As much I am in favor of the (faster) f/5.6 in that proposed 300-600, the 200-800 is just 1.3 stops slower than f/5.6. For the longest time I was hesitant to go much higher than ISO 500 or 800, but state-of-the-art noise reduction now makes ISO 8000-25600 possible (with proper focus and exposure). I would probably miss the 600-800 range since most of my bird images are at 800mm.

Why is IS in a 24-70mm or 15-35mm lens needed? Sony doesn't have it and now Nikon dropped it too.
Is IBIS alone not enough for the lower focal lengths?

Canon Rumors said:

I wouldn't be shocked to see a v2 from Canon in the next little while.

Click to expand...

Neither would I!

steven choi said:

keep dreaming but, I don’t think Canon can copy that one easily.

Click to expand...

It should be a very easy task for Canon to make an even better one. A lighter one with OIS, maybe not. But optically as good or better, I don't have the slightest doubts about it.
All we have to do is to wait, hopefully for an f/2 24-70.

I prefer this one. The interplay of light and shadow adds something extra.

josephandrews222 said:

I find the lack of image stabilization in this new Nikon 24-70 to be more significant than others, I guess...so much so that I would think twice about purchasing it (or the analogous Canon refresh that omitted IS).

...my two cents.

Click to expand...

Same here!
And I would certainly not trade in my RF 15-35 f/2,8 for a lighter one without OIS, unless the new one were so much better (which I doubt).

I find the lack of image stabilization in this new Nikon 24-70 to be more significant than others, I guess...so much so that I would think twice about purchasing it (or the analogous Canon refresh that omitted IS).

...my two cents.

Other than Laowa, Viltrox is the only third party I am most interested in.

Hello.
I've noticed that after the firmware update (or maybe it's due to another reason?) the configuration/settings backup files have become almost 8 times smaller. The settings files I saved in June and July are 3675 KB, while the settings files created in August are only 475 KB. Can anyone confirm this? Is the reason the new firmware, which saves the settings with a different algorithm, or could it be that I changed something in my camera's settings?

I didn't choose the right photo: it's even not sharp enough, I took it on my way back after getting photos of the bird that make's me to torture my old body on that trail! Here is another one on my way up (with very little hope I will see that bird at all). Little bit different angle/distance, very different light. The twig is still there but maybe because it is at the same angle as the shade at least for me it's not that disturbing.

mimbu said:

They did say "well below" so surely that must be at least $9998.

Click to expand...

LOL!

It's getting more and more frustrating to see Chinese manufacturers coming up with great APS-C lenses and knowing they won't appear on RF any time soon.
If the situation doesn't improve soon, I'm thinking of switching to Nikon or Panasonic.

Gino_FOTO said:

And The award for 'Worst relaunch in living memory' goes to the highly anticipated Canon RF 75-300mm f4.0-5.6.

Click to expand...

they have to go back to stone tablets to find one worse than that.

I'm shooting wildlife and bigger birds; my main lens is the 100-500 4.5 to 7.1. When I look at my metadata a 300-600 would cover 75% of my shooting. I'm OK with 5.6 at 500-600, but I'm not in love with 5.6 at 300-400mm for a $6000 lens. A fixed f4.5 or 4.8 would be more appropriate for the price. I would like at least a full stop faster then 500mm at f7.1. They probably don't want to produce at fixed f4 because it would compete / replace their 600 f4 prime. The old EF 200-400 f4 with the teleconverter switched on is 280-560 f5.6 ( essentially a 300-600 5.6), but you still have the f4 option.

There is also a "rumored" fixed 5.6 150-600 L. This would be more versatile, but doesn't make alot of sense in that it would compete with the fixed 5.6 300-600. The Canon100-500 is 5+ years old; time for an update. I would love an "L" series 150-600 with internal focus, quality built & weather sealing, reasonable size & wt and image quality like the 70-200Z. Nikon and Sony don't have a semi pro version of their 180-600 / 200-600 lens. Canon will probably make two variants of the 150-600mm, ie: a fixed 5.6 L series and a variable aperture non L series to directly compete with Nikon, sigma, and Sony. Canon does this all the time; look at the various 24-105 and 70-200 lens. Who knows! Need some announcements !!!! Canon is clearly behind Nikon & Sony with regard to long glass. Time to catch up, hope it doesn't take a year or more!

SvO2 said:

If my issue is having to deal with too much noise at 500mm due to a slow lens, being able to zoom out to 100mm does nothing to fix that.

Click to expand...

I could have sworn you were said "losing detail" before.

Nice shot, MHS411.

Bob Howland said:

How does Leica's triple resolution technology differ from Canon MILC's ability to output JPGs in three or four different resolutions (L, M, S1 and S2 for the R5)? Can the Leica output raw images in multiple resolutions?

Click to expand...

Yes, they can.

Some Canon cameras also have mRAW and sRAW, for instance, although I’m not sure whether Leica’s option is essentially the same or not.

SvO2 said:

I don't forget that. But Canon doesn't give a choice. You either take the compromises that come with a "versatile" (slow, awkward zoom design, poor teleconverter compatibility) lens or you spend $12k. Doesn't matter if a middle ground prime would suit your needs better- you just don't have the option

In the other ecosystems you have a lot more options in the $2-3k range. I think there's a pretty large chunk for 100-500 buyers who would buy something akin to a 500 5.6 for the same money if it were available.

Click to expand...

Yeah, i agree Canon doesn't give a choice but that's a different issue. The 100-500 does not mean to be more than what it is. Canon needs to offer more options, they always had this problem. In the EF era you had the $1500 100-400 and the $10K 500 F4, nothing in between.

I think it will be to expensive anyway…
Gnarf…

And The award for 'Worst relaunch in living memory' goes to the highly anticipated Canon RF 75-300mm f4.0-5.6.

john1970 said:

Maybe my copy is not as sharp as it should be, but I am already on my second copy. The first copy I had would misfocus on well-light subjects on a R3 body so was never able to fix the issue. Luckily my local store did an exchange.

Click to expand...

I find the most important thing is to be as close to your subject as possible, if you're more than 10-15m away atmospheric conditions start to trash the I.Q at 20m just forget it