neuroanatomist said:

Utilized for what?

Click to expand...

Capturing photos. Isn't that what the sensor is all about?

neuroanatomist said:

Even if you routinely make large prints (bigger than 16x24") from your images, it probably won't make a meaningful difference.

Click to expand...

I agree. I just paid for them, so I want them used. I mean, it's not like my sensor is oval or anything like that.

neuroanatomist said:

Even then, your analogy is hyperbole.

Click to expand...

Of course it is! Hyperbole is a useful tool when it comes to writing and stressing a point.

Per the Oxford dictionary:
Noun: exaggerated statements or claims not meant to be taken literally.

neuroanatomist said:

A more accurate analogy would be if you bought those four tires and they had 8.8 mm of tread depth on each of them instead of the full 9 mm.

Click to expand...

I disagree. A more accurate analogy would be if only the centre tread is used, which is a real world scenario and equivalent in terms of whether a full product sees use. And yeah, I'd be miffed about that too (including my incompetence of the moment for not setting or inflating the tire correctly).

neuroanatomist said:

As an example, if I take an uncorrected image from my RF 24-105/2.8L Z at 24mm and crop the image to remove the black corners, then my 24 MP (6000x4000) image becomes a 22 MP (5754x3836) image. Say I then took a few steps back and shot the same scene with the lens zoomed in to 28mm where the corners are filled by the lens. Do you honestly believe that if I printed the cropped 22 MP image vs the full 24 MP image at 16x24" and hung them on a wall side by side, that you or anyone else could tell the difference? I highly doubt it. And if there's no objectively meaningful difference, then it only matters in your mind.

Click to expand...

I think that misses my point.

1. I didn't complain about the potential losses from stretching, warping, etc. In fact, I said that I shamelessly use DLO and image editors. My point was I just prefer that all of the sensor be activated to provide pixels for the stretching etc.
2. I acknowledged that in the end the final product is what matters most. "Better is better."

Obviously Canon's opinion is that no one is going to miss those extra pixels when the final image is produced. Anyhow, Canon is also pursuing more pixels in its sensors anyhow -- perhaps in a more tacit acknowledgement of the corner cutting than what people realized.

In the end, hey -- if you're OK with not using your full sensor while you enjoy a sweet image then rest with a peaceful mind. I'm also resting with a peaceful mind, but in the context of the question implied by CR I'm simply stating I want to use everything in my system, not just 99%. But regardless of my wants, Canon is getting the job done -- so Bravo to Canon.

Dr_Flash said:

Canon you are on the clock until early summer... A real RF 400mm 2.8 replacement with build in TC is long overdue and I'm really loosing hope. As soon as Nikon will release the Z9 II, even more wildlife photographers will leave Canon, including me...

Click to expand...

Be sure to stamp your foot a little bit, it will make the threat more effective and ensure that Canon responds to your demand in a timely manner.

DocInfoSci said:

I'll always err on the side of full sensor coverage because I don't think it's unreasonable for a person to want all of the pixels purchased utilized. Before anyone disagrees -- remember that a disagreement basically means that you're OK with purchasing but not using sensor pixels. Frankly, if I have to purchase four tires for a car but only get to use three then I don't care how well it drives -- I'm gonna be ticked about the dangling tire!

Click to expand...

Utilized for what? Even if you routinely make large prints (bigger than 16x24") from your images, it probably won't make a meaningful difference. Even then, your analogy is hyperbole. A car with three tires can't be driven, an image with a few less MP is perfectly fine for most use cases. A more accurate analogy would be if you bought those four tires and they had 8.8 mm of tread depth on each of them instead of the full 9 mm. Would you even know?

As an example, if I take an uncorrected image from my RF 24-105/2.8L Z at 24mm and crop the image to remove the black corners, then my 24 MP (6000x4000) image becomes a 22 MP (5754x3836) image. Say I then took a few steps back and shot the same scene with the lens zoomed in to 28mm where the corners are filled by the lens. Do you honestly believe that if I printed the cropped 22 MP image vs the full 24 MP image at 16x24" and hung them on a wall side by side, that you or anyone else could tell the difference? I highly doubt it. And if there's no objectively meaningful difference, then it only matters in your mind.

Canon you are on the clock until early summer... A real RF 400mm 2.8 replacement with build in TC is long overdue and I'm really loosing hope. As soon as Nikon will release the Z9 II, even more wildlife photographers will leave Canon, including me...

Billybob said:

This

"Canon does not need another $10,000-$15,000 big white lens."

and this

"The current versions [ RF 400 F2.8 L & RF 600 F4 L lenses] were designed for the EF mount, so it's time for native RF mount versions."

Interesting seeing the author disagreeing with himself...so I don't have to.

Click to expand...

I guess replacement is not another lens...

Sporgon said:

So digital correction is nothing to get hot under the collar about, as long as it’s not taken to the point where it is so severe that data is having to be created after the event.

Click to expand...

How do you define 'created'? As @screenshooter correctly states, distortion correction involves interpolation and that's still 'creating' data in my opinion. The color and intensity values assigned to interpolated pixels are not 'original data' (but as has been pointed out, color is interpolated anyway since each pixel has a spectrally restricted color mask in front of it). The difference is that interpolation is a mathematically straightforward way to create those values, compared to extrapolation or AI-based generation.

Part of the problem here is that some people don't understand the difference between interpolation and extrapolation/AI, and/or they read somewhere that 'corners are filled by AI' and believed it.

If Canon brings out a RF 600mm f4 + 1.4x lens, that would leave only a long RF macro lens on my RF lens wishlist.

I'll always err on the side of full sensor coverage because I don't think it's unreasonable for a person to want all of the pixels purchased utilized. Before anyone disagrees -- remember that a disagreement basically means that you're OK with purchasing but not using sensor pixels. Frankly, if I have to purchase four tires for a car but only get to use three then I don't care how well it drives -- I'm gonna be ticked about the dangling tire!

But I'm totally OK with Canon (or whomever) making the pixels that did capture a photo better in the final image. I use DLO shamelessly for a better final image, and I use image edits as well. Better is better. And the fact that Canon is baking a better-ing engine into their cameras can only be a good thing, especially as lenses ship with data that the better-ing engines can take advantage of. If Canon also allows third party lenses to also include DLO-enabling data then that would be even more amazing and well worth the licensing hassle for third parties -- at least from a consumer perspective.

I also admit that I simulate this bettering using my lenses anyhow, and always have. Bad night time comma on the EF 24mm L II? I stop down to f/2 which gets me to a place that makes me happy. How is that different than Canon making coma look better via software? And if they let in more light along the way then bonus.

So personal preferences for using all of my pixels the first time aside, the fact of the matter is Canon is producing stuff the majority of purchasers seem to like. I mean, if someone buys a multi-thousand dollar lens then one has to assume they like what they get. And the final product is ideally an image that makes the photographer smile or that pays the bills (which also probably elicits a smile).

Yet all of that stated, let us also not kid ourselves: Canon is imposing constraints upon itself, like the intent of a smaller lens, and so any compromise in lens design is self-imposed. I'm perfectly fine with a bigger lens if it does a full projection. I'm capable of lifting a little more iron. For mid- to top-tier lenses I'll pay for a solution that makes full use of the system. For budget lenses I'm OK with Canon cutting corners -- literally in this case. Regardless, however the gears turn, for several thousand dollars I expect an image within my talent and luck that makes me smile. And Canon has done a very good job of that over the years, long before RF.

screenshooter said:

Example:
If I have a 45MP sensor, and the captured image is stretched to to save a 45MP image without barrel distortion, then the camera interpolated, through 2d convolution algorithms that are commonplace in graphical signal processing, the extra detail to enlarge the image. Is that a problem.. everyone will have to decide that on their own. Im not a fan, because inherently that math softens the image from what the sensor recorded.

Click to expand...

As you say, it's a question of whether you'd prefer to live with the distortion or with the loss of sharpness. But it's important to realize that the issue is not new. As I pointed out earlier in this thread (with humorous intent), lenses that were 'optically corrected' for DSLR/film are still not perfect. Compared to the Canon RF 14-35/4L that was the subject of this thread, the Canon EF 11-24/4L has nearly as much barrel distortion and the Sigma 12-24/4 Art has essentially the same amount of barrel distortion. The difference is that with the RF lens, if you want the output to be the full MP of your sensor then you are required to correct the distortion.

Either way, the effects of both the distortion and the algorithm to correct it are most apparent in the extreme corners of the image. Personally, when I compose a shot that's typically not where I put important subjects.

Sporgon said:

So digital correction is nothing to get hot under the collar about, as long as it’s not taken to the point where it is so severe that data is having to be created after the event.

Click to expand...

So I actually think we are already to this point and most people are oblivious to it.. its been discussed to some extent in this thread though without explicitly being stated..

Example:
If I have a 45MP sensor, and the captured image is stretched to to save a 45MP image without barrel distortion, then the camera interpolated, through 2d convolution algorithms that are commonplace in graphical signal processing, the extra detail to enlarge the image. Is that a problem.. everyone will have to decide that on their own. Im not a fan, because inherently that math softens the image from what the sensor recorded.

whatever happened to the X100-style retro Canon camera? this needed to be at market like two years ago...

Canon has bring the whole f1.4 VCM primes, can we have Sigma f1.2/1.4 FF lenses....

I think an internal zoom (not the existing pumper) RF 24-70 F2.8 L IS USM Mk II would make good sense. Nikkor has added their 24-70 f2.8 Mk II internal zoom.

Canon Rumors said:

I'm currently in Colombia chasing birds.

Click to expand...

Enjoy, have fun and maybe post a couple of those bird pics of yours for those at enduring the grey, rainy weather

Canon Rumors said:

Yes, it's coming.

Click to expand...

Do you have more specific information? Will it be a L lens? Or more like a pz lens? The focal range and the f-number suggest it will be compact and lightweight. I always wanted Canon to release a 24-70mm F4 L, but 20-50mm F4 sounds more intriguing imo.

On the subject of digital correction, where a curved image is stretched back out to be straight again it’s worth remembering that in the movie industry when wanting to shoot in wide screen format it was common practice to shoot a compressed (and so distorted - ‘squeezed’) image in order to use the full width of (normally) 35mm film, and then distort it out the other way (desqueeze) to give the required wide screen format. And the reason ? To improve quality, where using more of the film area gave an improved quality and resolution despite having to be significantly distorted ‘post processing’ in order to view.
Incidentally the same thing is often done in digital image filming.
So digital correction is nothing to get hot under the collar about, as long as it’s not taken to the point where it is so severe that data is having to be created after the event.

Would be nice to see Canon address the gap between the sub £3K tele zooms and the £10K+ primes. Currently there is nothing in this range. In the UK you can get a Nikon 600mm F6.3 and 800mm F6.3 and a Z9 body for less than you can buy a Canon 800mm F5.6 on is own.

Is there any chance of a 20-50mm F/4 that was previously mentioned?

Billybob said:

...an RF lens built for mirrorless would probably provide some weight and size benefits not to mention the potential for a built-in TC.

Click to expand...

For a supertele lens, the shorter flange distance is basically irrelevant. The 'built for mirrorless' allowed Canon to make lenses like the 600/11 and 800/11, since with autofocus moved to the image sensor it works reliably at apertures like f/11. But a 600/4 won't be smaller or lighter because of the shorter flange distance.

The lenses would still benefit from updated technologies for focus motors, updated designs, etc., and personally I'd preorder an RF 600/4 + 1.4x lens.

Billybob said:

This

"Canon does not need another $10,000-$15,000 big white lens."

and this

"The current versions [ RF 400 F2.8 L & RF 600 F4 L lenses] were designed for the EF mount, so it's time for native RF mount versions."

Interesting seeing the author disagreeing with himself...so I don't have to.

I agree with the latter quote although I'm unlikely to be a buyer (I'd need to sell my Nikon version of the 400mm f/2.8 first), but there are a lot of Canon shooters who are unhappy with the converted EF lenses. Sure, their IQ is excellent, but an RF lens built for mirrorless would probably provide some weight and size benefits not to mention the potential for a built-in TC.

I am interested in the 300-600mm. I prefer to travel with my Canon R5, but it would be nice to pair it with a (relatively compact) lens that is stronger for wildlife/birding than the 100-500mm (a lens I love but often wish for more).

Click to expand...

It doesn't necessarily have to be contradicting: "Canon does not need another $10,000-$15,000 big white lens" could easily mean not a 500mm big white. The current versions of RF 400/ 600mm would just get replacements, therefore these are not "another lens"...but honestly, I think were just splitting hairs here...

I really like what Nikon did with their "affordable" tele lenses and hope Canon will follow suit someday, although I seriously doubt it.

EricN said:

A true 100m fI.4 couldn't use a 67 mm front filter, but they could make it slightly shorter and / or slower. They could also choose to only allow a rear filter. So you can hope, if you want!

Click to expand...

Sounds right. I am not hoping for a 100mm VCM or keeping my fingers crossed. I just thought it might be interesting to have something longer than 85mm and since 135mm or 200mm doesn't seem probable at all, I thought 100mm might be.

This

"Canon does not need another $10,000-$15,000 big white lens."

and this

"The current versions [ RF 400 F2.8 L & RF 600 F4 L lenses] were designed for the EF mount, so it's time for native RF mount versions."

Interesting seeing the author disagreeing with himself...so I don't have to.

I agree with the latter quote although I'm unlikely to be a buyer (I'd need to sell my Nikon version of the 400mm f/2.8 first), but there are a lot of Canon shooters who are unhappy with the converted EF lenses. Sure, their IQ is excellent, but an RF lens built for mirrorless would probably provide some weight and size benefits not to mention the potential for a built-in TC.

I am interested in the 300-600mm. I prefer to travel with my Canon R5, but it would be nice to pair it with a (relatively compact) lens that is stronger for wildlife/birding than the 100-500mm (a lens I love but often wish for more).

zamorano said:

But professional equipment brings more profit per unit, and Canon concentrates on that - possibly because they can't produce big quantities of cameras or don't want to invest into expanding.

Click to expand...

Please check basic facts before posting. Canon sells more cameras than any other manufacturer, by a wide margin. They have done so for over two decades. Most of the cameras that Canon sells are ‘entry-level’, such as the R50.

Yes, Canon (like many other manufacturers) is trying to push users to FF bodies and lenses to drive margins, and they’re succeeding in general. A decade ago the ILC market was 90% APS-C. A few years ago it was 75% and last year it was 64%. But the majority of cameras sold are APS-C and most of those are not high end (obvious because the average unit cost of ILCs in 2025 was $671).

I want to see a

• RF 135mm f/1.4L IS USM
• RF 200mm f/1.8L IS USM
• RF 300mm f/2.0L IS USM
• RF 500mm f/4L IS USM

But I'd be surprised to see further lenses later in 2026.

As for the Series II RF 400mm f/2.8L IS USM & RF 600mm f/4L IS USM. It would likely be out approx 10 years later after Series I's 2021 release. By early 2030s to be used at the 2032 Summer Olympics in Brisbane, AU. A R1 Mark III & R5 Mark IV would be released with those 2 lenses as well hopefully with CFexpress 4.0's 4.0GB/s for 80-120fps @ 2x the MP of today's R1 & R5 Mark II.

What improvements to expect from these Series II fast white long primes at a higher price?

- physically squatter
- lower weight
- more stops of IS
- better USM
- shorter MFD
- optical improvements for higher MP FF image sensors
- >40fps continuous shooting support

We then can expect a Series II RF 800mm f/5.6L IS USM & RF 1200mm f/8L IS USM a year later. Likely with a permanently placed 2.0x TC to keep R&D cost down and profit margins up.

Then again Nikon's 400mm and 600mm lenses with built-in 1.4x Extenders are so desirable that Canon may push up the release of the RF 400mm f/2.8L IS USM & RF 600mm f/4L IS USM replacements to 2030 in time for the FIFA World Cup or Winter Games.