Latest activity

riker · Jun 4, 2026

LuckyOne said:
A 100-400 f4.5 L with a built in 1.4x teleconverter for $4,750 would work for me.

Sure. With a free thai massage coupon to make it more realistic.

scyrene · Jun 4, 2026

I'm always a little bemused because I've never sought Canon's input on anything after purchasing. It wouldn't even occur to me that they could or would solve a problem.

Gino_FOTO · Jun 4, 2026

It's a good lens already, although I personally prefer its "unpopular" sibling, the 24mm. What more could you want from newer versions of lenses in this category? Address the coma smearing issue, add ultra-fast and silent AF, and internal focusing, and I'll be happy. I'd even be fine if they lost their pseudo-macro capability.

blackcoffee17 · Jun 4, 2026

Bob Howland said:
This is depressing. Most of my FF lenses are so old that Canon cannot/will not fix them. Of course, I bought a lot of them 20+ years ago. Oh well, they still work.

I wouldn't worry about something like this. They will likely work for another decade or two without any problems. And if they break, you just find a broken lens on eBay for cheap, strip it for parts and have a third party shop to fix it.

Fanitullen · Jun 4, 2026

No LCD is a no go for me. I am completely dependent on having an LCD screen (tiltable) when shooting from the waist or low to the ground or over head. If the tilting LCD is good and bright enough, I can live fine without an EVF.

blobmonster · Jun 4, 2026

Old Man FL/FD said:
An OVF and hot shoe takes up considerable area at the top of compact cameras. Not having both on the G7X III is a plus for me regarding size for pocket ability.

Rear views of G15, G1X I and G7X III shown.

(The black bar at the top of the rear LCD displays is the reflection of the forward edge of my background paper)

View attachment 229930

Thats true, but we could get much better, non-pop-up viewfinders and still have pocketable cameras with different design philosophy.

For example, the Canon af2/owl (old film compact) design fits comfortably in a pocket and has an enormous viewfinder.

Also, I would argue that we dont need live view LCDs in tiny pocket cameras that already have an EVF for image review (fun restriction, amd better viewing quality anyway), and potentially a simple settings screen (low battery drain).

Getting rid of LCD except small one for settings, or at least having no articulating swivel screen one, would potentially save a lot of room for a decent viewfinder and pop up flash on even a Ricoh GR size camera.

HMC11 · Jun 3, 2026

Rceres said:
If I were deciding which of the original RF lenses to update, I’d use two criteria:

1. Which lens has the most room for improvement?
2. Which lens would sell the most copies?

The iconic RF 50mm f/1.2L immediately comes to mind. Not because the current lens isn’t excellent (I love mine and use it every day), but because it was designed very early in the RF era. Since then Canon has made tremendous progress in autofocus systems, focusing-group design, and lens packaging.

The RF 135mm f/1.8L shows how much Canon’s engineering has evolved. What would a modern RF 50mm f/1.2L II look like if Canon prioritized improved handling and balance while maintaining the same flagship-level image quality.

A slimmer barrel, more modern focusing architecture, and improved packaging could potentially make the lens noticeably easier to handle without sacrificing what made the original iconic.

I suspect a lot of existing RF 50mm f/1.2L owners would upgrade.

Sign me up for the preorder!

I am not sure if the RF50 f1.2 satisfy your second criteria, unless you meant 'which lens would sell the most copies within its price range'? Actually, even with the added qualification, I am still not sure as the RF24-70 f2.8L could well outsell it. Anyway, the first criteria would also need a qualification, e.g. 'which lens has the most room for improvement at its price point'. With these changes, the RF24-105 f4L could well be the lens due for a refresh.

LuckyOne · Jun 3, 2026

A 100-400 f4.5 L with a built in 1.4x teleconverter for $4,750 would work for me.

noname · Jun 3, 2026

m4ndr4ke said:
I doubt they'll make a 28mm VCM. At this point, I'm just hoping for "f/2 or faster".

The EF mount had both f/1.8 and f/2.8 28mm lenses, so there's precedent.

As for ~40mm, in my opinion that is covered now by the RF 45, which gets us 1mm closer to 43 than a 40, so it's even better.

Canon have 50mm and 135mm f/1.8 primes (probably a 200mm to follow).
They also have two f/1.8 macros (24mm and 35mm) and nothing in-between is expected.
OTOH one more f/1.4 VCM is scheduled, which can be either 28mm (more probable) or 100mm (less probable).
The RF 45mm f/1.2 is a modified version of a 48.5mm f/1.2 patent, it is always compared with the EF 50mm f/1.2L USM and the RF 50mm f/1.8 STM, respectively.

Bob Howland · Jun 3, 2026

This is depressing. Most of my FF lenses are so old that Canon cannot/will not fix them. Of course, I bought a lot of them 20+ years ago. Oh well, they still work.

Rceres · Jun 3, 2026

If I were deciding which of the original RF lenses to update, I’d use two criteria:

1. Which lens has the most room for improvement?
2. Which lens would sell the most copies?

The iconic RF 50mm f/1.2L immediately comes to mind. Not because the current lens isn’t excellent (I love mine and use it every day), but because it was designed very early in the RF era. Since then Canon has made tremendous progress in autofocus systems, focusing-group design, and lens packaging.

The RF 135mm f/1.8L shows how much Canon’s engineering has evolved. What would a modern RF 50mm f/1.2L II look like if Canon prioritized improved handling and balance while maintaining the same flagship-level image quality.

A slimmer barrel, more modern focusing architecture, and improved packaging could potentially make the lens noticeably easier to handle without sacrificing what made the original iconic.

I suspect a lot of existing RF 50mm f/1.2L owners would upgrade.

Sign me up for the preorder!

Del Paso · Jun 3, 2026

35mm f/1,8 II?
Why no RF 35mm f/1,2 L I ?

m4ndr4ke · Jun 3, 2026

noname said:
Canon do not prefer 40mm and 28mm. But if they release another 28mm lens, it will be the missing f/1.4 VCM.

I doubt they'll make a 28mm VCM. At this point, I'm just hoping for "f/2 or faster".

The EF mount had both f/1.8 and f/2.8 28mm lenses, so there's precedent.

As for ~40mm, in my opinion that is covered now by the RF 45, which gets us 1mm closer to 43 than a 40, so it's even better.

AlanF · Jun 3, 2026

P-visie said:
The Dutch "Field Guide to Dragonflies" describes that tandems of different species occur, but that the different species do not reproduce. I recall reading that the genitalia of different species do not 'fit', but do not remember the source, so I am not 100% sure of that.

They tend not to fit at all across species. But, these are close enough that the male Scarce Chaser can get a sufficient grip to hold on to a female 4-spotted.

P-visie · Jun 3, 2026

AlanF said:
I reported it to the Dragonfly Society, and one of their experts has seen it elsewhere.

The Dutch "Field Guide to Dragonflies" describes that tandems of different species occur, but that the different species do not reproduce. I recall reading that the genitalia of different species do not 'fit', but do not remember the source, so I am not 100% sure of that.

Click · Jun 3, 2026

Nice shot. I love the background.

blackcoffee17 · Jun 3, 2026

ctk said:
Mk1 of this lens is fine. If there's any lens that needs an update, it's the 50 1.8. They need to bring it to the standard of the rest of the 1.8s.

The 50mm is the magnet-lens. Meant to be as cheap as possible to attract users and offer high-quality budget lens.

mawlki · Jun 3, 2026

Never buy a gold version?

danfaz · Jun 3, 2026

I've not noticed this, either.

Del Paso · Jun 3, 2026

I just got a 67mm B+W T-Pro 007 clear filter for my not yet delivered

RF 20-50.
Instead of those soft pouches, they now ship them in square metal boxes. A much better choice (protection!).
Edit: At least in the EU.

Click · Jun 3, 2026

So cute! Nicely done.

AlanF · Jun 3, 2026

Maximilian said:
Just wow!
I tend to say a one-in-a-million shot.
If those weren’t from you and your wife, @AlanF, I‘d put them to AI generated.
From what I’ve read, I thought that wouldn’t be possible for Anisoptera, dragonflies, and only partially for Zygoptera, damselflies.
The cerci at the abdomen of the male and the neck of the female are like lock and key. Those shouldn’t fit between different species.
You can learn something new every day.

I reported it to the Dragonfly Society, and one of their experts has seen it elsewhere.

roby17269 · Jun 3, 2026

For me, one of the biggest advantages of the 100-500, apart from quality, weight and AF speed, is the 100mm wide end. That makes it a very versatile lens.
I would love for it to reach 600mm and to take extenders without the 300mm limitation, but not if that means losing the 100mm wide end and / or a significant weight increase

noname · Jun 3, 2026

m4ndr4ke said:
No, they don't, the 50mm f/1.8 was never meant to do such a thing. On Canon, that is the cheap lens, and it is pretty decent for the price.

Now where's my damn 28mm f/1.8?

Canon do not prefer 40mm and 28mm. But if they release another 28mm lens, it will be the missing f/1.4 VCM.

AlanF · Jun 3, 2026

This is something really rare - new to even @Maximilian? A male Scarce Chaser in tandem with a female Four-spotted chaser. They don't form hybrids so whether they attempt to mate and fail or what I don't know. The Chasers mate on the wing and it takes just a few seconds so rarely seen. Top two shots from my R5ii/RF100-500mm, and bottom 2 from my wife with her R7/R100-400mm.

6L8A2826-DxO_scarce+four_spotted_chasers_chasers_dragonfly_back.jpg

6L8A2847-DxO_scarce+four_spotted_chasers_dragonfly_side.jpg

3R3A9537-DxO_scarce_chaser+four_spotted_dragonfly.jpg

3R3A9539-DxO_scarce_chaser+four_spotted_dragonfly.jpg

Latest activity

Latest activity

Filter

Forum statistics

Gallery statistics