Latest activity

Mr. Warbucks · Apr 6, 2026

Weight is the key differentiator imo. It would line up nicely with the 70-200 F4.0L lens, which is low weight as well. Wondering whether we will see a birding rf-s lens upto say 200-400 or 500 at apenditure F4.0, a step up from the rf 100-400 which is at the long range F8.0 or so…..
And, indeed, why not vcm? Or is that only relevant for primes?
Hurry up with the R7ii, very keen to see what it will be!

zapper · Apr 6, 2026

Bob Howland said:
It's not f/6.3. It's a 15-70 f/4 lens with the DOF of a 15-70 f/4 lens, regardless of the size of sensor. The only reason the DOF changes is when people move forward or back or change the focal length to maintain the same FOV. I'm rather interested in this lens but I already own the 18-50 Sigma and I highly value small size and especially light weight.

He said "f/6.3 equivalent", which is (approximately) correct. It will take similar photos to a hypothetical 24-112mm f/6.4 full frame (same position, same DOF, same FOV, same shutter speed, same image quality with the full frame aperture and ISO 1.6x higher than APS-C). However, the hypothetical 24-112mm f/6.4 will take photos with higher IQ if the exposure permits base ISO, compared to the 15-70 f/4.

I would not buy a f/6.4 FF mid zoom, nor I would not buy a f/4 APS-C mid zoom. I consider FF f/4 to be acceptable compromise of versatility, IQ, and size/weight for wide and mid zooms, and f/2.8 to be acceptable on APS-C (I have the Sigma 10-18 and 18-50 f/2.8 lenses). I would LOVE a 15-70 f/2.8 RF-S lens. But f/4 on APS-C is a stop slower than I want.

Nathalietje86 · Apr 6, 2026

Zudo said:
What I want is a high quality camera that has both wide angle but also with a zoom more like the 740, with a 40X to be a high end travel camera. If they did a Powershot V3 then it needs minimum of 20x but ideally a bit more zoom. I would pay more if it had wide angle, high image quality and with big zoom; $1200 to $2000. If it was on that higher end price it would be more like a combo of the 750 & V3.

But that new compact travel zoom camera need to have raw instead of only jpeg.

Uneternal · Apr 6, 2026

f/4 ... meh. Not great, not terrible. Depending on the price.
But I guess I still keep my adapted Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4, which weighs just 575 grams (incl adapter).

Click · Apr 6, 2026

I really like your pictures. Lovely reflections in the first two.

Bob Howland · Apr 6, 2026

BlueBomberTurbo said:
F/6.3 equivalent is nice for a kit lens, but come on already, Canon.

It's not f/6.3. It's a 15-70 f/4 lens with the DOF of a 15-70 f/4 lens, regardless of the size of sensor. The only reason the DOF changes is when people move forward or back or change the focal length to maintain the same FOV. I'm rather interested in this lens but I already own the 18-50 Sigma and I highly value small size and especially light weight.

Xpenelas · Apr 6, 2026

Distortion and vignetting on the 15-85 it's well corrected by digital correction, an RF version should be a lot smaller, like all angular APS-C lenses are because of the flange distance reduction.

Should be a big upgrade over RF-S 14-30 or 18-150 as a kit lense.

InternalRevenue · Apr 6, 2026

Xpenelas said:
Sounds like a good replacement for the EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM.

If it comes with a nice weight and size reduction I wouldn’t be too miffed about the loss of focal length on the long end. The 15-85 had soft corners (and distortion at 15mm) which I would like to see dealt with too, though I imagine if so it’ll be entirely digital correction.

Bob Howland · Apr 6, 2026

Ozarker said:
And if Sigma had the capacity, and believed ff RF would make them money, they'd already be doing it then, right? How long has RF been out? 8 years?

Having worked in factories as a facilities manager and industrial electrician in both the food and printed circuit board industry, I can tell you that the idea that it's as simple as you make it, isn't correct. I've sat in on too many production planning meetings to be swayed. Sitting on the outside and looking in, it's easy to make things simplistic because we don't know what's happening inside.

If I made it seem simplistic, I'm sorry. I've never been in a production planning meeting. I have, however, heard a production planner state that a critical part of a radio requiring over 500 parts had an 18 month lead time. As I recall, one vendor had stopped making it, another had a factory fire and the third was swamped with orders.

josephandrews222 · Apr 6, 2026

...my daily check of a deal site led me here:

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1314025-REG/canon_uj86x9_3b_p01_dss_uhd_digisuper_86_broadcast.html/?ap=y&smp=y&store=420

$193,030.00
"This item cannot be canceled or returned."

Xpenelas · Apr 6, 2026

Tom R5R7 said:
Well, a 15-70 f/4 would be a great addition to the lineup. Kind of a jack of many trades type of lens, an APS-C version of something like the well-liked 24-105 f/4L. In fact, in terms of field of view equivalent, it would be a 24-113 mm lens. I'd buy the lens on its own merit for any APS-C R body really.

Should be a perfect kit lense for the R7 mkII if it's sharp enough.

Xpenelas · Apr 6, 2026

Sounds like a good replacement for the EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM.

InternalRevenue · Apr 6, 2026

roby17269 said:
I'm not saying it is necessarily easy, but that it is doable.
We're not talking about creating brand new lenses, but tweaking existing ones.
You are correct that we do not know how easy / difficult this would be for Sigma, but since they have been making lenses for multiple mounts for quite some time, my Occam's razor says that the most likely cause for the lack of Sigma RF FF AF lenses is that Canon doesn't want them to

I’m not well versed in lens manufacturing, but for the latest APS-C lenses (12mm f/1.4, 15mm f/1.4, 17-40 f/1.8) Sigma changed the aperture ring to a generic control ring for the RF mount only (perhaps the reason why these lenses were delayed compared to the other versions) but it came at no additional cost to consumers. Tamron’s RF version of their 18-300 comes with a bunch of extra buttons and switches (even compared to the Z mount version that was announced alongside it) again, at no extra cost to consumers. These manufacturers are clearly willing to go extra steps for the Canon versions and whatever licensing fee they’re being charged is not enough require a premium being charged to consumers.

BlueBomberTurbo · Apr 6, 2026

F/6.3 equivalent is nice for a kit lens, but come on already, Canon.

danfaz · Apr 6, 2026

HeavyPiper said:
Sweet work danfaz.

Thank you!

roby17269 · Apr 6, 2026

Ozarker said:
And if Sigma had the capacity, and believed ff RF would make them money, they'd already be doing it then, right? How long has RF been out? 8 years?

Having worked in factories as a facilities manager and industrial electrician in both the food and printed circuit board industry, I can tell you that the idea that it's as simple as you make it, isn't correct. I've sat in on too many production planning meetings to be swayed. Sitting on the outside and looking in, it's easy to make things simplistic because we don't know what's happening inside.

I'm not saying it is necessarily easy, but that it is doable.
We're not talking about creating brand new lenses, but tweaking existing ones.
You are correct that we do not know how easy / difficult this would be for Sigma, but since they have been making lenses for multiple mounts for quite some time, my Occam's razor says that the most likely cause for the lack of Sigma RF FF AF lenses is that Canon doesn't want them to

roby17269 · Apr 6, 2026

tattwah said:
In my opinion, it is unreasonable to assume it is because of Sigma's production capacity. Sigma as a factory can do limited launch and adjust capacity based on demands, Sigma has launched plenty of L-mount lenses even though it doesn't sell very well, and because of that, they have scale back production on L-mount lenses and some lens you need to backorder from stores but you can still in the waiting list.

Another point to consider is that it is not limited to Sigma, Tamron and Samyang both have licences to sell RF-Mount lenses from Canon, to assume they face capacity as well is also unreasonable. That only means the limitation is on Canon's side.

There may be a chance that Canon and Sigma isn't lying, Canon and Sigma may have clause that state that sigma cannot produce FF lens until xxx date (likely after 10 years RF mount) but the contract signed by Sigma and Canon does not limit Sigma to produce FF lens after said date. I personally think 10 year is a likely timeframe because it gives Canon to recoup and makes plenty of profit from RF Mount R&D and also collect royalty from third party manufacturers. After 10 years time frame, i believe anyone who want to buy a canon brand would have already bought it and it is the time they want to attract more price conscious buyer who only want to use third party lens without them going to other brands.

Once the date is over, Sigma can produce FF lens with its Licence and Canon does not limit Sigma with FF lens production after said date. That said, it is my own prediction, and I hope it are true. However, it is also true that i only need few lenses and those lenses i really wanted I already went Canon brand which means Canon's tactics is working.

You may be right, but that would imply that Canon is, in fact, lying.
The quote from Canon representatives was along the lines of

The quote in question from Go Tokura says that Canon doesn't differentiate between APS-C and full-frame lenses when it comes to their approval process for third-party manufactuers.

Since Sigma is already selling RF-S AF lenses, that means that there is no time constraint on RF-S.

Tom R5R7 · Apr 6, 2026

Well, a 15-70 f/4 would be a great addition to the lineup. Kind of a jack of many trades type of lens, an APS-C version of something like the well-liked 24-105 f/4L. In fact, in terms of field of view equivalent, it would be a 24-113 mm lens. I'd buy the lens on its own merit for any APS-C R body really.

Ozarker · Apr 6, 2026

roby17269 said:
But a lot of the expenses to develop those lenses have been already incurred into by Sigma. The only additional investment would be to change the mount and the comm protocols. Lens design and productionalization has happened already.

If Sigma is selling them now to L and FE clients it means that they are already (or believe they will be) making money on those lenses.

So, again, I don't think that the capacity argument holds any water.

And if Sigma had the capacity, and believed ff RF would make them money, they'd already be doing it then, right? How long has RF been out? 8 years?

Having worked in factories as a facilities manager and industrial electrician in both the food and printed circuit board industry, I can tell you that the idea that it's as simple as you make it, isn't correct. I've sat in on too many production planning meetings to be swayed. Sitting on the outside and looking in, it's easy to make things simplistic because we don't know what's happening inside.

AdamBotond · Apr 6, 2026

I'm new to the R1, I still have my OG R6, prior to that I used to be a 1D-X shooter.
To my surprise, apparently the R1 does not feature an in-camera trimming/cut tool to cut videos. As a wildlife shooter, I generally cut the videos in-camera, as I often need only couple of seconds from a footage and by doing so I could save up space on my hard drive. Surely, I can get around by cutting footages on my PC with a software like Loseless Cut, but I did not expect the R1 no to have that feature (lower end bodies all have that).

Also, the R1 not having waveforms is unexpected, as R5II has it.

Not being able to assign pre-capture to a button is weird, although you can get around that with different custom shooting modes. You can assign pre-recording to a button in video mode, however.

I know my R6 inside-out, the R1 is still a bit overwhelming at first, as it is highly customizable. It is definitely a most capable camera I have ever owned, though. I noticed it is far more reliable in back-lit situations than any camera I have used, I guess it has to do someting with the cross-type AF point.

Any insights from R1 users would be appreciated!

Eric84 · Apr 6, 2026

Still waiting for the unicorn to appear

neuroanatomist · Apr 6, 2026

mimbu said:
Since we are specifically talking about FF cameras, I don't think this is true.

No, “we” aren’t…you are. The discussion is about full frame lenses.

Why would anyone who put even a modicum of logical thought into the matter assume that those lenses would be bought solely by those with a FF camera? Oh, yes…now your statement makes perfect sense.

m4ndr4ke · Apr 6, 2026

erader said:
the sigma 28 f1.4 art is an outstanding lens. i did sell mine tho when i switched to mirrorless in december because i got the 24 f1.4 VCM. i shoot lots of milky way

I miss my 28mm Art because it was the only option, and because it was so good but, to be honest, I don't miss carrying it.

I've gone full RF since 2024. Now I only keep the adapter for the case I ever need an EF lens for work.

David - Sydney · Apr 6, 2026

Daniel Wu said:
On the exact opposite, Canon has a own sub company in China, which sues anyone trying to sell third party RF lenes. Nikon just did it to Viltrox.

I guess that it wont's be too long to find out if that is the case or not.
Canon can't prevent 3rd parties from physically connecting to the R mount but the AF is a different story. EF protocols have not been an issue for a long time.

candyman · Apr 6, 2026

erader said:
famous last words haha?

Famous last words? I will join Craig: "Hats off"

Latest activity

Latest activity

Filter

Forum statistics

Gallery statistics