neuroanatomist said:

Mine is on a FedEx truck right now, expecting delivery in a few hours.

Click to expand...

Mine arrives off the truck soon as well.
Looking forward to some discussion. I’ll be using mine more heavily on the video side.

Tom R5R7 said:

This is really a big deal, providing it's optically sound. The lens that Canon should have made right off the bat really, but they seem to have no interest in providing reasonably high-end solutions for APS-C shooters. My friend has an R7 to replace one of her crop Nikon DSLR bodies that failed (after some 250,000 actuations), since Nikon doesn't even have anything close to the R7. I gave her my 18-150 to try, but she gave it back because it felt flimsy. She opted, instead, to get an adapter and use the EF-S 18-135 USM, which optically is pretty good and has the advantage of feeling quite sturdy. The USM is the last rendition of that focal length range, and is optically better than the first version.

Click to expand...

While it may look one way to customers, the reality is customers are surprisingly ignorant. (No offense intended to any readers) Most who shop at Target and buy an R100 don't really understand the difference between APS-C and Full Frame. So, it actually ends up being a point of frustration for many when they put an APS-C lens on a Full Frame camera and whoopsie... the Full Frame camera isn't working as expected!! That's why they didn't allow that on EF mount. It's never been about manipulating the market but rather protecting people's feelings. While customers naturally want specific lenses for APS-C, the actual unavoidable truth is that those lenses kind of suck because they can never cover a Full Frame sensor! There's no upgrade path path for an APS-C only lens. On the other hand, if customers buy an APS-C camera and a full frame lens... there is a clear upgrade path! That is the kindness of Canon at work.

Barnswallow in full flight this morning. (R5ii + RF 200-800mm).

AlanF said:

Also, a 150-400mm f/4.5 on a M4/3 is only as fast as a 300-800 f/9 on FF, putting on the same number of photons per duck at 400mm f/4.5 as an RF 200-800mm at f/9, with the same depth of field.

Click to expand...

Bubble popped. Math is useful that way.

On a walk this morning, I saw a Kestrel in the distance hover then dive, and I caught it as it flew off with a successful catch of what appears to be a vole (R5ii + RF 200-800mm).

This 20-50 + 70-200 f/4 each on its own camera is the perfect equipment for a short city trip.
OK, with an additional TS 17 or 24.
Edit: Lightroom Classic automatically recognises the lens, which wasn't the case with the 24-105 f/2,8!

GMCPhotographics said:

No one seems to have noticed this new RF 20-50mm f4 L is the 2nd lens in a new F4 trio started with the RF 10-20mm f4 L. It's easy to guess what focal length and aperture the 3rd lens of the range will be, 50-xxx f4 L.

Click to expand...

I certainly noticed. But IMO, the trio is here already 10-20/4, 20-50/4 and 70-200/4.

neuroanatomist said:

So Canon shouldn’t make a 70-200mm f/2 because with a 1.4x TC that’s a 98-280mm f/2.8 and that’s ’a threat’ to the 100-300mm f/2.8.

Shhhhh. Don’t tell Canon that a 400mm f/2.8 with a 1.4x TC is a 560mm f/4. If they ever figure that out, they’ll understand the threat that poses to a 600mm f/4, and they’ll never make such a lens.

Or maybe that ‘threat’ is why, while Canon made 7 versions of a 400/2.8, they’ve only made 5 versions of a 600/4.


Forum dwellers thinking they understand the camera market better than manufacturers is a never-ending source of amusement.

Click to expand...

I totally agree. You can make a 400mm f2.8 similar to a 600mm f4 with tele converters. The difference is that the 400 has a shorter min focus distance and is a smaller and lighter lens than the big 600. Both options will out resolve our current full frame snesors. Both can make an excellent approximate 800mm f5.6 with teleconverters. What the 400 can't do is make a great 1200mm that the 600mm can do with a 2x tc. The Big 600 can't make a short 400mm or do f2.8. So yes there's a lot of overlap, but ultimatly, one is wider the other is longer. I would never buy both a 600 and a 400, but would weight up the benfits of each and choose the best for for me.

Likewise your lovely RF 100-300mm is great with telecoverters, something like a theoretical 70-200mm f2 might be able to step into the RF 100-300's native range with converters, but it certainly won't be able to produce a sharp 200-600mm lens with teleconverters. If a 600mm is the goal, there are better ways to do this. Having a 100-300 f2.8 and a 600 f4 is a perfect set up for many.

Bob Howland said:

He did say 70-200 f/1.4 (or f/2) The front element would have to be the same size as a 400 f/2.8. I want a longer sibling to the 20-50 f/4 L IS Z, with the same design philosophy and at the same price, perhaps 35-85 f/2.8 L IS Z or 60-150 f/2.8 L IS Z.

Click to expand...

No one seems to have noticed this new RF 20-50mm f4 L is the 2nd lens in a new F4 trio started with the RF 10-20mm f4 L. It's easy to guess what focal length and aperture the 3rd lens of the range will be, 50-xxx f4 L.

Bob Howland said:

Good to hear. Neuro also ordered one.

Click to expand...

Mine is on a FedEx truck right now, expecting delivery in a few hours.

Del Paso said:

I just tested mine (not scientifically!).
And I am extremely satisfied with this little lens, I can only recommend it!

Click to expand...

Good to hear. Neuro also ordered one. I'll be interested to hear how he likes it when traveling with his R8. I don't think he'll use it much for movies, even with a BR-E1/E2 remote. I'm very interested in seeing where Canon takes this architecture.

They are reskin of Meike. Recently there's 85mm f1.4 for 600USD, and reviews from China seems promising.

I think they avoid the Canon legal team by keeping it not easily accessible.

I just tested mine (not scientifically!).
And I am extremely satisfied with this little lens, I can only recommend it!

ScreensMatter said:

...I am a true believer of 6x6 negative film .

Click to expand...

I'm in your club, I still love to use my New Mamiya 6 system. It is also the most beautiful camera in my collection, of course that's my very personal taste (I'm a Bauhaus and original Braun design fan). Some years ago I realized that I was stalked by an attractive young woman in a museum, and observing her a while I found that she isn't particularly interested in me old man but the Mamiya I carried with me. Well, I am happily married, so this finding relaxed me a bit...

john1970 said:

A lens that would be a bit more differentiated could be a 150-600 mm f4.5 to f6.3. Could take a 95 mm filter on the front and be internal zoom with L grade quality.

Click to expand...

I guess the pressure on Canon may increase to come up with a bit faster medium tele zoom because of Sony's new 100-400mm f/4.5, surely an excellent lens. Sony's learning curve in tele lens design was steep, and their actual 600mm f/4.0 lens even beats Canon's actual 600mm f/4.0 lenses in lab reviews, I have seen. Personally I won't change to Sony, but their attack on Canon in the tele section is definitely bold since they came up with their very competitively priced and therefore popular 200-600mm f/5.6-6.3 tele zoom. Also, as Canon users, we can only profit from that stiff competition.

Helmi2010 said:

On June 24, I was at the Klingnau Reservoir looking for photo subjects.
I took the photos with an OM-1 MK II and the 150-400mm zoom lens plus a teleconverter.
Why not use my Canon? It’s simple: for one thing, I really don’t like zoom lenses that change their length when zooming; for another, the available RF telephoto zooms aren’t fast enough.
A 100-500mm f/4.5 or f/5 with a true internal zoom, or a 200-600mm f/5.6, also with an internal zoom—I could live with that.

Ardea cinerea am Klingnauer Stausee im Gegenlicht by Helmut Gloor, auf Flickr

Click to expand...

Most of us here can do at least as well as that with a Canon zoom like the RF 100-500mm or RF 200-800mm, or even RF 100-400mm. A Grey Heron in flight is about the easiest flying bird to photo, and no way requires a £6,500 lens.
Also, a 150-400mm f/4.5 on a M4/3 is only as fast as a 300-800 f/9 on FF, putting on the same number of photons per duck at 400mm f/4.5 as an RF 200-800mm at f/9, with the same depth of field.

Bob Howland said:

Are you letting the camera determine the exposure when you zoom or are you maintaining the same ISO, shutter speed and aperture? When shooting wide angle in my living room, the automatic exposure is dominated by the room lights and white walls and ceiling. When I zoom in on a bunch of black lenses, the camera changes the exposure because what it thinks is 18% gray differs between the two scenes. The lenses in the wide angle shot are darker than in the close up shot. It has nothing to do with the fact that the lens has different apertures at different focal length because the camera tells the lens what aperture to use. This is different than in the dark ages of the 1970s when the user told the camera the film ISO (then known as ASA) and manually set the aperture and shutter speed. I do not miss those days!

My guess is that professionals in big budget productions manually set the ISO, shutter speed and aperture after manually measuring the light level and determining the contrast of the scene.

Click to expand...

Maintaining the same shutter, iso and aperture while zooming. Some lenses geared more toward still photos have a slight variance in exposure when going through the zoom range, even while set to a fixed f/stop that wouldn’t be very noticeable for still photography, but can show up in video. Just a variance in the amount of light entering at different zoom ranges. It is nice having so many exposure options, I also like to sometimes use manual shutter and aperture, but set ISO to auto.

On June 24, I was at the Klingnau Reservoir looking for photo subjects.
I took the photos with an OM-1 MK II and the 150-400mm zoom lens plus a teleconverter.
Why not use my Canon? It’s simple: for one thing, I really don’t like zoom lenses that change their length when zooming; for another, the available RF telephoto zooms aren’t fast enough.
A 100-500mm f/4.5 or f/5 with a true internal zoom, or a 200-600mm f/5.6, also with an internal zoom—I could live with that.

Ardea cinerea am Klingnauer Stausee im Gegenlicht by Helmut Gloor, auf Flickr

It's the second card. I posted a thread on it, as implied by @P-visie. Either have a V90 in the second slot or leave it empty.

Interestingly here in Australia, a number of retailers have the 20~50 lens at AUD400 below RRP, i.e. AUD1799 or so compared to RRP of AUD2199.

Hector1970 said:

My R5 was always a little slow to restart after been unused for a few minutes.
It was a distinct lag maybe 1 second.
I just got an R5II and I'm surprised it has the same general issue.
I saw a thread from 2025 and it was around memory cards being the reason.
Is this really the case or is the camera just slow waking up.
This is generally not a huge issue. With the R5 I had the habit of pressing the focus button as I lifted it up to my eye.
I'm surprised I now need to do the same to the R5II.
I would have expected it to be more responive.
If its card related - why would that be the case. Why would the viewfinder not be ready if it was the card was slow waking up?
Does it happen with all mirrorless cameras.

Click to expand...

I had the same issue with the R5 Mk II. I had both CF Express and SD card in the camera. The issue is caused by the slow V60 SD card. Once I removed the SD card the problem was fixed. @AlanF did some tests with faster SD cards and, IIRC, found that a fast SD card resolved this issue.

Today I was very surprised to see White-rumped Shama occupying a "bird motel"! I know and have seen them occupying cavities of trees...
Made a search on the Internet and AI returned this: "Hawaii Context: In regions where they have been introduced (such as the Hawaiian Islands), they frequently venture near residential areas, using man-made structures like hanging planters, discarded pipes, and helmets." Huh?!
Helmets?!! I really, really want to take a photo of such a case!!!
And Java sparrow.

shire_guy said:

Thank you ISv.

Click to expand...

Thanks for nothing! I'm thankful to you for sharing that photo!
And I'm pretty sure Alan means that that bird is so new for the forum it would be a good idea to post it also in "BIF" (otherwise as I know, he - like me, is not a fan of over-segmenting the existing topics)!

It's nice to see f/2.8 zoom lenses for APS-C.