The title says nothing about primes, it also mentions the 15-35mm.

It is yet to arrive, however I do agree, I couldn’t say no at that price. That said you do see grey imports on eBay for less, so I suspect they’re still making money.

Wex are as pukka a company as B&H in New York. They’re likely the largest camera retailer in the uk. They always have the stall right next to Canon every year. This year they had two stalls at the show. One next to Canon and another next to Nikon and Sony.

I could almost swear we've discussed the EF 20mm here before @Canon Rumors

It's funny that you mention this lens now, as last week I was somewhat considering it - that was until I saw its vignetting, which is over 1 stop darker than the RF 16mm f/2.8

I'm considering the EF 28mm f/1.8 USM though, they're cheap these days, and they're about the same size as the RF 45mm, with the adapter.

By coincidence I've been studying these for the past week. There's a new fenced off area with a flood close by, and 2 pairs of Little Ringed Plovers have been scurrying around, usually about 80-100m away. On Friday, a pair was on the near side, only some 80m away, and I got an adequate shot of one - in which the bird is only 330 px long with the RF 200-800mm on the R5ii. It does show clearly the eye ring.
and the beak. I posted it on one of the gear threads so here it is again. Yesterday, as they were far away again I had to use the 1.4x on the lens to get to 1120mm, and actually got one flying off from the other. They are ridiculously small but good enough for my records.

Due to a lack of time, I asked Perplexity (what I prefer since several years now over ChatGPT) why Nikon's Z system still offers AFMA and Canon's not, and explained in my prompt our specific AF problems with our Z8 & Z 600mm f/6.3 PF combo (with and w/o 1.4x TC). Perplexity's answer might be interesting for some nerds (like me) here:

Nikon Z cameras still offer AF fine-tuning because mirrorless autofocus is not automatically immune to optical tolerances. The camera can focus on the sensor plane very accurately, but a given camera/lens/teleconverter combination can still show small mechanical or optical offsets, especially when a teleconverter is added and the effective aperture gets smaller.[1][2]

Why the adjustment exists

The main reason is that focus accuracy is not just a software problem; it is also affected by lens design, manufacturing tolerances, adapter/teleconverter alignment, and how the camera interprets phase-detect data. Even in mirrorless, the system can be “close but not perfect” for a specific lens combination, so Nikon keeps fine-tune as a correction layer for edge cases and for users who need maximum precision.[3][2][1]

With long lenses, wide apertures, and teleconverters, the depth of field becomes very thin, so even a tiny offset looks like obvious backfocus or frontfocus. That is why a birding setup can seem fine in general use but still miss consistently on small distant subjects.[4][3]

Nikon vs Canon approach

Canon’s RF mirrorless system is generally more self-correcting in practice because Canon has leaned heavily on on-sensor phase detection and lens communication designed as a tightly integrated mirrorless platform. Nikon’s Z system also uses on-sensor phase detection, but Nikon still exposes AF fine-tune because it allows compensating for residual per-lens/per-body/per-converter variation rather than assuming every combination is perfect out of the box.[5][1]

The key difference is not simply “Canon has dual pixel, Nikon does not.” It is more about how each manufacturer implements lens-body calibration, predictive AF behavior, and tolerance management across the whole optical chain. Canon’s system tends to hide more of that from the user; Nikon gives the user a manual correction tool when the combination is off.[2][1]

Your specific setup

A Z8 plus Z 600mm f/6.3 PF plus TC 1.4x should normally focus well, so a “massive backfocus” points to an out-of-spec combination, a teleconverter/lens alignment issue, a body/lens calibration mismatch, or a focus-shift behavior that becomes visible only at the longer effective focal length and smaller maximum aperture. The fact that the issue appears both with and without the TC suggests the base lens/body calibration is already off, and the TC may be exaggerating it rather than causing it alone.[6][7][4]

Practical interpretation

So the short answer is: Nikon keeps micro-adjustment because mirrorless AF is not mathematically perfect for every optical combination, and Nikon chooses to let users compensate for residual system error. Canon’s RF system often feels more automatic because Canon’s implementation relies more on integrated on-sensor focusing and hides calibration differences better, but it is not because mirrorless AF fundamentally cannot need calibration.[1][5][2]

A useful rule of thumb is that if one Nikon Z lens or lens-plus-TC combo needs a large correction, that is usually a sign to test the lens, TC, and body separately, because the camera is compensating for a real mismatch rather than a normal tuning quirk.[8][6]

My personal conclusion: looks like we'd have to send this combo to Nikon's service because of too big production tolerances - typical Nikon's lousy quality, I have to say after many years of using Canon and Nikon gear side by side

john1970 said:

Historically, Canon tends to announce professional grade big white telephoto lenses in the spring so a May announcement would be consistent with past behavior. For example, the Canon RF 100-300 mm f2.8 was announced on April 20, 2023.

Click to expand...

I'd only be skeptical if the announcement would be April, 1st

Del Paso said:

Just as good? Also with the 2X extender?

Click to expand...

Yes from what I've seen in reviews, Jan Wegener (who's highly regarded in the bird photography world and one of my favourite You Tubers) has tested it and said it's very good with 2x https://youtu.be/DYBNX16zIhw?si=yTqtOfKQ3DbILnkC

while not a canon-made lens, i can very much recommend the voigtlander EF 20mm 3.5 SL II, manual focus, automatic aperture lens. it's not pin sharp by any modern standards but has plenty of character, and being a pancake lens it's very fun to use.

Nemorino said:

Somewhere I read Ringed Plover.

R5 + RF 200-800 + 1.4TC
@ 1/4000s, f/13, iso 2500
View attachment 228884View attachment 228885View attachment 228886View attachment 228887

Click to expand...

In Germany you have two species of Ringed Plovers: the rare Common Ringed and the more often Little Ringed. The first one has yellow bill with black tip in the breeding plumage. The Little ringed has a mostly black bill in all seasons/plumage. That yellow ring around the eyes is prominent for the Little Ringed and present (but very thin!) in the Common Ringed only in the breeding plumage and only on the males. As Alan says these are difficult to catch in flight!

No, despite Del Paso's attempt it's the Duck season on this page!
Greater Scaup and Mandarin. Old photos, the rainy weather is kind of persistent in Hawaii this year

neuroanatomist said:

But not during rabbit season.

View attachment 228882

Click to expand...

: but if there is a hunter around they both are trophy...

I have the EF 20mm f/2.8 USM still. It's definitely a character lens. If you want a native sharp performance for most places you need to hit f/5.6 and for everywhere you need f/8. f/2.8 is great for isolating a point and letting the surroundings drift away — think of a focal point in a bar or old barn where the rest is merely a suggestion of place.

With DLO the situation improves by leaps and bounds! It was DLO that kept the lens in my bag, and it remains a good option for autumn landscapes, casual wide travel (it is small), etc. You'll never shoot it for critical sharpness, but... but... it has a pleasant character to the rendering. One of those I like this chocolate better than that chocolate feelings. In the hand it has a nice feel. That stated, it will never be an EF 24mm f/1.4 II.

The EF 28mm f/1.8 USM never thrilled me. It has a great form factor, but I never liked the rendering. Even with DLO. Good on a crop, however, and so my kiddo now owns my copy.

20mm is a very pleasant framing for the world. When it comes to people, the subject is the scene and the person is a prop.

Ian K said:

You missed the RF 10-20mm f4L STM

Click to expand...

??

The article is about primes. There’s a long list of zooms that cover the 20mm focal length, starting (I think) with the FDn 20-35/3.5L from 1984.

You missed the RF 10-20mm f4L STM

I had an EF 20 mm f/2.8 USM back about 20 years ago.
The good: decent sharpness on a 6 mpix sensor when stopped down to f/11. Moderate red-green fringing was easily corrected. Fast and silent AF. Decent build.
The bad: useless wide-open. Really soft corners. Heavy vignetting across much of the frame even when stopped down (really noticeable on slides).
I got a good price for it when I sold it. I felt a bit sorry for the guy I sold it to.

Yellow Wagtail. Caught a fly. (RF5ii + RF 200-800mm.)

Nemorino said:

Somewhere I read Ringed Plover.

R5 + RF 200-800 + 1.4TC
@ 1/4000s, f/13, iso 2500
View attachment 228884View attachment 228885View attachment 228886View attachment 228887

Click to expand...

Well done! Those Little Ringed Plovers move very fast.

20mm is indeed the sweet spot of wide angle. Just bought the 1.4 for handheld milky way and aurora but realized its just plain fun and very useful as a general purpose low light lens, especially indoors at parties. Nice bokeh for macro-ish flower pics and okay sunstars doesnt hurt either

Canon's 20mm lenses were the reason why I bought the Zeiss Classic 21mm f/2,8. Still a brillant lens, even on an R5 II.
But the RF 20mm f/1,4 is better...

I bought the sister lens of the FD 20, the FD-n 17mm f/4 maybe 40 years ago 2nd hand for 450 "Deutsche Mark" / 200$ of mid 1980s.
While it has the soft corners too it was good on film (ISO400 B/W) and rendering was o.k.
In terms of flares it is great because it has lots of them and it is good enough for 2k or just 4k video. If I will ever do some night scene of a car with strong headlights, this might be a good choice because of these flares!

Let's add some bright colors!
R3 + RF100-500 (first +TC1.4)

Ian K said:

I got fed up waiting, and ordered a new RF 100-300mm f2.8L IS USM. Withe a doubler I get a 200-600mm f5.6, which is better than a 300-600mm in terms of range. Sure I have to choose to double or not before I set out, or swap the field. Obviously, I’ve got the 1.4x option too. 140-420mm f4.

I got the RF 100-300 for £8600 from Wex Photo Video, new UK stock at the Photography show. 72.5% of RRP

Click to expand...

That was an absolute steal. It would seem to be below the wholesale cost.

Bob Howland said:

Craig mentioned the 24 f/1.4 SSC. I watched a guy buy one of those in I think 1975. He paid for half of it with cash and put the other half on his credit card. He said the didn't want his wife to know how much the lens cost.

Click to expand...

So basically nothing has changed.....

A Yellow-billed Pintail seen while birding at Mirador de Aves - La Cocha, Colombia, February, 2026.

R5MkII RF200-800mm