street photo ?

I hope for a 15mm TS-E. First RF tilt shift. I’m not even asking for autofocus (or shift if it makes it easier). It just needs to be sharp.

My vote is for no IS to save on weight and cost. IBIS has always worked stellar for Me.

scyrene said:

What's wrong with the 100-300 and 100-500?

Click to expand...

I suspect the ‘problem’ with the 100-300 is that it’s expensive. Fast, high quality, affordable…people want all three but you only get two at most.

I find that the RF 100-300/2.8 with the 1.4x TC is a stellar 140-420mm f/4 lens.

tomcat said:

I also miss a faster zoom lens between 200 and 600mm, or even a super-sharp and fast 100-400mm RF version. Canon, please finally serve this market!

Click to expand...

What's wrong with the 100-300 and 100-500?

amorse said:

Astro capabilities would be the benefit to having something like that, but more importantly, having a lens that could be used for more general and broad landscape applications which could also manage astro would be my more specific need. A lot of the images I'm most proud of come from photographing pretty remote spots during back country trips where I'm carrying my camp/food in addition to my camera kit. It's not realistic to add extra lenses for astro while also carrying a general wide angle zoom, so having something that could do both would be a huge asset. Right now I'm using a 15-35 and I could absolutely make use of something wider and faster than that.

Click to expand...

I agree, i would be either carrying my 20mm or 14-35mm, but something that could combine the two would be perfect. For me filter is essential though since i dont want to worry about branches or dropping it on the snow or ice

Canon Rumors said:

Canon is going to be announcing an RF 24-70mm f/2L this year

Click to expand...

How confident are we feeling about this? Fridays article made it seem like informed speculation, but today we seem much more sure.

I already own a large number of RF L lenses in the 10-200mm range. For longer focal lengths, I still rely on EF lenses due to a certain lack of options. The sharpness of my 600mm f/4 Mark II is unmatched. Wow, what a lens! The RF equivalents I borrowed before buying one unfortunately don't have the same sharpness. I also miss a faster zoom lens between 200 and 600mm, or even a super-sharp and fast 100-400mm RF version. Canon, please finally serve this market!

Also Canon did not find the reason, why 1.3.0 did not work on my camerabody - the did something like an firmware downgrade. But the good thing is, Version 1.3.1 was no problem to update. So, I´m happy with my camera again.
First I had some troubles to get help from Canon, as they had not informed their personal about the new firmware. But after some discussion, I could send it to the service team

Eloniel said:

What would be your use for such a lens ? Astrophoto ?

Click to expand...

Astro capabilities would be the benefit to having something like that, but more importantly, having a lens that could be used for more general and broad landscape applications which could also manage astro would be my more specific need. A lot of the images I'm most proud of come from photographing pretty remote spots during back country trips where I'm carrying my camp/food in addition to my camera kit. It's not realistic to add extra lenses for astro while also carrying a general wide angle zoom, so having something that could do both would be a huge asset. Right now I'm using a 15-35 and I could absolutely make use of something wider and faster than that.

How about for second never-before-done lens a 300-800/4.5-8 internal zoom lens to compete with and outdo the Sony 400-800/6.3-8 lens which seems quite popular. Sharp copies of the Sony appear to be very sharp, although there also seem to be inconsistencies. The Sony is 13.5 or so inches long and has a 105 mm front end. A bit over 5 pounds. All reasonable to me as a reasonably fit old person. The advantage of such a lens could be handling versus the 200-800. Zooming is slow and manual focus is a pain. I have trouble finding the ring for manual focus and have tried other stick-on surfaces to improve it. Without much luck. An L version could-should improve on the optical quality of the surprisingly good 200-800. For a price. A cheaper version price competitive to the Sony should be able to match it optically.

For me that is a get it done now Canon. The Canon rep is going to be showing equipment this weekend at the local (100 miles away) photo store. My plan was to stop by on my way home and lay hands on the 100-300/2.8 and the 70-200 Z lens. My current 300/2.8 is almost 36 years old. Still works fine but weighs more than the 100-300 and has limitations at higher frame rates. That store will also have that Sony 400-800 and likely the 100-400/4.5 which is extraordinarily attractive to me. Those two lenses and an A1ii would not be that much more than a 100-300.

Photo gods, what am I thinking? That RF 100-500 is still my all time favorite lens. But that bokeh of that Sony 100-400 is beautiful from early pics I have seen, and that Sony 400-800 seems like it will do just fine.

Bob Howland said:

How about a serious but light power zoom lens that can be controlled from an R6V and/or R50V? Consider what an XF605 camcorder lens can do. The MILCs have a long way to go to catch up.

Click to expand...

How do you define serious? The RF 20-50mm f/4L PZ weighs 420 g, and zoom can be controlled with the switch on the R6V and R50V bodies (and the C50, which is what I would like to get if I decided to shoot more video with an ILC).

20-50mm is nowhere close to the 25.5-382.5mm available on my Vixia HF G60 (same range as the XF605), but that 15x range is made possible by the 1" sensor that those cameras use.

1200mm f/4 pls

Nemorino said:

Is pre shooting enabled?

Click to expand...

Yes, but that never caused this before on the previous firmware

How about a serious but light power zoom lens that can be controlled from an R6V and/or R50V? Consider what an XF605 camcorder lens can do. The MILCs have a long way to go to catch up.