Latest activity

scyrene · Mar 4, 2026

riker said:
In this case, I'd be happy if Canon just did what others and finally brought us 28-70/2 II, this time with IS and considerably less wright.

Is IS necessary when IBIS works so well with it?

Old Man FL/FD · Mar 4, 2026

eero said:
Have you ever had issues with pocketable cameras that end up full of dust inside? Happened to me two times, once with a Powershot and once with a Sony DSC-RX100. I kept them in a jeans pocket and after some time (and travels), they were so full of dust that they were completely useless. I opened the Sony one to see if there was something I could do about it, but the dust was everywhere inside. It looked mainly like small fabric particles, probably from the jeans. Those were earlier versions of both cameras, and I don't know how they are nowadays, as I have moved on to bigger cameras. But it would be interesting to know how dustproof they are. Does anyone know?

Good question!

I’ve owned numerous PowerShots and have never seen significant dust spots – even in the usual places – skies and broad expanses of uniform color/density.

One would think with the greater apparent dept-of-field with small sensors, dust visibility would be a problem.

I keep my PowerShots in either a coat pocket or fanny/lumbar pack until shooting time and I’ve never used one on a sandy beach.

I thought perhaps there was an internal ‘air filter’ surrounding the sensor. Maybe a ‘dust delete’ algorithm? That would be tough without a ‘reference’ image.

When I tore down my G15 and G1X Mk I after they were ‘crippled,’ I was so excited to get to the sensor core, that I forgot to check out any dust protection design.

mimbu · Mar 4, 2026

P-visie said:
There is this patent application, from way back for a RF 14-21mm f 1.4 zoom, not likely with the RF14mm f.14 and RF20mm f1.4 just released.

Canon will just add the price of those two lenses together ($4500) and then add 50% more. $6750. Sounds about right.

riker · Mar 4, 2026

In this case, I'd be happy if Canon just did what others and finally brought us 28-70/2 II, this time with IS and considerably less wright.
If they even make it 24-70/2 or 28-85/2 or whatever, I'm all in.

Eventually we need to arrive to 24-120/2 anyway

Maybe another 20y.
24-105/2 in my active lifetime pls?

I'd really appreciate a 28-50/1.8 as well, but not a big L version. I need it for street and travel.

eero · Mar 4, 2026

josephandrews222 said:
It must be pocketable and include a serviceable fill-flash.

Have you ever had issues with pocketable cameras that end up full of dust inside? Happened to me two times, once with a Powershot and once with a Sony DSC-RX100. I kept them in a jeans pocket and after some time (and travels), they were so full of dust that they were completely useless. I opened the Sony one to see if there was something I could do about it, but the dust was everywhere inside. It looked mainly like small fabric particles, probably from the jeans. Those were earlier versions of both cameras, and I don't know how they are nowadays, as I have moved on to bigger cameras. But it would be interesting to know how dustproof they are. Does anyone know?

P-visie · Mar 4, 2026

There is this patent application, from way back for a RF 14-21mm f 1.4 zoom, not likely with the RF14mm f.14 and RF20mm f1.4 just released.

Exploreshootshare · Mar 4, 2026

Looking at Richards table with all the different zoom ranges from the patent, I´d personally say 28-55mm F1.4 sounds the most intriguing. I´d also love 35-70mm and I´d consider buying one of these lenses if the prices allows it. An UWA f1.4 zoom such as 16-24mm F1.4 wouldn't interest me at all. But that's just me

danfaz · Mar 4, 2026

Click said:
Beautiful shots. I really like the 3rd and 4th one. Well done, danfaz.

Thanks Click! I love it when the birds give me time to get a pleasing background.

Feathered.lens · Mar 4, 2026

AlanF said:
If you didn't disagree with that then you should have made that clear.

Or you should learn to read correctly.

m4ndr4ke · Mar 4, 2026

Usability is important for these lenses.

A faster zoom lens is more valuable, but a shorter zoom range is not.

The 28-70mm f/2 came for about 1k more than the RF 24-70mm f/2.8 (yes, I know the 28-70 came first). All it sacrificed was 4mm on the wide end, so the trade-off was minor.

If it's a standard zoom, my guess is Canon won't make it unless it covers at least three main focal lengths, like the 28-70 does (28, 35, 50) and enters wide angle territory (so no 35-85mm, for instance). 50 could be rounded from 45, I think- I don't believe such a small difference would discourage anyone.

If we're talking halo lens, they want to break new ground. The 28-70mm f/2 wasn't the first f/2 full-frame zoom, that title belongs to the Sigma 24-35mm f/2 Art, and I doubt this time they would accept matching apertures that have been done before, so it would have to be faster than f/1.8, because the Sigma 28-45mm f/1.8 exists.

24 or 28 to 45 or 50 at f/1.4, for 1k more than the 28-70mm f/2? Could work, I guess.

20-40, 24-45, 24-50, 28-45, 28-50 at f/1.4...I think those would be good possibilities.

EDIT: I realised now pretty much all these were patented. I wasn't looking at that.

tpatana · Mar 4, 2026

How would the light know only bounce one round-trip?

AlanF · Mar 4, 2026

Feathered.lens said:
You completely missed the point of my comment. Using the OM 150-400 and the Canon 100-500 to prove his statement is an inappropriate comparison.

I didn’t disagree with his statement.

He did say in his statement that : if OM made a FF camera, the lens (OM 150-400) would work on it, which is the whole point he is making. If you didn't disagree with that then you should have made that clear. Otherwise, it reads as if you are contradicting him.

mimbu · Mar 4, 2026

Sony 16-28/2GM should be out in the next few months to complete the trinity.

I wonder what Canon is going to bring, how big/heavy it might (not) be, and at what price. Can't imagine a Canon f1.4 zoom being under $5k, could imagine it being a lot more expensive than $5k.

Ian K · Mar 4, 2026

My RF 14mm f/1.4mm VCM is now in stock and should be with me tomorrow. Ordered from WexPhotoVideo in the UK. I was 5th in the queue so they got at least that many assigned to Wex.

Feathered.lens · Mar 4, 2026

AlanF said:
You have entirely missed @neuroanatomist 's point. The image circle of a 400mm lens is much greater than required to cover an FF sensor, and the lens can't be made smaller for crop or for M4/3. Most here know that so see my earlier post:

You completely missed the point of my comment. Using the OM 150-400 and the Canon 100-500 to prove his statement is an inappropriate comparison.

I didn’t disagree with his statement.

Ronomy · Mar 4, 2026

I agree with your statement...R7 wheel placement was a huge improvement over the old placement. However many cant seem to learn new ways to use a camera so with too many complaints, now its gone. They should have changed all of there cameras to the R7 wheel placement.

The wheel on the R7 is perfect for using FV mode. It is so easy to change your settings quickly while looking through the viewfinder.

People get set in there ways and I bet many haven't even tried FV mode yet.

Manual mode is a thing of the past after using the R7 and FV with that perfectly placed thumbwheel. Its like riding a bike once you setup along with the above the buttons to access what you need to make setting quickly right inside the viewfinder.

Its been a fantastic change for me. And I am not a young guy. I've used the old method since the start.

I also have a 6D and doesn't bother me using it. So I don't understand this R7 thumb wheel issue many complain about. Does it really cause finger cramps? The old way is more of a finger cramp. IMO

neuroanatomist · Mar 4, 2026

Feathered.lens said:
OM 150-400mm is about a stop faster at 400mm than the Canon 100-500 though. Also internal vs. external zoom. Bad comparison I guess.

Fair in that I mistyped and meant to use the OM 100-400/5-6.3 as the comparator. But as @AlanF states, the point is that for a telephoto lens the image circle is not limiting and thus there is zero point in a manufacturer making such a lens 'for crop cameras'.

Z-06 · Mar 4, 2026

Since everyone is guessing - 14-100 F1.4 for $25,000 weighing sweet 5 lbs.

Ronomy · Mar 4, 2026

Askeladden said:
Going from the R7 to R5 I missed the thumbwheel. It is a more sensible placement and makes it a lot easier to change settings on the fly.

mangobutter · Mar 4, 2026

My guess, RF 28-50 1.8 or 24-35 1.8, the latter one probably being a bit harder to make. I do not think there will be a 1.4 zoom.

Exploreshootshare · Mar 4, 2026

Omg,
My wild guess from another thread might actually become reality

time to save those Pennie’s!!!

I’d be in the market for a 24-45mm F1.4 or similar. 50-85mm would also be great

AlanF · Mar 4, 2026

Feathered.lens said:
OM 150-400mm is about a stop faster at 400mm than the Canon 100-500 though. Also internal vs. external zoom. Bad comparison I guess.

You have entirely missed @neuroanatomist 's point. The image circle of a 400mm lens is much greater than required to cover an FF sensor, and the lens can't be made smaller for crop or for M4/3. Most here know that so see my earlier post:

AlanF said:
I think we need an automatic button to click everybody time this suggestion of making dedicated teles for APS-C is posted.

Del Paso · Mar 4, 2026

70-135 f/1,4 would be very nice and useful for many.

I do not expect this zoom to cover an extreme range, f/1,4 will be already difficult to design.
But Canon have already used us to spectacular lens developments in the past, so, who knows?

Feathered.lens · Mar 4, 2026

neuroanatomist said:
Look at the Oly/OM 150-400mm, for example. It’s for m4/3 (2x crop) but it’s about the same size as the Canon 100-500 (and if OM made a FF camera, the lens would work on it).

OM 150-400mm is about a stop faster at 400mm than the Canon 100-500 though. Also internal vs. external zoom. Bad comparison I guess.