So, a compact ‘ladies’ camera for the masses, a super zoom and a high tech stills oriented G7X III replacement.

I’m eagerly looking forward to the latter.

Michael Clark said:

Never a Konica? My first ILC was a Konica FS-1. I've still got it. I last ran a roll of film though it sometime in the late 1990s. By then I had an EOS Rebel IIs (or was it Rebel S II?).

Click to expand...

To be honest, the only Konica I was tempted to buy was the Hexar RF with interchangeable lenses. Yet, I resisted (being broke...)

Del Paso said:

You forgot : Zorki, Minox, Fujica, Rollei, Minolta, Olympus, Kodak, Voigtländer, Nikon, Exakta, Yashica, Ricoh, Nikonos...

Click to expand...

Never a Konica? My first ILC was a Konica FS-1. I've still got it. I last ran a roll of film though it sometime in the late 1990s. By then I had an EOS Rebel IIs (or was it Rebel S II?).

dolina said:

@neuroanatomist confirms that Canon’s #1 global market share is based on actual unit sales. While Sony has previously claimed the top spot using camera revenue they remain #2 in total volume. In the Full Frame Mirrorless market Sony leads worldwide with approximately 44% share. Canon follows in second place with 31% and Nikon holds third with 17%. These companies dominate the professional market while brands like Panasonic and Leica make up the remaining small percentage.

I have a personal interest in the Medium Format digital market and discovered that Fujifilm is the clear leader. They own about 65% of the market because their GFX system is more affordable than competitors. Hasselblad holds roughly 22% of the share and the rest belongs to niche brands like Leica and Phase One. This segment is much smaller than full frame but generates high revenue per camera sold.

As @John Wilde and @justaCanonuser noted DSLRs still have a presence despite the shift to mirrorless. CIPA data shows 690,000 DSLRs were shipped in 2025 which is a 31% drop from the year before. Most of these sales come from Canon’s entry-level models like the 2000D. @David - Sydney correctly points out that these remain popular in developing countries because they are cheaper than mirrorless options. Been living in the Philippines for a few decades and I was told locally that dSLR bodies/lenses are not being imported here anymore for the past few years. I know because I made inquiries about the 5D Mark IV, 1D X Mark III in 2020 and even that 2000D this month for a picker friend. My personal guess is that developed markets like the US & EU where the mindshare among consumers is "dSLR" and not mirrorless so they reflexively ask for "dSLR" even when the whole market is moving to MILCs. However for professionals and those interested in "full frame or bigger" the market has moved almost entirely to mirrorless bodies like the R5 Mark II or the Sony A7 series.

neuroanatomist and @P-visie mentioned Pentax but their sales are insignificant in the global share for full frame or medium format. While @Del Paso calls them boutique cameras they do not compete with the "Big Three" in unit volume. For those tracking the top of the market the competition is strictly between Sony, Canon, and Nikon for full frame, and Fujifilm for medium format.

Click to expand...

But what percentage of total ILC sales (both units or revenue) are FF mirrorless or MF mirrorless? What percentage are formats smaller than FF, either MILCs or DSLRs? There are far more APS-C and smaller format ILCs being sold than FF + MF being sold.

Exploreshootshare said:

I looked closely at the V1, but as a stills guy only (well mostly), the camera is not for me.

Click to expand...

I like the V1 for family outings. I'm also a (mostly) stills guy, but I bought the V1 for video as well (I usually use a Canon Vixia HF G60 for that, but my kids perform at some venues where that's too large for their restrictions so I bring the V1 for those recordings).

Michael Clark said:

There's some of that, but that's far from the only thing. Modern lenses are highly corrected for field curvature to render a fairly flat field. This is great for document reproduction. But it often makes the out of focus areas a bit "harsh" or "busy". With the EF 135mm f/2 L out of focus areas are smoothly blurred. It's not a blurry lens at all. It's still sharp enough to show a model's pores if you're close enough, you have good enough lighting, the camera is properly immobilized, and you're focused correctly. But they don't look "crunchy" like so many "ultra sharp" lenses make fine details look.

Click to expand...

Thank you, appreciate the feedback! I'm going to get one. I put an offer on one, so we'll see. Most are obviously used, I see one or two new ones for around $1k USD.

Ohhhh yes please! I looked closely at the V1, but as a stills guy only (well mostly), the camera is not for me. Our daytrips with our kid kind don’t let me take my heavy gear most of the time. Something small and compact would be great. Currently, I use the R8 with the 50mm F1.4 living on it.

CharlesB said:

The Canon sounds better honestly. It sounds like the Sigma is the type of lens that shows all the pores on somebody, which isn't a great look, while the Canon is very sharp but doesn't. Sound correct? If so, I'd definitely go with the Canon.

Thank you!

Click to expand...

There's some of that, but that's far from the only thing. Modern lenses are highly corrected for field curvature to render a fairly flat field. This is great for document reproduction. But it often makes the out of focus areas a bit "harsh" or "busy". With the EF 135mm f/2 L out of focus areas are smoothly blurred. It's not a blurry lens at all. It's still sharp enough to show a model's pores if you're close enough, you have good enough lighting, the camera is properly immobilized, and you're focused correctly. But they don't look "crunchy" like so many "ultra sharp" lenses make fine details look.

I was pleasantly surprised to see the EF 135mm f/2 L at the top of the list. After scrolling down through numbers 10 through 2 without seeing it, I thought for sure #1 would be the EF 35mm f/1.4 L II or series.

The EF 135mm f/2 L is by far, to me, the best lens for the money I've ever bought. It's my favorite prime lens. It's my favorite telephoto lens. I like the look it gives me better than any other lens I use. The only reason it is not my most used lens is that much of what I shoot is under conditions that limit my ability to fully control my position relative to the position of my subject(s), so I tend to use zoom lenses most of the time. These are primarily a 24-70/2.8 and a 70-200/2.8. But if I have a "pry it from my cold, dead hands" lens, it's the EF 135mm f/2 L. It just lets me take photos which look great!

On the other hand (as people are mentioning lenses they didn't love)... For me the standouts in that regard were the 200 2.8 (too much colour fringing), the 85 1.2 II (likewise, and the MFD was always frustratingly long for what I wanted), the 70-200 2.8 II (underwhelming IQ towards MFD), and the 400 5.6 (lack of IS was a challenge - sorry to the person above who loved it).

Michael Clark said:

The Sigma is better in every way when it comes to measurable results from imaging flat test charts. But it's a bit clinical when making real images.

The EF 135mm f/2 L is better at making real images that make everything look sharp and yet smooth at the same time if that's the look you want.

Click to expand...

The Canon sounds better honestly. It sounds like the Sigma is the type of lens that shows all the pores on somebody, which isn't a great look, while the Canon is very sharp but doesn't. Sound correct? If so, I'd definitely go with the Canon.

Thank you!

neuroanatomist said:

The EF 16-35/4 isn’t a true internal zoom lens. Technically, it’s an external zoom where the zoom mechanism moves entirely behind the front filter threads. The zoom mechanism is not weather sealed, and a front filter on the lens is required for water/dust resistance.

The RF 14-35/4 has a weather sealed zoom mechanism, and does not require a front filter for water/dust resistance.

Click to expand...

Meh. People sometimes act like they think anything not 'fully weather sealed' is an open truss design.



Every EF lens I've ever seen has weather and dust resistance to one degree or another. Unless you can immerse it in water for more than a few seconds without worry, it's not truly "weather sealed". It's just slightly more weather resistant than without the filter. Even without a filter on the front, there's still a good bit of resistance to dust and water getting in through those very narrow clearances between the inner and outer barrels. And as Roger Cicala has said many times: "Weather sealing still means, 'the warranty doesn’t cover water damage.'" That's why he prefers calling most cameras and lenses "weather resistant" rather than "weather sealed".

I've occasionally used an EF 17-40mm f/4 L in rainy conditions shooting field sports without a filter on the front without ever having any issue with water getting in. And it's the one lens I use without a hood, because the hood is so comically wide as to be practically useless. If it rains more than a drizzle I do put plastic OP/TECH covers over cameras and lenses. But they're not "weather sealed" either, and nothing is covering the front of the lens.

Michael Clark said:

I tried the EF 100mm f/2.

Click to expand...

I have a specific usecase for it. I use it outdoors, distance about 4 to 5 meters to subjects using f/2 or f/2.2 (people) and only black & white. Yes, not the best lens but for this usecase very nice results.

candyman said:

I really enjoy using the EF100mm f/2. It might not have top-notch image quality, but it performs well and is small and light. I also can't part with the EF70-200 f/4 IS II. It has good image quality, internal zoom, and is easy to handle with the tripod collar. A lens I will definitely continue using is the EF100-400 II. It has excellent image quality. Another lens I won't part with is the TSE-24 II (with the ROGETI TSE Frame III). It has very good image quality and is easy to use. My other lenses are RF lenses: RF10-20, RF14-35, RF24-105, and the 16, 28, and 50 f/1.8.

Click to expand...

mb66energy said:

EF 2.0 100: Good one. With f/2 it delivers well on FF @ 24 MPix and opens up new possibilities in low light. In my experience it is very sharp & contrasty from 2.8 on and stellar from f/4. And it is so sweet and unobtrusive ...
EF 100-400 ii is a dream lens where you do not need to avoid some settings. It is always a miracle to my how such a lens can be designed and produced. Deep respect for those who created and produced it!

Click to expand...

I tried the EF 100mm f/2.

I'd been trying for a while to find a good deal on the EF 135mm f/2 L but every time one popped up on the Canon USA Refurb Store it was gone before I could snatch it up. Ditto on the reputable used dealers in the U.S. My first EF 85mm f/1.8, bought used from an individual who was an acquaintance of an acquaintance, was acting up at times when I didn't need it to but I could never get it to reproduce the problem when I was trying to diagnose the issue.

The EF 100mm f/2 was one that was also rarely available at the Canon Refurb Store. One day I happened to see one and managed to get it into my shopping cart before it was bought by someone else. I figured it might could satisfy my desire for a 135mm prime with a faster max aperture than the EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II I've had since shortly after it was released in 2010 as well as cover what I was doing with the unreliable EF 85mm f/1.8.

Nope. I found it was too long to use in place of the 85/1.8. But it wasn't long enough to make me take the 70-200/2.8 off my camera and put the 100/2 on it. It wasn't nearly as good optically as I had expected, demonstrating more CA than I wanted to deal with in post and just generally not as sharp as my other lower tier Canon primes. If I adjusted AFMA for shorter distances it would front focus at medium distances and beyond. Setting AFMA for medium distances made it back focus at shorter distances. This was the case on three different camera bodies. I used it reluctantly and got a few good results with it in very low light environments at times, but I wasn't really happy with it.

Other than the one stop faster aperture, there was nothing else it could do as well as my EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II. It wasn't any sharper, even stopped down to f/2.8. The bokeh wasn't any better, even wide open at f/2. I liked the look of photos I got at 100mm and f/2.8 with my 70-200/2.8 than those I got with the 100/2.

Less than a year after I'd bought the 100/2 I managed to snag an EF 135mm f/2 L from the Canon USA Refurb Store just as they had refreshed their list and started a nice sale on pretty much everything. I only paid a little over $700 plus tax. It arrived in mint condition. I don't think I ever took another photo with the EF 100mm f/2. I bought a replacement EF 85mm f/1.8 not too much later. I held on to the EF 100mm f/2 for a few years, then sold it to KEH in person when driving through Atlanta on a road trip.

The EF 135mm f/2 L is not my most used lens. The type of shooting I do often requires zooms when there are limits on where I can place myself relative to the subject(s). But when I know I can get away with using a telephoto prime, it's the one on my camera. And while it does pretty good on a 7D Mark II crop body, where it really shines is on my full frame bodies.

neuroanatomist said:

The RF 14-35/4 has a weather sealed zoom mechanism, and does not require a front filter for water/dust resistance

Click to expand...

Still I use a B+W 007 filter. I take that one out when using the LEE ND filters. I am investigating the purshase of magnetic ND filters. But I heavily invested in the LEE filterset.

candyman said:

This has been one of my favorite lenses for a long time. As a landscape lens, I appreciated the internal zoom in poor weather conditions. … the internal zoom (16-35).

Click to expand...

The EF 16-35/4 isn’t a true internal zoom lens. Technically, it’s an external zoom where the zoom mechanism moves entirely behind the front filter threads. The zoom mechanism is not weather sealed, and a front filter on the lens is required for water/dust resistance.

The RF 14-35/4 has a weather sealed zoom mechanism, and does not require a front filter for water/dust resistance.

CharlesB said:

P.S - I just got done reading the comments and I believe Riker said the Sigma 135mm 1.8 is better in every way. Do others believe that or disagree?

Click to expand...

The Sigma is better in every way when it comes to measurable results from imaging flat test charts. But it's a bit clinical when making real images.

The EF 135mm f/2 L is better at making real images that make everything look sharp and yet smooth at the same time if that's the look you want.

Edit: To be clear, I've never used the EF 135mm f/2 L at macro distances. Nor have I ever used the EF 185mm Macro. I'm talking above strictly regarding the EF 135mm f/2 L versus the Sigma 135mm f/1.8 DG HSM ART at distances of, say, fifteen feet or more. There's also a newer Sigma 135mm f/1.4 ART, but it is not offered in the EF mount.

riker said:

OMG, such a comment-bait post, can't resist

The 50/1.2 was my biggest disappointment in the whole EF L lineup.
And the 135/2 is a very old and outdated piece, the Sigma 135/1.8 is far superior in every regard.

The 35/2 IS should not be left out.

Click to expand...

If your thing is reproducing the corners of flat test charts almost as well as the center of flat test charts, then the EF 135mm f/2 L is not your lens.

If, on the other hand, your intent is to create photos of a three dimensional world that has sharp rendering of your subjects and smooth rendering of the foreground and background with color and contrast that are sublime, then there's still no lens that can touch the EF 135mm f/2 L.

blackcoffee17 said:

EF 16-35 F4

Click to expand...

This has been one of my favorite lenses for a long time. As a landscape lens, I appreciated the internal zoom in poor weather conditions. I recently switched to the 14-35. The advantages of being small and not needing an adapter are positive. A downside of the 14-35 is that I have to rewind the lens between 20mm and 24mm every time I put it away. Incidentally, if you use close-up filters (such as LEE), it feels slightly different because the lens zooms out slightly compared to the internal zoom (16-35).

Some of my favorite EF lenses would be the EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro and also the EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS II USM, I find it has faster AF then the L version, and lighter.

I think the addition of the 100 would be great for the VCM series, as opposed to needing the macro 100mm, because the ergonomics would match, I assume, the other VCM lenses. The language design for a lens series matters: consistency has solid benefits when moving through a set of glass in a short period of time. I think the VCM approach to-date has been very smart in this regard. +1 for the hybrid shooter influence here.

I put together a travel kit of a 24mm, 50mm, and 100mm (macro) EF L lenses for people / lifestyle / optional strobe photography. It's a potent combo. A VCM set like that would probably make a lot of people happy (just as a 35/85 pair would). Consistently sized lenses would make the experience in my kit a smidge more pleasing.

DocInfoSci said:

For me, the things that I love the most about the EF lenses I have kept are:

• The mechanical linking of the focus ring that works even without power.
• The large glass and relatively pleasant images even without digital aids turned on (older photos in my library especially).
• The general design language.
• Compatibility across EOS cameras.
• Robustness.

[...]

Click to expand...

I own only 2 RF lenses and what I hate most is the design of the back caps which has only one possible attachment angle - EF with 3 possible positions made it much easier in the field by rotating the back cap with a 120° turn.
Maybe I will add another R6 ii on sale below 1500€ - just to avoid fiddling with RF back caps ... maybe that was Canons intention ;-)

candyman said:

I really enjoy using the EF100mm f/2. It might not have top-notch image quality, but it performs well and is small and light. I also can't part with the EF70-200 f/4 IS II. It has good image quality, internal zoom, and is easy to handle with the tripod collar. A lens I will definitely continue using is the EF100-400 II. It has excellent image quality. Another lens I won't part with is the TSE-24 II (with the ROGETI TSE Frame III). It has very good image quality and is easy to use. My other lenses are RF lenses: RF10-20, RF14-35, RF24-105, and the 16, 28, and 50 f/1.8.

Click to expand...

EF 2.0 100: Good one. With f/2 it delivers well on FF @ 24 MPix and opens up new possibilities in low light. In my experience it is very sharp & contrasty from 2.8 on and stellar from f/4. And it is so sweet and unobtrusive ...
EF 100-400 ii is a dream lens where you do not need to avoid some settings. It is always a miracle to my how such a lens can be designed and produced. Deep respect for those who created and produced it!

Old Man FL/FD said:

My EF 100-400 mm L Mk II spends the most time on my body.

Attached out-of-camera image taken on a G1X Mk I.

Click to expand...

Yes, it's a great lens on FF and APS-C because it delivers just on the 32MPix of the R7 with excellent clarity from "wide" open and from 100-400mm.
MFD is a great addition which avoids switching to macro lenses.
It's the sort of universal reliable tool I always dreamed of and can be nicely combined with RF 24-105 to have 24 ... 400 with two bodies/lenses ;-)