Latest activity

Eloniel · Jun 17, 2026

GMCPhotographics said:
Yes we'd all love to see a MP-e 65mm or a EF 180mm macro replacement. Even a zoom version that you've mentioned or alluded too would be interesting. However, hardly new / revoluotionary / never seen before type of product.

A MP-e 65mm replacement with autofocus would be a world premiere...
I can't imagine buying a manual focus macro lense in 2026-2027.

GMCPhotographics · Jun 17, 2026

Eloniel said:
Or a variable multiplier macro lens with autofocus.

Yes we'd all love to see a MP-e 65mm or a EF 180mm macro replacement. Even a zoom version that you've mentioned or alluded too would be interesting. However, hardly new / revoluotionary / never seen before type of product.

Kiton · Jun 17, 2026

.....We don't think Canon is going to make some pointless prime like an RF 85mm f/1L. Sure, it'd be the only one out there, but that's just chasing numbers and serves no real purpose........

I bought a 85 1.2 and returned it after a week! Nice glass but just too big, heavy and awkward.
I ordered the 1.4 version instead.

a 50-150 AND a 100-400 like Sony's would be great

AlanF · Jun 17, 2026

scyrene said:
It's an interesting case study of how a belief can take hold, regardless of the evidence (or in this case in the absence of evidence). I wonder if these people object to debayering?

They are probably still using film.

scyrene · Jun 17, 2026

neuroanatomist said:
It’s clear that forced distortion correction is triggering for some people. I’ve asked many such people to provide examples of those ‘low-quality corners and edges’, and yet no one has been able to do so. Will you be the first?

It seems that you believe optical correction of geometric proportion is the gold standard. How does that belief hold up with the EF 17-40/4L? More of a tarnished brass standard, that one.

It's an interesting case study of how a belief can take hold, regardless of the evidence (or in this case in the absence of evidence). I wonder if these people object to debayering?

neuroanatomist · Jun 17, 2026

Slappy_G said:
If this actually happens, any bets as to whether they can manage proper optical correction, or if they cheap out and rely on digital correction and the low-quality corners and edges that entails?

It’s clear that forced distortion correction is triggering for some people. I’ve asked many such people to provide examples of those ‘low-quality corners and edges’, and yet no one has been able to do so. Will you be the first?

It seems that you believe optical correction of geometric distortion is the gold standard. How does that belief hold up with the EF 17-40/4L? More of a tarnished brass standard, that one.

Personally, I found that the RF 14-35/4 after digital correction was just as sharp in the corners as the EF 11-24/4 at 14mm, where the latter has minimal distortion.

You don’t have to take my word (and test results, which I posted here a few years ago) for it. Look at the wide ends of the MTF charts for the RF 24-105/2.8L, the RF 24-70/2.8L and the RF 24-105/4L. The 24-105/2.8 requires distortion correction to ‘fill the corners’, the other two lenses do not. Yet the 24-105/2.8 is as good in the corrected corners as the 24-70/2.8 (despite a larger zoom range, which is usually optically detrimental) and better than the 24-105/4. How is that ‘low-quality corners’?

Slappy_G said:
Knowing their recent trend of using digital correction as a crutch even on L-series (L-priced, importantly) glass, I'm not too optimistic.

I am pretty sure a 24-70/2 will require digital distortion correction at the wide end. Either way, I’m sure the lens will deliver modern L-series image quality across the frame.

If required digital correction of barrel distortion bothers you that much, don’t buy those lenses. Think of all the money you’ll save by not buying the smaller, lighter, and optically excellent lenses that digital distortion correction makes possible. Lucky you!

candyman · Jun 17, 2026

When I think of a "World's First", I immediately think of a zoom: the TS-R 14-24mm f/3.5 with AF. But that is probably very optimistic.
This lens would really stand out.

candyman · Jun 17, 2026

Del Paso said:
You beat me, mine is from 15mm to 560mm.
Life is so unfair!

You can always add the 10-20

Works well in densely built cities and also for landscapes with interesting subjects in the foreground. Takes some of the photos I would normally use the TS-E 24mm for.

Eric84 · Jun 17, 2026

"Worlds first"

Maybe a full frame zoom with aperture below f2 then
If its not the rumored 24-70mm, then maybe a 35-85mm f1.8L

Del Paso · Jun 17, 2026

candyman said:
Soon I have a "holy trio" for travelling. It covers 10mm to 560mm. RF10-20mm, 20-50mm (pre-order) and RF100-400 with 1.4x. Pretty light in weight too.

You beat me, mine is from 15mm to 560mm.
Life is so unfair!

candyman · Jun 17, 2026

masterpix said:
Well, not sure about the exat terminology, but if you ask me, going traveling, covering the focal length from 24mm to 800mm allowing both landscape, portrait and birds is my "holy trio".

Soon I have a "holy trio" for travelling. It covers 10mm to 560mm. RF10-20mm, 20-50mm (pre-order) and RF100-400 with 1.4x. Pretty light in weight too.

Michael Clark · Jun 17, 2026

David - Sydney said:
I do wonder how diffraction in practice seems to be less of an issue for higher mp sensors than the maths would indicate.

You can only see diffraction at the DLA if the display is large enough to see individual pixels. In other words, viewing on a monitor at 100% with pixel pitch of less than around 144 ppi if viewing at 24" distance with 20/20 vision.

Michael Clark · Jun 17, 2026

neuroanatomist said:
Indeed. Same with DoF – for example, with an f/1.2 lens on FF you can achieve shallower DoF than you can on APS-C (for the same framing), and while you can stop the lens down to f/2 on FF, you cannot use an f/0.75 lens on APS-C (at least, not easily).

Short of adding light to the scene, your options are a larger sensor or a faster lens. Both are valid approaches, and both enable you to capture more light. Depending on the focal range you need, a smaller sensor may not be cheaper or lighter with a crop sensor. Once you get longer than about 300mm, there is zero benefit of a smaller image circle for lens design. That's why there aren't 'crop lenses' in supertelephoto focal lengths, and that's why long lenses from Oly/OM that are for use on their m4/3 2x crop cameras are the same size, weight and as similar lenses for FF bodies (which Oly/OM doesn't make).

Personally, my approach is to do both – use a FF camera with fast lenses. Most of my bird shots are at 840mm f/5.6 (600/4 + 1.4x). But smaller sensors have their utility, which is why I have a full EOS M kit, a PowerShot V1, and an iPhone. For me, the utility is mainly about size and weight. For many, the utility is also about lower cost.

I suppose that depends on the car. I did spend more for the EF 600/4L IS II than I did on the first car I bought, a Saturn SL (though adjusting the $10K cost of that car in 1991 to the 2012 dollars that I used to buy the lens, the car did cost a bit more). I just handed down my previous car to one of my kids, it's current blue book value is ~$17K and I will admit it was a bit weird going out to shoot birds knowing that the R1 + 600/4L II that I had in the car was worth more than the car.

On the other hand, the EF to RF convertor might have been less than the cost of a full tank of gas for the car?

masterpix · Jun 17, 2026

Exploreshootshare said:
My understanding of a "trinity" was three lenses that share the same aperture and quality built, but differ in focal length in a way that they complement each other. Therefore, the 200-800mm doesn't really qualify as part of a trinity because it has a much higher and variable f-number and no L designation..In case of the f2 zooms, my guess would be:

16-24mm F2 --> yet to be released or even only rumored.
24-70mm F2
70-135/150/180mm F2 --> whatever Canon decides on.

Concering the UWA zoom: Canon could give users the option to sacrifice one stop for starting at a 1mm wider focal length
(14-35mm F4 zoom, 15-35mm f2.8 zoom, 16-24?mm F2 zoom)

Sony is apparently going 16-24mm, 28-70mm and 50-150mm with the f2 trinity. The 50-150mm does sound intriguing to me as a stand alone lens, but not in a trinity package. Considering a trinity, I'm some users would prefer the lens starting at 70mm and extending its reach beyond 150mm.

I also wonder if a 20-70mm F2.8 - if it is ever made - will impact the UWA 2.8 zoom. Would Canon try to make a 10-20mm F2.8 or 12-24mm f2.8? If the standard goes down to 20mm, there's "no need" to go up to 35mm with the UWA zoom because there would a great amount of overlap and fewer mm gained by a UWA zoom. I don't think such a lens would arrive within the next 2-4 years, but it is still an interesting thought.

Well, not sure about the exat terminology, but if you ask me, going traveling, covering the focal length from 24mm to 800mm allowing both landscape, portrait and birds is my "holy trio".

Eloniel · Jun 17, 2026

GMCPhotographics said:
I'm guessing....highly likely. A RF TS-e is the only "new tech" that we've heard about on the rumour mill other than a funky 1/1.4/2x all in one teleconverter.
Maybe the worlds first TS-e lens that can auto focus is on the cards?

Or a variable multiplier macro lens with autofocus.

GMCPhotographics · Jun 17, 2026

Hector1970 said:
I hope for a 15mm TS-E. First RF tilt shift. I’m not even asking for autofocus (or shift if it makes it easier). It just needs to be sharp.

I'm guessing....highly likely. A RF TS-e is the only "new tech" that we've heard about on the rumour mill other than a funky 1/1.4/2x all in one teleconverter.
Maybe the worlds first TS-e lens that can auto focus is on the cards?

koenkooi · Jun 17, 2026

HMC11 said:
[...]
d. Sony has 3rd party lens support (in case the first party drops the ball) - I am glad that there is little worry that Canon's first party lens support would drop the ball.

I am sure others would have things to say about the rest of the claims on your list.

But Sony heavily limits 3rd party lenses, you won't get proper FPS and AF. Something that Canon, strange as it may seem, isn't doing with 3rd party RF-S lenses.

koenkooi · Jun 17, 2026

trexphotos said:
My vote is for no IS to save on weight and cost. IBIS has always worked stellar for Me.

I was about to reply with "My R8 disagrees", but then I realized this is not a lens for me, and if I'd use it, it wouldn't be on my R8

neuroanatomist · Jun 16, 2026

Bob Howland said:
Then why put a zoom controller around the shutter release on the R50V, R6V and C50?

All three of those cameras came after the launch of the RF 24-105/2.8 Z and the RF 70-200/2.8 Z lenses. Add the PZ-E2 adapter to either of those lenses and the power zoom can be controlled by the zoom controller on the camera. Same for the new RF 20-50/4L PZ lens, which uses internal motors instead of an external accessory for power zooming.

The first two are not really the same market segment as the R50V, since the lenses are ~$3K and the power zoom adapter is another $1150 (or $1450 for the -B version that is compatible with other cinema accessories). The 20-50/4L is closer to that mark at $1400, but still likely too expensive for most R50V users.

But I do expect we'll see cheaper, non-L PZ lenses in the future. The EF-S 18-135 lens launched at $600, and the PZ-E1 adapter for power zooming was $150. The 80D that was announced alongside the 18-135 and PZ-E1 doesn't have a zoom control on the camera, but you can use the Canon smartphone app connected via Bluetooth to the camera to remotely control the power zoom of the lens.

Bob Howland said:
I just zoomed the 18-150 manually from end to end on the R50V. The ISO changed first, the aperture next and the shutter speed last of all. The video appearance didn't change much at all.

That's good to know, thanks. I've read complaints about variable aperture zooms for video, but of course the G60 is f/2.8-4.5 and it doesn't seem to be a significant problem to me (which means little given my experience with shooting video).

Bob Howland said:
...an HF-G60 camcorder and LANC controller on a tripod.

Thanks again for bringing the LANC controller to my attention previously, I used that exact setup last week and it is very convenient. I mentioned above that I'd likely get the C50 if I start shooting video with an ILC, and the fact that the C50 has a LANC port is one reason (the R6V does not).

Skux · Jun 16, 2026

23-71mm f/2.8

Bob Howland · Jun 16, 2026

neuroanatomist said:
How well do video shooters / content creators like zoom lenses that change aperture as you zoom?

A cheaper way would be an external power zoom adapter, like the one for the RF 24-105/2.8 and 70-200/2.8 Z. The reason that one is the PZ-E2 is because the -E1 was specifically for the EF-S 18-135mm lens.

Then why put a zoom controller around the shutter release on the R50V, R6V and C50? I just zoomed the 18-150 manually from end to end on the R50V. The ISO changed first, the aperture next and the shutter speed last of all. The video appearance didn't change much at all.

Last Saturday, I was trying to keep Irish dancers centered and frame filling when they were moving between 10 and 50 feet away from me. I was using a 10-18mm zoom and zooming manually, badly. I had attempted the same thing, much more successfully, three years ago with an HF-G60 camcorder and LANC controller on a tripod.

benperrin · Jun 16, 2026

Kjsheldo said:
Everything else has IBIS? What about C50, C70, C400, C80, etc - a 24-70mm f2 would be the perfect cine zoom, but without IS is tough. Hope it has it.

Yep or the R5C which doesn't have IBIS. I would prefer a lens like this with IS.

neuroanatomist · Jun 16, 2026

Bob Howland said:
Wild guess: Canon starts with the 18-150 RF-S and 24-240 RF lenses, leaves the optical formula intact but changes the mechanical design to add zoom motors and jacks up the price by at least 50%.

How well do video shooters / content creators like zoom lenses that change aperture as you zoom?

A cheaper way would be an external power zoom adapter, like the one for the RF 24-105/2.8 and 70-200/2.8 Z. The reason that one is the PZ-E2 is because the -E1 was specifically for the EF-S 18-135mm lens.

Slappy_G · Jun 16, 2026

If this actually happens, any bets as to whether they can manage proper optical correction, or if they cheap out and rely on digital correction and the low-quality corners and edges that entails?

Knowing their recent trend of using digital correction as a crutch even on L-series (L-priced, importantly) glass, I'm not too optimistic.

Latest activity

Latest activity

Filter

Forum statistics

Gallery statistics