Latest activity

scyrene · Nov 28, 2025

m4ndr4ke said:
It’s absolutely true. I sold my 85mm over four years ago, after years of making 100 shots/year or less with it — and those were the days I intentionally decided to take it out.

About 80% of my photography is shot between 28 and 70mm, mainly with the 28-70mm f/2. And no, it’s not often that I shoot at f/2.

To be completely honest, I barely use any prime lens but the RF 16mm. I have three others, but essentially for fun or personal stuff.

I still think of anything under ~500mm as a bit short

homebodyMacro2 · Nov 28, 2025

amorse said:
Honestly, I'm not the traditional user of this lens, but I am interested. I'm more optimistic that they're going to price it a bit more competitively than what we might initially expect. A few (maybe misled) reasons:

There's been reports that another lens is going to be released which might cannibalize sales of the 100-500. I think there's been 4 articles on Canonrumors that made that assertion, and several linked back to this super-zoom with a moderately fast aperture. If this was going to be priced in the 5-figure territory, would it really be competition for the 100-500? That tells me it'll be a bit closer to the 100-500 price point, though likely a ways higher than the 100-500.

While Canon always does what Canon wants without much consideration for what others are doing, Sigma's 300-600 has to be noticed at $6600. At that price point, for those who want to shoot high-end wildlife but don't have the capital for a true big white, there could be temptation to buy the lens and a Sony body just for that one subject. When this lens and a body is cheaper than the Canon lens equivalent alone, there's could be a market positioning problem. Canon will always be more expensive, but the math needs to make some sense.

I've seen there are some steep discounts on the (theoretically) most comparable currently-available Canon lens in the 200-400 f/4 with extender. That EF can be had for 10k right now on a black Friday sale, down from $12,400 - not a bad discount. Maybe that implies they're just trying to move some inventory before a replacement comes along, or maybe it implies a change in their vision of where this lens needs to sit in the lineup.

Anyway, I've been wrong before and I'll be wrong again, but I am optimistic that it will be expensive but not necessarily in the same range as we'd see from the other big white lenses.

I agree there's some evidence pointing in that direction! My confidence in rumors is always pretty limited, as that's the only reasonable approach to rumors imo.

I also agree about the logic in general, very much including the fact that being able to buy a premium Sony body + the 300-600 Sigma for the price of a Canon f/5.6 should be a market deterrent to Canon pricing that high. That's very much my reasoning as well, along with the enormous pricing gulf in Canon's 400mm+ RF lens lineup.

I really don't see how Canon could justify another ~$11k+ supertelephoto lens when it would be right next to the 100-300L (which can be doubled to a respectable 600mm f/5.6), as well as the "true" 400 and 600mm big whites. 5 figures is industry pro pricing, and they already have equal or better gear. Not to mention the Sigma+Sony body price comparison as you mentioned. It would have no compelling reason to exist at that pricing (imo). So, I'm at least somewhat hopeful Canon will be less greedy. Hopefully we don't have to wait another year to find out lol.

grilled_rooster · Nov 28, 2025

blackcoffee17 said:
That's my opinion of any 24-70 type of lens. After the 24-105, the 70mm feels really short, especially for a big and heavy lens.

The look of the 28-70/2 is special. Not the typical "boring" 24-70/2.8. When I need more reach I'm using the 70-200/2.8. I thought about switching to the 24-105/2.8. But I would lose the f/2.0 look. And I the 24-105 is as big as the 70-200/2.8 Z (which I own). Two long lenses would be difficult to pack. And I don't like my lenses to overlap (here from 70-105mm). Useless. And I don't mind carrying two cameras to an event. I sometimes bring three

blackcoffee17 · Nov 28, 2025

MarioGC said:
28-70mm? I owned one once. It was the most useless lens I have ever owned. Always too long at the short end and too short at the long end. It doesn't matter if it is f/2.8. I wouldn't buy one even if it were a f/2.
24-70 is ok, 24-105 still better.
Just my 2 cents.

That's my opinion of any 24-70 type of lens. After the 24-105, the 70mm feels really short, especially for a big and heavy lens.

justaCanonuser · Nov 28, 2025

R7 II please, Canon, for birders who thirst for a high res APS-C body with standard layout and a decent up in overall performance

creative1 · Nov 28, 2025

I just received mine a few minutes ago. It is still a brick until I get some memory cards, but there is one thing I noticed that is pretty concerning to me, and I am not sure if this is normal, but it feels like something is rattling when I hold the camera. Is this normal? Not that this should matter, but I have not even powered up the camera.

candyman · Nov 28, 2025

Click said:
Very nice shot, candyman.

Thank you Click

P-visie · Nov 28, 2025

roby17269 said:
Regardless of whether that is true or not (it isn't since these price-demand relationships are not linear), there is also the question, from a production standpoint, whether the lens would bring enough profit at $6000 to justify making it. Consider that Canon, shippers, retailers and governments (taxes) all need to make a profit out of that lens. And that, logistically, if you make a high end lens which will see limited (relatively) sales, you want to see a high profit from each sale.

As I posted in the RF300-600mm thread: the rumored price of 6000-6500 US$ would be 50-55% of the 2013 launch price of the EF 200-400mm f4 L lens. That seems unlikely low to me.

Exploreshootshare · Nov 28, 2025

I don´t believe the 2.8 STM version will go from 70 to 200mm. With the first two lenses, Canon really gave the market a great f2.8 option, but they've also done some market segmentation since both zooms are noticeably shorter, especially the UW 16-28 which is missing 9mm or 10mm in comparison to F2.8/ F4 L´s. Even compared with the 15.30mm ,it is shorter. Therefore, I believe Canon will make a 70-180mm F2.8 STM in terms to segment the market. They'll do it even if they could give us a full 70-200mm F2.8 STM.

roby17269 · Nov 28, 2025

Zadak said:
There should be many people that can afford 6000$ but not 10000$ for a lens, enough to make sense economically to make it.

Regardless of whether that is true or not (it isn't since these price-demand relationships are not linear), there is also the question, from a production standpoint, whether the lens would bring enough profit at $6000 to justify making it. Consider that Canon, shippers, retailers and governments (taxes) all need to make a profit out of that lens. And that, logistically, if you make a high end lens which will see limited (relatively) sales, you want to see a high profit from each sale.

roby17269 · Nov 28, 2025

Canon Rumors said:
I continue to use the EF 200 f/2 (I would buy an RF variant).

Aw I regret selling the EF 200 f/2L IS - loved that lens

neuroanatomist · Nov 28, 2025

m4ndr4ke said:
About 80% of my photography is shot between 28 and 70mm, mainly with the 28-70mm f/2. And no, it’s not often that I shoot at f/2.

My focal length range is more widely distributed, with about 50% between 20 and 74mm.

m4ndr4ke · Nov 28, 2025

m4ndr4ke said:
I don't own any prime lens longer than 50mm because I know I won't use them

scyrene said:

It’s absolutely true. I sold my 85mm over four years ago, after years of making 100 shots/year or less with it — and those were the days I intentionally decided to take it out.

About 80% of my photography is shot between 28 and 70mm, mainly with the 28-70mm f/2. And no, it’s not often that I shoot at f/2.

To be completely honest, I barely use any prime lens but the RF 16mm. I have three others, but essentially for fun or personal stuff.

scyrene · Nov 28, 2025

m4ndr4ke said:
I don't own any prime lens longer than 50mm because I know I won't use them

neuroanatomist · Nov 28, 2025

Zadak said:
You're saying that as if we have some good equivalents for them.

I'm saying it doesn't matter what 'we' have. What matters is what Canon's market research determines 'we' will buy. Note that 'we' means the market as a whole, not the niche microcosm that is CR forum.

Zadak said:
The Sony 200-600 with internal zoom is bigger, but seems to be more desirable than the 200-800 to me and some people I talked to.

You and some people you talked to. Are you suggesting that such a group is somehow representative of Canon's market for high end lenses?

Zadak said:
There should be many people that can afford 6000$ but not 10000$ for a lens, enough to make sense economically to make it.

Based on what? The broader economic data disagree with you, the gap between the haves and have-nots is only widening, and it's the disposable income of the former that drives high-end lens sales. It seems logical that someone willing and able to spend $6K on a lens could also spend $10K on a lens.

Zadak said:
And for a fast ultra-wide prime, still missing anything remotely interesting from Canon. Rip night-shooters

20mm is ultrawide and the 20/1.4L VCM is great for night shooting. If you need wider, then there are 3rd party options.

scyrene · Nov 28, 2025

Canon Rumors said:
I continue to use the EF 200 f/2

Zadak · Nov 28, 2025

neuroanatomist said:
It's not hard for Canon to design and produce such lenses, from a technical standpoint. From a strategic standpoint, Canon doesn't care what you personally want, they care what a significant number of users will buy.

You're saying that as if we have some good equivalents for them.

The Sony 200-600 with internal zoom is bigger, but seems to be more desirable than the 200-800 to me and some people I talked to. There should be many people that can afford 6000$ but not 10000$ for a lens, enough to make sense economically to make it.

And for a fast ultra-wide prime, still missing anything remotely interesting from Canon. Rip night-shooters

neuroanatomist · Nov 28, 2025

Zadak said:
I just want a 300-600 that is around 6k USD that works with extenders + internal zooms

And an 14 or 16 mm lens with large aperture. Why is it so hard Canon?!

It's not hard for Canon to design and produce such lenses, from a technical standpoint. From a strategic standpoint, Canon doesn't care what you personally want, they care what a significant number of users will buy.

Zadak · Nov 28, 2025

I just want a 300-600 that is around 6k USD that works with extenders + internal zooms

And an 14 or 16 mm lens with large aperture. Why is it so hard Canon?!

Ozarker · Nov 28, 2025

Kiton said:
I am not an electrical engineer, I am a photojournalist who shoots for large newspapers and the wires.
I find it very hard to believe the camera absolutely can not be made to read the percentage remaining in the older batteries.

That is a choice.

The R3 is my work camera, the R6 is a walk around camera, I picked up a spare P battery and will live with it.

Oh, I thought you were saying the old style batteries wouldn't fully power and run your new camera. I must have misinterpreted that to mean the battery remaining percentage doesn't read out. You just get bars.

I remember every Canon I've had just showing bars. I look now and then. If it's low, I swap batteries. Easy. And I ain't no engineer either. I totally missed the part where you were talking about the battery meter. You are right. That's a choice. A choice Canon didn't make to your liking. So, crippled.

Back when I shot fashion shows, I'd get 3,000 out of two batteries on. 5D Mark III. Never worried how Canons meter displayed. Sure af doesn't cripple a camera.

Click · Nov 28, 2025

Very nice shot, candyman.

candyman · Nov 28, 2025

Red Squirrel

Canon EOS R5 Mark II
EF100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II USM
Shot at 400mm with f/5.6, ISO 6400, 1/640
Distance: 6 meter

m4ndr4ke · Nov 28, 2025

I never though of the RF 135mm as being too big, to be honest, but I never tried the EF 135mm f/2, which means I never established such comparison. Being over one f-stop faster than the zoom sounds good enough to me.

I tried the RF 135 last year, found it "cheap" and sold for profit, for a guy that uses it for indoor sports. Brilliant autofocus, the fastest I ever seen on a non-VCM Canon lens.

I never intended to keep it, as I don't own any prime lens longer than 50mm because I know I won't use them (had in the past, sold all of them) - having a 70-200mm f/2.8 is enough to me, but I have to say, the RF 135 seemed to be an absolutely amazing lens. The guy I sold it to never bought the 70-200 after getting the 135 from me.

Meanwhile, Sony alpha rumors is saying there's a 16-28mm f/2.0 GM coming.

neuroanatomist · Nov 28, 2025

roby17269 said:
Welcome back!

It is also about the most frequent use case for a lens... AFAIK the 135mm fl is mostly used for portraits (candid or not) and that's not a use case where you should depend on stabilization too much, since your subject won't be perfectly still.

TY. Another common use case (for me, at least) was indoor performances. The shutter speed obviating the need for IS still applies.

roby17269 · Nov 28, 2025

neuroanatomist said:
Agree on this, as well…no real need in most use cases, I think. The focal length isn’t long enough that IBIS loses effectiveness, the 135/1.8 gets the same 2.5-3 stop bump as shorter lenses (by comparison, the 100-300/2.8 gains only a 0.5-stop bump from IBIS). Probably the 135/1.8 wouldn’t hit 8 stops without OIS, so maybe that’s a marketing reason to include it.

Welcome back!

It is also about the most frequent use case for a lens... AFAIK the 135mm fl is mostly used for portraits (candid or not) and that's not a use case where you should depend on stabilization too much, since your subject won't be perfectly still.
Personally I don't mind the size and weight of the RF 135 1.8L, and I think it performs well, but I would even have preferred that Canon had gone the Nikon way with their 135 1.8 Plena: no IS but also even less compromises

Latest activity

Latest activity

Filter

Forum statistics

Gallery statistics