Latest activity

Tom R5R7 · Jun 4, 2026

It appears that crop sensor bodies are the redheaded stepchild of multiple brands. Birders of limited means are not amused.

neuroanatomist · Jun 4, 2026

No one should be surprised when Canon gives little love to the 7-series, their red-headed stepchild.

Bob Howland · Jun 4, 2026

Craig,, has there been any more input about the resolution of the R7-2 and/or R7V? One conjecture had it at 7680 pixels horizontal.

Next question, you shoot professional basketball, which is a crowded and chaotic sport, and have mentioned pre-capture as an excuse for upgrading my R6-2 to an R6-3.. Do you use pre-capture most or all of the time when shooting basketball?

AlanF · Jun 4, 2026

Common Terns are always spectacular in flight and fishing (R5ii + RF 200-800mm).

roby17269 · Jun 4, 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!

It seems to me that the 50 1.2 (I have one and love it) would fail both of your criteria... I am sure that there are other lenses that would fit those criteria better.
The 50 1.2 does not sell in a lot of copies and I couldn't see a new one having massively better IQ, which is its most important characteristic.

And I would not buy a new hypothetical 50 1.2 that would achieve smaller size / lighter weight by compromising with optical design with digital corrections.

Generally speaking, my humble opinion is that there are a number of gaps in the RF lineup to fill before Canon should start looking at mkII versions. Especially not for lenses without glaring issues.
So far they have updated only the 70-200 2.8, but even then the 2 lenses are sufficiently different that you wouldn't call the Z a mkII of the original.

Skyfall · Jun 4, 2026

noname said:
1. The latest rumor is a never-seen-before prime and zoom.
2. A rumor from.last November is about a 300-600mm supertele and a 20/24-70mm f/2.8L Z.
3. My logic would suggest a 70-180mm f/2.8 IS STM and a "cheap" 400mm prime.
4. In the macro department a 50mm 1:1 and 180mm 1:1 are still.missing.
5. Among the first RF lenses the one to be replaced asap (imho) is the 28-70mm f/2 (and a 70-150mm to add to this series).

So I do not see a new 35mm macro to come in the foreseeable future.

If they can make it 50-150 f2.8 it would be even better, the perfect compliment to a wide angle zoom. I dont necerarily know what something like a 400mm prime would actually give that the 100-500 does not have. Maby if they make it f4.5 and very light?

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.