The moment always comes when pro‑level features trickle into consumer gear. Is dual‑band Wi‑Fi 6 about to make that leap, or is it still too early?

ritaC said:

wonderful!

Click to expand...

Do you mean wunderbar ?

These two preferred intimacy instead of being stars on this forum... The foreground is not human made: just Papyrus stems.

GMCPhotographics said:

I suspect that is Canon’s intention. Why sell one lens when you can sell three that make a complete system?
35/85/135 or 16-35/24-70/70-200 or the new 24-105 2.8/100-300 2.8 and the next 300-600.

Click to expand...

Oof, I certainly hope it won't be a counterpart to the 100-300L in terms of price.

For me, if I really wanted to have the range covered, I'd just put a 1.4x on my 70-200Z: a 98-280mm f/4.0 is close enough, and it would match the rumored/alleged 300-600 f/4.0-5.6 at 300mm. A stop slower than the 100-300L f/2.8 of course, but saves you about $8k by comparison.

The 70-200Z with a 1.4x loses a bit of sharpness and contrast vs. the 100-300L (also wide open), but honestly not that much (comparing 280mm and 300mm): https://www.the-digital-picture.com...eraComp=1508&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=3&APIComp=0.

Rose with texturing...

illadvisedhammer said:

Speaking of the topic of this thread, the 28-70 2.8 was on Canon refurb sale for $750, so I’m excited that I’ll see how at least one of these ‘amateur’ trilogy lenses perform.

Click to expand...

My 28-70 STM performs as good or exceeds the EF 24-70 2.8 L II that I had; it's smaller and lighter (even without considering the adapter), sharper, AF is as fast, has IS, couldn't ask for more for less then 300€ difference in resale price of the EF.

Only downside is the control ring that doubles up as focus ring, so it's unclicked, so totally useless for photography as it moves as soon as you barely touch the lens and any setting you would use it for would be altered without notice. In the cheapo RF lenses (the ones with double duty ring) all rings should be clicked, too; no one is ever going to manual focus this lenses ever. I frankly don't recall ever taking a MF picture in the last 26 years with an AF camera/lens, but even if I would occasionally do, a clicked ring would be pretty fine, too, as I could use it for something else most of the time.
(gotta say tbh that even the clicked rings are too soft and easy to turn and move accidentally on RF, they should be MUCH more firm to be really usable)

Ian K said:

The problem with a 300-600 is it leaves a large hole between 100 to 300, so you’re likely going to need to fill that, either with the 100-300mm for the super rich or the 100-500mm for more ordinary mortals. Ho hum then you need to swap out doors or have yet another body!

Click to expand...

I suspect that is Canon’s intention. Why sell one lens when you can sell three that make a complete system?
35/85/135 or 16-35/24-70/70-200 or the new 24-105 2.8/100-300 2.8 and the next 300-600.

rombe3jr said:

The Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 is the best selling full frame mirrorless zoom lens of all time. The RF 28-70 f/2.8 may also prove to be Canon's best selling full frame zoom. So a Canon RF 70-180 f/2.8 STM lens makes a lot of sense. It would complete the "trinity" and be a powerful way to attract plus retain customers to Canon. The Sony/Nikon mount version of the 70-180 f/2.8 currently cost $1,000/$1,250 USD respectively. If Canon could come in around $1,300 or $1,400 USD then it should be close enough to get the job done for Canon.

Click to expand...

The Tamron 28-75/2.8 G2 is $899. It doesn't have IS but it does have Tamron's hyper-fast magnetic linear focusing.

Meanwhile the RF 28-70/2.8 IS STM is $1249, 39% more.

The Tamron 16-30/2.8 G2 is $929 while the Canon 16-28 is $1249. 34% more.

The Tamron 70-180/2.8 G2 with both IS and the magnetic linear focusing is $1099. 30% more would be $1399. 40% more would be $1540.

So, $1400-$1500 seems likely for a future Canon 70-180/2.8 IS STM lens.

My question is what is up with Canon still putting STM into new lens releses in 2025? It sucks. Tamron and Sigma have both moved to magnetic motors, surely Canon can too...?

EricN said:

It's a video about a dwarf telescope hosted on a dwarf website... I don't even need to click it to know EVERYTHING is 1000% the TRUTH!!! Because the ufo people in another dimension told me I will know everything after I ate some candy and mushrooms some backpackers that were sleeping behind the convenience store forgot when they suddenly woke up and ran away.

Click to expand...

QAnon certified. I'll buy one !
And I will post some bigly beautiful videos and pictures here!

Del Paso said:

I looked at the demo too.
It leaves me very skeptical as to the gear actually used. A bit too good to be true...

Click to expand...

It's a video about a dwarf telescope hosted on a dwarf website... I don't even need to click it to know EVERYTHING is 1000% the TRUTH!!! Because the ufo people in another dimension told me I will know everything after I ate some candy and mushrooms some backpackers that were sleeping behind the convenience store forgot when they suddenly woke up and ran away.

It's really a digital telescope, not a camera. It has only an 8.4 mpx sensor with a 4.9 crop factor. In terms of reach, with its 150mm lens it is equivalent to a 300mm on an R5 or 430mm on an R3 or R6, not the 735mm stated, which is a field of view factor. The f-number is 4.3, which has the depth of field equivalent of f/21 of FF. So, you can take its claim of "enchanting bokeh" with the large pinch of salt.

I saw one once being used. It's OK as a digital telescope but not for photography.

It has a Sony IMX678 Starvis 2 sensor with a diagonal 8.86 mm (type 1/1.8), i.e. smaller than the main sensor of a recent iPhone. So I would not expect a high image quality.

I looked at the demo too.
It leaves me very skeptical as to the gear actually used. A bit too good to be true...

Thanks for sharing. Personally, as long as I can handle my camera with large lenses, I will use this option. It's part of my philosophy in bird photography.

blackcoffee17 said:

They could have added nano-USM. They already used that in cheap lenses like the EF 18-135 or RF 100-400.

Click to expand...

I believe nano-USM is significantly larger than STM, especially gear-type STM used by the 85/2.
But yeah, I think I'd vote for the extra weight/size. It's 500g anyway, so not a sub-300g lens.

Curious, would you buy a Canon RF 70-200 (or perhaps 150 or 180) f/2.8 STM for under $1,400 USD?

Nemorino said:

great crested grebe
R5m2 + RF 100-500 + 1.4 TC
@ 1/4000s, f/10
View attachment 226942View attachment 226943View attachment 226944

Click to expand...

wonderful!

Nemorino said:

great crested grebe
R5m2 + RF 100-500 + 1.4 TC
@ 1/4000s, f/10
View attachment 226942View attachment 226943View attachment 226944

Click to expand...

Great images. Thanks for posting.

Lovely shots, ISv. I really like the bird's inverted pose.

Exploreshootshare said:

Out of curiosity: were there any great deals on canon refurbished gear on Black Friday besides the 200-800mm? I checked several times and didn't see any. Did I just miss it or was nothing special going on?

Click to expand...

Speaking of the topic of this thread, the 28-70 2.8 was on Canon refurb sale for $750, so I’m excited that I’ll see how at least one of these ‘amateur’ trilogy lenses perform.

riker said:

Well, it's STM, it is what it is. The intentional was not putting USM into it. I wonder how much bigger/heavier it would have been with USM. Especially since it's not particularly light. Compared to EF 85/1.8 it's seriously bigger and heavier.
And yes, f/2 for 85mm is enough, IQ is decent, the macro capability is a nice bonus but STM is an issue. Just like with all STM lenses. 50/1.8 and 28/2.8 were killing me for the past 6 weeks during street photography where you often need to be quick.

Click to expand...

They could have added nano-USM. They already used that in cheap lenses like the EF 18-135 or RF 100-400.

blackcoffee17 said:

Exactly! For example the RF 85 F2. Would have been the perfect lens. It's sharp, has great macro feature and F2 is plenty for most uses. But they had to (intentionally?) slow down the AF.

Click to expand...

Well, it's STM, it is what it is. The intentional was not putting USM into it. I wonder how much bigger/heavier it would have been with USM. Especially since it's not particularly light. Compared to EF 85/1.8 it's seriously bigger and heavier.
And yes, f/2 for 85mm is enough, IQ is decent, the macro capability is a nice bonus but STM is an issue. Just like with all STM lenses. 50/1.8 and 28/2.8 were killing me for the past 6 weeks during street photography where you often need to be quick.

riker said:

But since forever, if you want good IQ and AF perf, you have to pay and carry all that overhead.

Click to expand...

Exactly! For example the RF 85 F2. Would have been the perfect lens. It's sharp, has great macro feature and F2 is plenty for most uses. But they had to (intentionally?) slow down the AF.

I'm absolutely sure there won't be a 70-200/2.8 STM as the 28-70 is not a 24-70 and the 16-28 is lightyears away of being a 15-35 or 16-35.
I can imagine a 80-150 or 70-150 or something like that.

I appreciate the trend of having an extra choice, the question is the compromise they offer VS L lenses.
For me it comes down to:
- IQ
- AF performance
- weight
- price

My big problem for many many years, is the unavailable IQ and AF performance without all the other unnecessary stuff. Most of the times I do not need weather sealing, iris ring, focus button, control ring, reduced focus breathing and all those bells and whistles. I'd say I don't even care about CA and corner sharpness as long as they are not terrible.
But since forever, if you want good IQ and AF perf, you have to pay and carry all that overhead.
...and in the APS-C world it has always been even worse, I had to use full-frame L lenses on D60-10D-20D-30D-40D - an attack on my wallet and my shoulders, yet half of the lenses were not used by the body when taking the photos. This has only changed due to switching to ff, not because Canon introduced proper APS-C lenses.