Latest activity

mangobutter · 2026-05-04T10:36:31-0400

neuroanatomist said:
That would be a surprise. Certainly other hybrid-use lenses do so, including the RF 24-105/2.8L Z.

The 24-105/4L is only ~7 mm longer than the 14-35/4L, that doesn't bother me as either is fine to use on an R8 (in my use cases for that camera). Like you, I hope that the 20-50/4L is closer to the weight of the UWA zoom than the standard zoom, and I suspect that will be the case.

I guess we'll know in 10 days.

they'll 100% do computational tricks. for a zoom that goes to 20mm, that's how you'd keep it compact. the fact that this zoom does NOT go to 70mm, tells me that there's an emphasis here on Canon's part to keep the size as compact as possible.

scyrene · 2026-05-04T10:26:31-0400

mangobutter said:
I'd love a 20-50F4, it's the lens i've always dreamed of. For me it represents my most used focal lengths. I don't care to go wider than 20 like I did in my younger years and 50 is the sweet spot for zoomed in -- one of the reasons I still use, own, and shoot a 17-40L on Canon to this day. From 20-40, it's good wide open, and actually quite great stopped down. I imagine this 20-50 F4 being an L would look as good wide open (hopefully better) than the 17-40 does stopped down. However I'm certain it'll come at a price. My guess.. $1,599 introduction.

and to parrot what you said about the zoom.. yeah i like my zooms to be mechanical

I'm genuinely interested to know, what sort of shots would you use this for? I'm not very good with shorter focal lengths so it's a bit mystifying.

HeavyPiper · 2026-05-04T10:22:59-0400

Morning on the Deschutes River in Oregon

mangobutter · 2026-05-04T10:12:09-0400

Canon Rumors said:
It most definitely is. It's going to depend on the stretch I think. I don't care about the stretch, but lots of others do. This would crush on the R8 for the walkaround when I want AF... but only if the zoom ring feels normal.

I'd love a 20-50F4, it's the lens i've always dreamed of. For me it represents my most used focal lengths. I don't care to go wider than 20 like I did in my younger years and 50 is the sweet spot for zoomed in -- one of the reasons I still use, own, and shoot a 17-40L on Canon to this day. From 20-40, it's good wide open, and actually quite great stopped down. I imagine this 20-50 F4 being an L would look as good wide open (hopefully better) than the 17-40 does stopped down. However I'm certain it'll come at a price. My guess.. $1,599 introduction.

and to parrot what you said about the zoom.. yeah i like my zooms to be mechanical

Click · 2026-05-04T10:01:35-0400

Lovely. Nicely done, Cariboucoach.

Ian K · 2026-05-04T05:57:25-0400

scyrene said:
I thought the Z was f/2.8?

That’s true.

Mxw.be · 2026-05-04T05:11:12-0400

Are there any updates on this topic?

AlanF · 2026-05-04T04:39:27-0400

OldrockyGN said:
Neuro,
I don't understand your response. I'm not a lens designer - just a simple(?) user. On the surface your response
seems to be based upon "the status quo" ... it doesn't seem, to me, to address my comments about how good
today's cameras are at high ISO values and IS. Maybe I used a 'bad example' but to me I am still wondering
why we don't have "new concepts of lens design" based upon accepted high(er) ISO values and current
image stabilization ... maybe what I'm asking for is a long focal length mirror lens? Just to be perfectly
clear on my motives ... I'm a birding photographer (not a videographer) who wants "more reach" in a
lens that is -very- capable of being hand held, and of being "the only lens I take with me when traveling
around the world to take pictures of birds". So I need a lens that is light and small enough to put in my
travel backpack - which the RF 100-500, mounted on the camera, does very well. I also take my 1.4 extender
and -one- "landscape lens" (the RF 24 -105).
- Jim in the PNW

You have your lightweight travel lens, the RF 100-500mm. I use it with the 2xTC, which gives good images at 1000mm, and give a miss to my 1.4xTC. If you want something really light, the RF 100-400mm is really the best bang-for-the buck telephoto out there. I've recently posted several shots where it on the R7 is pretty close to the RF 100-500mm on the R5ii for static shots and not bad for BIF. I would like to have a lightweight prime like the Nikon Zs but if you are travelling or hiking with just one telephoto lens, a zoom wins out every time for me.

Dragon · 2026-05-04T01:19:39-0400

OldrockyGN said:
Neuro,
I don't understand your response. I'm not a lens designer - just a simple(?) user. On the surface your response
seems to be based upon "the status quo" ... it doesn't seem, to me, to address my comments about how good
today's cameras are at high ISO values and IS. Maybe I used a 'bad example' but to me I am still wondering
why we don't have "new concepts of lens design" based upon accepted high(er) ISO values and current
image stabilization ... maybe what I'm asking for is a long focal length mirror lens? Just to be perfectly
clear on my motives ... I'm a birding photographer (not a videographer) who wants "more reach" in a
lens that is -very- capable of being hand held, and of being "the only lens I take with me when traveling
around the world to take pictures of birds". So I need a lens that is light and small enough to put in my
travel backpack - which the RF 100-500, mounted on the camera, does very well. I also take my 1.4 extender
and -one- "landscape lens" (the RF 24 -105).
- Jim in the PNW

A mirror lens is the only way you will get to a materially smaller size than the 200-800. Canon did file some mirror lens patents a year or two ago, but so far nothing has come of them. Historically, there has been only one AF mirror lens, a 500mm f/8, first released by Minolta and then rereleased by Sony (both in A-mount). I have a large collection of mirror lenses, including some of the best, and although they are fun to play with, aside from the doughnut bokeh issue, they all exhibit a substantially narrower DOF than an equivalent refractor lens. I believe this is due to the central obstruction in the catadioptric design flattening the airy disc, so the near-in-focus area has less definition than on a similar refractor. The only other known possibility would be to design a lens using the ping-pong mirror approach that is commonly used in spotting scopes. This approach would not suffer from the loss of DOF, but I suspect it would be hard to achieve good contrast, given that the light bounces off the same mirror more than once, but at different angles. Probably the best performance with front surface mirrors, but then lifetime becomes an issue.

Cariboucoach · Sunday at 11:29 PM

A pond behind an Air B & B in North Hampton,

New Hampshire.

dgbarar · Sunday at 11:08 PM

Hi All,

The R5II has a feature called pre-roll where the camera records 3 or 5 seconds of video to the buffer once the feature enabled. Once in video mode, pre-roll cannot be turned on and off. Once you set pre-roll on, it is on until you turn it off in the settings. This seems odd to me as it would wastes battery and potentially overheats the camera while waiting for a particular scene to develop. This is different from how pre-capture for stills is implemented where writing to the buffer begins with a half press of the shutter button. Canon must have had a reason for implementing pre-roll as they did. But I do not understand why. Does anyone have insight on this?

Don

danfaz · Sunday at 10:28 PM

Found a new use for pre-capture on the R5m2...lightning strikes!

ISv · Sunday at 8:46 PM

Few more shots of Common waxbill from today.

@amir_photography · Sunday at 7:35 PM

Exploreshootshare said:
A new remote? That tiny little detail in this rumor is what might actually interest me Does anybody use the Canon BR-E1 with the Canon R5? I´d love to hear about your experience. I´m getting tired of using "camera connect" as a remote and I am actively searching for BT option. It would be great if I can find one with a timer or a small display that shows the time in bulb mode. I am open for any suggestions

I actually have both, but I never used them together since that's not my style of photography.. I can check once I get back home

scyrene · Sunday at 6:04 PM

neuroanatomist said:
I think Canon has done just that with the RF 600/11 and 800/11 and the RF 200-800

Precisely this! We couldn't have dreamed of lenses like this in the EF days.

neuroanatomist · Sunday at 5:19 PM

OldrockyGN said:
I don't understand your response. I'm not a lens designer - just a simple(?) user. On the surface your response
seems to be based upon "the status quo" ... it doesn't seem, to me, to address my comments about how good
today's cameras are at high ISO values and IS.

Two points.

First, I think Canon has done just that with the RF 600/11 and 800/11 and the RF 200-800, which is f/9 at the long end. With such narrow apertures and a need for a fast shutter for moving subjects, high ISOs are often necessary. The fact that those lenses are much slower than the f/5.6 (and f/6.3 from other manufacturers) and thus much smaller/lighter/cheaper is quite consistent with designs taking the high ISO capabilities of modern cameras into account (and also their ability to AF with narrow apertures).

Second, you referred to a hypothetical 500-800mm f/11 zoom lens because the existing 200-800 is too large for travel, and my point about the other lenses is that your hypothetical lens won't be any smaller than the existing 200-800, which is only 2/3-stop slower than the prime at the long end (and making it a constant f/11 zoom won't help with size or weight).

OldrockyGN · Sunday at 5:11 PM

Neuro,
I don't understand your response. I'm not a lens designer - just a simple(?) user. On the surface your response
seems to be based upon "the status quo" ... it doesn't seem, to me, to address my comments about how good
today's cameras are at high ISO values and IS. Maybe I used a 'bad example' but to me I am still wondering
why we don't have "new concepts of lens design" based upon accepted high(er) ISO values and current
image stabilization ... maybe what I'm asking for is a long focal length mirror lens? Just to be perfectly
clear on my motives ... I'm a birding photographer (not a videographer) who wants "more reach" in a
lens that is -very- capable of being hand held, and of being "the only lens I take with me when traveling
around the world to take pictures of birds". So I need a lens that is light and small enough to put in my
travel backpack - which the RF 100-500, mounted on the camera, does very well. I also take my 1.4 extender
and -one- "landscape lens" (the RF 24 -105).
- Jim in the PNW

OldrockyGN · Sunday at 5:01 PM

neuroanatomist said:
Considering a 500-800/11 zoom, it's not going to be any smaller than the current RF 800/11, rather it will be slightly larger than that...pretty much the same size as the 200-800. Compare those two lenses with the 800/5.6. Also keep in mind that the 800/11 needs to be extended to use it, even though it's not a zoom lens.

View attachment 229279

AlanF · Sunday at 5:01 PM

Sorry, but I do feel I have to correct misinformation and myths, here about the RF 200-800mm at 800mm. I bought both the RF 100-500mm and 200-800mm on the first days they were released and use both regularly. @foda has been taking what are among the very best , sharp, bird photos posted here using the RF 200-800mm in several continents, and @Dragon great humming birds. @Nemorino , I and other regular posters in the bird thread are also getting sharp shots at 800mm. I've done extensive tests on it. And not many of us have had the lens break in two.

https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/threads/summary-of-my-rf-200-800mm-testing.43239/

Internal zoom telephotos are usually heavier and more expensive than extending ones. Canon's 600mm f/11 is hardly heavy and big compared with the RF 100-500mm. The prime weighs in at under 1kg compared with the 1.6kg of the zoom with its tripod foot and hood, is the same length retracted and shorter than when both extended.

neuroanatomist · Sunday at 4:07 PM

Considering a 500-800/11 zoom, it's not going to be any smaller than the current RF 800/11, rather it will be slightly larger than that...pretty much the same size as the 200-800. Compare those two lenses with the 800/5.6. Also keep in mind that the 800/11 needs to be extended to use it, even though it's not a zoom lens.

foda · Sunday at 3:27 PM

AlanF said:
It's always exciting for us to see the first Cuckoo of the year - they are very elusive and they are easily heard but not seen. Ours was yesterday. I am posting the not at all exciting images of a very far away bird to show that the R7 + RF 100-400mm used by wife (the first shot) gives results hardly distinguishable from that of my much more expensive and heavier R5ii + RF 100-500mm (both very heavily cropped and not reduced in size). At that distance and image size, you are looking at pixel-peeping resolution.

View attachment 229268 View attachment 229269

Thanks for that direct, in-the-field, comparison! It's always great to have good data like this.

OldrockyGN · Sunday at 3:04 PM

Why aren't there lenses like a 500-800 with a reasonable, but not super-fast
aperture (say f11)?

For birding (and for all wildlife and a lot of sports photography too?) it seems to me that
lens design hasn't "kept up" with the realities of the recent cameras ... I'm finding that I
have lots of 'options' to shoot in low light with a 'slower' lens - because my R5m2 is so
good at getting very acceptable images at high ISO values. And let's not forget the IS.

On a recent trip to Ecuador we were often out of the lodge well before sunrise and "on the
birding ground" as well. AND shooting under the canopy. Several times when I turned
on the camera (which defaulted to 1/4000 or 1/3000) the viewfinder was -way- too
dark ... then I'd roll the shutter speed down to what seemed like crazy slow speeds
and the birds would become visible, shots would result in not just usable but good
exposures. Not "great" but way better than "just acceptable".

Canon's 600 prime is only f11. I rented one for a couple of weeks. Big, heavy, and
no real advantage over the 100-500 with a 1.4. I own the RF 200-800 - but am
seriously considering selling it because it is just too big to travel with ... and pretty
"soft" above 600mm. And that weakness with respect to the way it breaks ....

Wouldn't a 'fast enough, small zoom range, long telephoto, light weight' be possible?
And maybe it should even be an internal zoom?
- Jim

john1970 · Sunday at 3:00 PM

This lens fills a nice gap if one already has the 10-20 mm f4 and 70-200 mm f4 lenses. Great trio for landscapes and relatively compact for all three lenses.

neuroanatomist · Sunday at 2:43 PM

rombe3jr said:
I do not understand this release. It is very similar to the C50 that was just released.

Fewer features, lower cost. Seems straightforward.

foda · Sunday at 2:18 PM

Noreaster said:
View attachment 229230 View attachment 229231 View attachment 229232 View attachment 229233 View attachment 229234

Super happy with the American Bittern. It is so hard to get close to these things.

Excellent photos of the American Bittern! I got some long-distance views of the Pinnated and Least Bitterns last month in Belize, but your photos are better'n what I got...

Latest activity

Latest activity

Attachments

Filter

Forum statistics

Gallery statistics