Latest activity

ThomasTH · Nov 26, 2025

Richard CR said:
but if you are thinking mech vs electronic? It's going to be around 1EV and probably close to 1.5EV difference

Because of the 14 bits vs. 12 bits?

Richard CR · Nov 26, 2025

i honestly was fine around 10EV for a sensor - ie: the M6 Mark II I felt that unless i really screwed up, had more lattitude than I needed.

but if you are thinking mech vs electronic? It's going to be around 1EV and probably close to 1.5EV difference depending on how extreme you are pushing. do you need the 11.2EV or whatever it turns out or are you perfectly happy with 10?

Everyone there is different. I mean, I had someone argue with me that they needed more than 11EV in a damned studio shooting still life.

I'm going to add in a comparison between the shutters.

Richard CR · Nov 26, 2025

Dpreview today has put out their studio scene with the EOS R6 Mark III, which gives us our first side-by-side look at how the EOS R6 Mark III compares to its relatives and also its competitors. One thing about sensor design is that there is no such thing as a free lunch. Something has to […]

See full article...

photophil · Nov 26, 2025

That is a lesson I learned with my 800/11. Thought I had a really bad copy until I took off the cheap UV. Huge jump in image quality right away, clearly visible without pixel peeping at 100%.

EricN · Nov 26, 2025

dolina said:
The Sigma 200mm f/2 DG OS | Sports lens was released on September 4, 2025. It is available for L-mount and Sony E-mount mirrorless cameras.

I hope this & LAOWA equivalent incentives a RF 200mm f/1.8L IS USM.

Let's challenge them and hope for f/1.4!

ISv · Nov 26, 2025

P-visie said:
And wait until you see @AlanF rate for the 1.4* and 2* extenders .

I'm closing my eyes: I don't want to see that

!

ISv · Nov 26, 2025

Nothing today - plus illustration (second photo") that I regularly take a shots just for the practice: "Hard to spot, hard to focus, hard to shoot.".
First photo is a regular - just a fledgling White Tern (well, now it's a Blue-billed white tern according many ornithologists!). For the second photo - the wind today was really slow- otherwise shooting behind the leafs is almost "mission impossible" !!

dolina · Nov 26, 2025

The Sigma 200mm f/2 DG OS | Sports lens was released on September 4, 2025. It is available for L-mount and Sony E-mount mirrorless cameras.

I hope this & LAOWA equivalent incentives a RF 200mm f/1.8L IS USM.

P-visie · Nov 26, 2025

neuroanatomist said:
I count 6 new lenses for 2025 (5 RF, 1 RF-S).

Welcome back.

P-visie · Nov 26, 2025

homebodyMacro2 said:
And just a day later (https://www.canonrumors.com/whats-next-from-canon-8/), "We know the lens has been tested in numerous places around the globe for everything from wildlife to surfing, but again. I don't know exactly when."

and "Lens announcements are always tougher to nail down than camera bodies. I don't like it, but I can't change it."

I wish we could've gotten a few more details, but this is still a welcome update.

Here's a snippet from something I posted on DPReview:

That's not to say that Canon won't go the greedy route, but with half as much glass as the Sigma f/4.0, I think it would be a pretty risky/uncompetitive move to stick a 300-600 f/4.0-5.6 on the >$11k side of things. The current gulf is a bit ridiculous, imo. We jump from about $3000 to about $11000 currently, and there is clearly a market in the middle that other manufacturers are pursuing.

600mm @ f/5.6 should be a good candidate for this middle range, or at least I hope so. Losing a stop on a 600mm f/4.0 is a small price to pay if it saves $6000-7000 and still performs well. It certainly seems like I'm not alone in that sentiment.

The poster on DPReview forgot to mention the RF 600mm f11 and RF 800mm f11 lenses. The rumor has a rumored price for the RF300-600mm of $6499-$6999 USD.

SonicStudios · Nov 26, 2025

All i want for Christmas is a 300 - 600 F4, The 100-300 2.8 is AWESOME. if the 300 - 600 is more then F4, then please hurry up with the redesigned 400 2.8 and 600 f4.

P-visie · Nov 26, 2025

ISv said:
Alan is collecting money for all new telephotos (>400mm and not more "F" than F5.6!!!) and cameras able to shoot what you want by themself that Canon will produce in the the next few/several years -it's bargain keeping in mind the galloping inflation*
*inflation = current in the grocery stores (and not only!!!). I don't mean the "blurry photos" that we produce - that production is overwhelming the market - with that currency I think you have enough to pay regularly (same as me...)

And wait until you see @AlanF rate for the 1.4* and 2* extenders

.

Ozarker · Nov 25, 2025

PinholeR5 said:
I have been salivating over the Sony 50-150mm F2 ever since it came out. I love the RF 28-70mm F2 and a 70-135 F2 would certainly complement it very well. That said, the 50-150mm range is much more useful. If they could pull-off a 35-135mm F2 at the same IQ as the 28-70mm it would be a real dream come true.

A 50-150 or 35-135 would not be as good for me. I'd already have 28-70 covered. The 28-70 is $3k. A 50-150 f/2?

I wonder how the Sony looks compared to the Canon at the same focal lengths? Something tells me the Sony would fall short. I'm not talking about pixel peeping or corner sharpness. How they render.

Ozarker · Nov 25, 2025

Eloniel said:
That would be disapointing compared to the Sony 50-150 f2.0 and tamron 35-150 f2.0-2.8, give us either 35-135 f2.0 or 50-150 f2.0 or 70-180 f2.0

I don't worry about what other manufacturers put out. I don't switch systems because of a lens. Do you have $ for that? Great.

I don't know how big the front element would have to be for 150mm f/2 or 180mm f/2, but it's going to be a huge lens. I'm a portrait photographer. WTF do I need with a tripod dependent monster?

ISv · Nov 25, 2025

Sporgon said:
Many thanks Click. She is a great little dog and totally ball mad !

Sorry but "ball mad" for me is not explaining her posture! I think @becceric is right

!!!

ISv · Nov 25, 2025

AlanF said:
Invoice: Fee for consultation $6000 ($10/mm rate). I recommend the 1200mm next at same rate.

Alan is collecting money for all new telephotos (>400mm and not more "F" than F5.6!!!) and cameras able to shoot what you want by themself that Canon will produce in the the next few/several years -it's bargain keeping in mind the galloping inflation*

*inflation = current in the grocery stores (and not only!!!). I don't mean the "blurry photos" that we produce - that production is overwhelming the market - with that currency I think you have enough to pay regularly (same as me...)

SnowMiku · Nov 25, 2025

I am wondering what kind of upgrades an R8 II would have over the R8? I would love for it to have the bigger R6 battery but I don't think that's going to happen.

The affordable RF 300-600mm sounds very interesting and I'm looking forward to find out more details about it.

ronbyram · Nov 25, 2025

thanks for the feed back I have a B&W filter will see how it works out

happy Thanksgiving!

neuroanatomist · Nov 25, 2025

Not sure who told you that, but if you buy a good quality UV filter (e.g., B+W) you won’t have any issues.

There is a thread about this on Canon’s forum where the problem was the filter – the person bought a ProMaster filter and it precluded mounting the hood. That’s a cheap brand I see in camera stores (and that it seems you’re familiar with), and probably to make a 95mm filter they had to make the filter mount thicker for sufficient strength with cheaper metal.

All my B+W filters are the same outer diameter as the lens cap for the lens, and Canon won’t design a lens where the hood can’t be put on/removed with the cap on the lens. That is true from the little 43mm CPL filter for my EF-M 22/2 to the big 112mm UV filter for my RF 100-300/2.8L, and includes the 95mm UV filter on my RF 28-70/2L.

So…don’t get a ProMaster UV filter to match the case you bought!

Eloniel · Nov 25, 2025

PinholeR5 said:
I have been salivating over the Sony 50-150mm F2 ever since it came out. I love the RF 28-70mm F2 and a 70-135 F2 would certainly complement it very well. That said, the 50-150mm range is much more useful. If they could pull-off a 35-135mm F2 at the same IQ as the 28-70mm it would be a real dream come true.

Exactly over all the range is stated i would find the 35-135 f2.0 the most useful as the ultimate portrait lens, with it + the 15-35 f2.8 you can do almost anything except macro and wildlife/ outdoor sport.

But i fear the range would canibalize too much the 28-70 and thus that they would make it start at least at 50mm...

ronbyram · Nov 25, 2025

I just purchased a 200-800 for a retirement gift. only to find no carry case had to get a knock off pro-master for 40.00 not the 175.00 for a canon one. but I was told that if you have a uv filter on the lens you can't flip the lens hood for storage. Anyone know if this is true? I have yet to open it from the box.

homebodyMacro2 · Nov 25, 2025

And just a day later (https://www.canonrumors.com/whats-next-from-canon-8/), "We know the lens has been tested in numerous places around the globe for everything from wildlife to surfing, but again. I don't know exactly when."

and "Lens announcements are always tougher to nail down than camera bodies. I don't like it, but I can't change it."

I wish we could've gotten a few more details, but this is still a welcome update.

Here's a snippet from something I posted on DPReview:

"We have Canon lenses (current new prices from Canon website in USD)

RF 100-500L: 500mm @ f/7.1 - $2700
RF 200-800: 800mm @ f/9 - $2249
RF 70-200Z (2x): 400mm @f/5.6 - $3300

RF 100-300L (2x) 600mm @f/5.6 - $10599
RF 400mm f/2.8 - $13399
RF 600mm f/4.0 - $14499

The recent Sigma 300-600 f/4.0 - $6599 (B&H right now)

Canon has an enormous no-man's land in terms of pricing. I doubt they can get away with much over $8000 for a 300-600 that is still a stop slower than the Sigma. Another ultra-expensive long L lens that basically no one can afford makes no sense in the current lineup."

That's not to say that Canon won't go the greedy route, but with half as much glass as the Sigma f/4.0, I think it would be a pretty risky/uncompetitive move to stick a 300-600 f/4.0-5.6 on the >$11k side of things. The current gulf is a bit ridiculous, imo. We jump from about $3000 to about $11000 currently, and there is clearly a market in the middle that other manufacturers are pursuing.

600mm @ f/5.6 should be a good candidate for this middle range, or at least I hope so. Losing a stop on a 600mm f/4.0 is a small price to pay if it saves $6000-7000 and still performs well. It certainly seems like I'm not alone in that sentiment.

PinholeR5 · Nov 25, 2025

Ozarker said:
Yes. I'm tormented, waiting for that rumored lens nobody has seen before. Obviously, it's a 70-135 f/2, but it gets no love.

That would be disapointing compared to the Sony 50-150 f2.0 and tamron 35-150 f2.0-2.8, give us either 35-135 f2.0 or 50-150 f2.0 or 70-180 f2.0

I have been salivating over the Sony 50-150mm F2 ever since it came out. I love the RF 28-70mm F2 and a 70-135 F2 would certainly complement it very well. That said, the 50-150mm range is much more useful. If they could pull-off a 35-135mm F2 at the same IQ as the 28-70mm it would be a real dream come true.

Eloniel · Nov 25, 2025

Ozarker said:
Yes. I'm tormented, waiting for that rumored lens nobody has seen before. Obviously, it's a 70-135 f/2, but it gets no love.

That would be disapointing compared to the Sony 50-150 f2.0 and tamron 35-150 f2.0-2.8, give us either 35-135 f2.0 or 50-150 f2.0 or 70-180 f2.0

Ozarker · Nov 25, 2025

Del Paso said:
I know, but so many lenses have been "leaked" without appearing...

Yes. I'm tormented, waiting for that rumored lens nobody has seen before. Obviously, it's a 70-135 f/2, but it gets no love.

Latest activity

Latest activity

Filter

Forum statistics

Gallery statistics