According to the rumored specs list seems the third iteration of the R6 will be OK but not mindblowing.
I'm intrigued by how the new sensor will perform at ISOs above 6400 compared to the R3, what the electronic shutter readout speed will be and if the camera is able to make 14bit RAW files with electronic shutter.
The AF update will be great and the unnecessary 32MPX sensor will make shut up lots of resolution cry babies.

I wonder if the r1 or r5ii will be updated to get open gate if the r6iii does truly get it

The improved EVF (5,6 million dots) is -for me- a massive improvement! I hope it's not only a rumor, but will be confirmed.

David - Sydney said:

Yes... but I didn't have that setting properly on the RP :-(
I haven't tested it though. I wouldn't need the grip either if the RP allowed USB charging while it is working. Charging only works with it turned off (another lesson learnt)

Once I left home with the camera but with no battery. Now I always have a battery in and rotate them to an external charger.

Click to expand...

Leaving home with a camera and no battery in it? It reminds me of somebody...me!

If indeed as your last article suggests the R6 MK3 only has the standard articulating LCD and not a new a vari-angle one my choice would be set to buy a refurbished R5 MK1 for cheaper instead of the new R6 MK3.

SnowMiku said:

I'm surprised to hear the R6 II is the best selling camera, I thought the best seller would have been the R50, interesting!

Click to expand...

I am not surprised, the R6 II is an attractive FF powerhouse given its price. I was really hesitant for a while whether I should go for an R6 II/III or an R5 II. Finally I decided for the latter to have more resolution for tele shooting available, but for many purposes I still think 20-24 MP is a sweet spot for FF. Also if one compares the R6 II e.g. to Nikon's Z5 II - my wife has one - Canon's offering is much more attractive in many respects. One of Canon's big advantages for wildlife/action shooting is the option to switch actively on/off eye recognition when animal subject recognition is active. In some quite frequent settings, e.g. a bird in water with a lot of reflecting waves, eye recognition is easily distracted. In the Nikon system, you can't switch it off, so it doesn't work properly in such settings.

David - Sydney said:

Laowa's 200/2 with AF for EF is an a very interesting option. It may not have fantastic focusing speed compared to Sigma's version but it isn't available for EF/RF anyway.

Click to expand...

One of my fav lenses is Canon's EF 85mm f/1.2 II, which isn't a fast focusing lens, too. But I used it even for street already.

David - Sydney said:

It sees behind the lens with 220 degree coverage. tripods, feet and fingers will be the challenge except if I shoot directly vertically for night sky/milky way.

Click to expand...

Classical crazy fisheye, good for stunning effects. Personally, not my cup of tea, since I prefer more the tele sort of looking into this world (even landscape), but I am fascinated by such crazy lenses, too, for sort of arts photography. I should take out my lensbaby lens again, after many years I didn't touch it...

David - Sydney said:

I will be focusing at infinity and will need to tape the focus ring to stop it from moving but it is possible to focus up close with MFD ~8cm ie almost touching the front element.

Click to expand...

I'd love to see your images. On youtube a German guy who introduced to this lens explains that when he shoots free-hand he has to hold the camera with the hands more on its back side so they don't protrude into the image. I'd use a tripod instead of shooting free-hand.

snapshot said:

hope you can dig up MTF for all 4 of these 200 F/2 or 1.8. i have thought about the EF 200 lenses from time to time, but wonder if i would really take it anywhere. would it really displace my 70-200 f/2,8 which gets great images.

Click to expand...

The 1.8L I've only seen in a few places by they are long since gone. They were essentially a flat line. I'd say the Sigma's MTF is similar.

Keep in mind the laowa was shot with a 50MP A1 II and considered "soft" by some wide open, but that far exceeds anything we had to test with when the EF 200mm F2.0L came out, the 1Ds Mark III was 21MP, which was considered "insanely high resolution" at the time.

The EF 2.0L MTF is in the article itself.

If you have and love the 70-200 f2.8, then probably not? The 200mm f/2's were always some pretty special use case lenses.

Richard CR said:

medicore lens design is an interesting choice of words. You do realize this is sharper wide open than the 200mm f2L, yes? the only one that was sharp wide open was the legendary 200mm F1.8L.

Sigma is 25% or so more expensive than the Laowa and also larger, and it's not available for Canon RF, and will most likely never be. so, no, that's not an apples to apples comparsion. So why compare it to a lens that is considerably more expensive, and if you have an RF camera, you'll never be able to use?

Click to expand...

hope you can dig up MTF for all 4 of these 200 F/2 or 1.8. i have thought about the EF 200 lenses from time to time, but wonder if i would really take it anywhere. would it really displace my 70-200 f/2,8 which gets great images.

David - Sydney said:

I agree that some RF lenses have made some EF lenses not relevant anymore. Not releasing a 300/2.8 (or f4) due to 100-300/2.8 is one area but adds cost and weight.
No 500mm or 200-400/4 replacement makes sense if a 200-500/4 is ever released but until then...
Not having mid-priced teles besides RF100-500 is a gap that has let Nikon/Sony bodies and lenses in. How much of a loss is unknowable.
The cheaper end with rf200-800, 600/11, 800/11 is well covered as well as the pointy end of the market.
The Chinese lens makers may be the solution for Canon's reticence and for niche lenses... we shall see.

Click to expand...

The (rumored) RF 300-600mm lens will be Canon’s answer to the “cheap” Nikon PF telelenses. This lens will also replace the EF 200-400mm f4 +1.4 extender. If the rumors are correct, we’ll known in a few weeks.

BFG9000 said:

The softness issue is due to a mediocre lens design.
I think there's nothing more apples to apples than compare two 200mm f/2 lenses released almost simultaneously. BTW, Laowa claims that the lens 'provides flagship level results'.
You can always get the Canon EF 200mm f/2L.

Click to expand...

medicore lens design is an interesting choice of words. You do realize this is sharper wide open than the 200mm f2L, yes? the only one that was sharp wide open was the legendary 200mm F1.8L.

Sigma is 25% or so more expensive than the Laowa and also larger, and it's not available for Canon RF, and will most likely never be. so, no, that's not an apples to apples comparsion. So why compare it to a lens that is considerably more expensive, and if you have an RF camera, you'll never be able to use?

ctk said:

Whats the deal with this? I have an a7cII but miss Canon colors/ergos/menus. And there are enough STM lenses for me to scrape by with (28-70/2.8, 35/1.8, 14-35/L, 24-240)

Just a bummer they don't have a modern sensor in the ~3x MP range. But the 24MP is good and the Mk1 45MP sensor seems to be going for cheap

Click to expand...

I switched to Sony a7riii from xt3 from 6d from 5dii* two years ago and hate the colors- love the resolution, I’m pining* for this re1 to bring me back to canon even if it’s with adapted ef. Hbu?

No, I am not checking canon rumors on a weekly/ daily basis for updates about the re 1. That is a flat out lie.

BFG9000 said:

You can always get the Canon EF 200mm f/2L.

Click to expand...

Only from the second hand market and as it was a low volume lens, it would be hard to find in some countries.
It may also still be more expensive than a second hand one plus heavier/bigger.
If not apples-to-apples then maybe horses-for-courses

Del Paso said:

There's also the R8's "horrible" EVF, compared to the R6's. I could never get used to the R's (3,69 million dots). The R 8 has only 2,36 million dots...
Though I know many wouldn't care, a good EVF is essential for me.

Click to expand...

The EVF in the R6II is a lot larger and higher resolution that the units found in the R8 and R7. The R8’s lack of a 3rd dial, joystick and tiny battery all add up to a slightly frustrating camera. However, the lack of IBIS give its shared 24mp sensor a slight sharpness edge over the R6II.
It’s also super light and very small. It’s also beautifully made. I’m amazed Canon managed to squeeze a flappy screen on it.

David - Sydney said:

Is the softness issue primarily because of the direct comparison with the Sigma (and Canon) which is more expensive, larger and heavier?
Is it really an apples-to-apples comparison especially when the Sigma is not available for EF/RF anyway?
What other options exist for RF users besides the 70-200/2,8 zooms?

Click to expand...

The softness issue is due to a mediocre lens design.
I think there's nothing more apples to apples than compare two 200mm f/2 lenses released almost simultaneously. BTW, Laowa claims that the lens 'provides flagship level results'.
You can always get the Canon EF 200mm f/2L.

Is the softness issue primarily because of the direct comparison with the Sigma (and Canon) which is more expensive, larger and heavier?
Is it really an apples-to-apples comparison especially when the Sigma is not available for EF/RF anyway?
What other options exist for RF users besides the 70-200/2,8 zooms?

m4ndr4ke said:

Wouldn't the same happen to the R5, if it had auto-standby off as well?

Click to expand...

Yes... but I didn't have that setting properly on the RP :-(
I haven't tested it though. I wouldn't need the grip either if the RP allowed USB charging while it is working. Charging only works with it turned off (another lesson learnt)

m4ndr4ke said:

I usually keep my RP on top of the desk all week, to photograph the cats. It's always turned on but I allow it to sleep. The battery lasts well over a week, that way. After work, usually I don't charge the battery that is inside the RP, I just put it to personal use as is, and charge it just before leaving for a new assignment.

Click to expand...

Once I left home with the camera but with no battery. Now I always have a battery in and rotate them to an external charger.

blackcoffee17 said:

Replacing some EF lenses wouldn't make sense these days, like the EF 200mm 2.8 or the 400 5.6 or maybe even the 500 F4. Also, many RF lenses never had an equivalent in EF, like the 16mm 2.8, 24-240 or 28-70 2.8 and F2.

Click to expand...

I agree that some RF lenses have made some EF lenses not relevant anymore. Not releasing a 300/2.8 (or f4) due to 100-300/2.8 is one area but adds cost and weight.
No 500mm or 200-400/4 replacement makes sense if a 200-500/4 is ever released but until then...
Not having mid-priced teles besides RF100-500 is a gap that has let Nikon/Sony bodies and lenses in. How much of a loss is unknowable.
The cheaper end with rf200-800, 600/11, 800/11 is well covered as well as the pointy end of the market.
The Chinese lens makers may be the solution for Canon's reticence and for niche lenses... we shall see.

P-visie said:

People who compare the RF lens line up with Canon’s EF lens line up also tend to overlook the fact that the camera market has shrunk dramatically since the heydays of the EF mount. It is unrealistic to expect that Canon will produce an RF replacement for very EF lens.

Click to expand...

Maybe unrealistic but it hasn't stopped Canon from producing some innovative RF lenses.
My point was that if Canon isn't willing to compete in certain market segments then they should license a 3rd party if they are interested.
Win-win-win for Canon, 3rd party and users.

justaCanonuser said:

I think that's the best approach, since Canon's EF-RF adapters work extremely well. I'll keep some of my EF lenses for a while, including a few 3rd party lenses.

Click to expand...

Laowa's 200/2 with AF for EF is an a very interesting option. It may not have fantastic focusing speed compared to Sigma's version but it isn't available for EF/RF anyway.

justaCanonuser said:

Now that's a wide angle - with such an ultra-wide lens you don't need AF, even wide open
Btw not only Chinese makers of manual focusing lenses (may) produce lenses for Canon's RF mount: Zeiss offer their Otus 50mm and 85mm f/1.4's for Canon's RF mount, too.

Click to expand...

It sees behind the lens with 220 degree coverage. tripods, feet and fingers will be the challenge except if I shoot directly vertically for night sky/milky way.

I will be focusing at infinity and will need to tape the focus ring to stop it from moving but it is possible to focus up close with MFD ~8cm ie almost touching the front element.

It's sharp only from f2.8 so it's a no for me, there are 70-200's especially for EF with equal sharpness at same aperture but the bonus of being able to zoom backwards, and also cheaper to buy; see Chris Frost's side to side with Sigma, posted 10mins ago (yesterday he also posted full dedicated review):

roby17269 said:

I guess I was debating the "overly expensive" bit - compared to other 200 f/2 lenses (I had the EF one)

Pity though: I liked the EF 200 f/2 a lot and I could use a new one... the price is great, and it could have made me overlook the need for an adapter... but the softness fully open is a big no-no for me

Click to expand...

Same here. The lack of fast focusing and soft wide open are deal breakers for me regardless of the price. Once I factor in the EF-RF drop in adapter and sales tax the total cost is $2400, which is still a significant amount of money.

Richard CR said:

Laowa today has officially announced the Laowa AF 200mm FF 200m F2.0 C-Dreamer lens, the first Chinese manufacturer to make one of the big and fast halo lenses. Laowa touts several key advantages over its OEM and Sigma competition, including the size, weight, and price of the telephoto prime, with the Laowa lens being smaller, […]

See full article...

Click to expand...

And because it is EF, it does auto-focus? I didn't see that mentioned in the story.