neuroanatomist said:

My hope is that Canon releases 1-2 lenses that I actually want to buy.

Click to expand...

My hope is that Canon releases lenses you want to buy, then you may sell a lens or two that I want to buy.

Del Paso said:

The best of 2026?
R3 II & RF 14mm TSE & RF 35mm f/1,2

Click to expand...

And the 28mm f/1.4

Planterz said:

I did. Here's the original context, which you've ignored twice now.




I'm not going to make excuses on your behalf if you're going to misread things out of context.

Click to expand...

What part of...



...don't you understand?

You might want to google "Emily Litella"?

Planterz said:

I'd say that it's pointless to argue about theoretical specs before we even know what they are, or assume that Canon hasn't improved both noise performance and resolution. I guess that's the point of these forums though.

Click to expand...

I wasn't arguing about theoretical specs, I was asking why 40MP would get more complainers than 32MP when there are lots of loud complainers no matter what Canon does with each camera they announce.

Michael Clark said:

From the 5D Mark III on, the 5-Series was the functional continuation of the 1Ds line. Higher resolution but slower handling than the 1D series. The ultimate model in terms of resolution was the 50 MP 5Ds/5Ds R.

Click to expand...

The R5 (and R5II) essentially match the 5DsR in terms of spatial resolution.

Regardless, it seems clear that the high-MP crown now sits on the 5-series and I doubt Canon will move it back to an integrated grip body.

neuroanatomist said:

Possible, but the same logic applies. If the market for such a lens was there, why did 3rd parties never make one? They made a slew of 17-50ish f/2.8 variants to match the framing of a 24-70 on FF.

Click to expand...

Well, that's exactly what we're lamenting. As I said earlier, there were rumors of Sigma making one, but obviously that hasn't happened. My only guess is that there hasn't been a "pro" or "sports" APS-C camera from Sony or Nikon to make one for, and Canon's RF mount was previously completely closed, so Sigma decided that the market wasn't big enough (or there was never a plan to make one in the first place, just rumors). I have an a6700 myself, and while it's capable for some "action", it's not really an APS-C version of the A1 or A9 by any stretch. If I slapped this hypothetical 45-135mm f2.8 on it I could shoot some basketball or volleyball or tennis, but the limitations of the camera would be quite evident.

Fuji does have a "pro" body, the X-2HS, which is, as far as I'm aware, currently the only APS-C camera with a stacked sensor. And they do have that 50-140mm f2.8, so that combo makes sense.

And again I'm repeating myself, but if this R7 II is everything it's rumored to be (except the stuff that contradicts other stuff), then it might make sense for Sigma or Tamron or whomever to make this hypothetical lens, with potentially 4 mounts to market it to, depending on if Fuji, Nikon, and/or Canon allow it. Fanciful, wishfull thinking? Of course it is - nobody implied otherwise. Just saying that it's not a completley absurd idea, and it'd be nice if it happened.

neuroanatomist said:

Fair, sorry I missed the Z. But using that lens for a budget-based comparison is a little bit contrived, right? You’re giving the 3rd party the benefit of offering a cheaper lens but using the OEM’s more expensive version as a comparator. Someone buying a 3rd party APS-C version to save money for equivant framing wouldn’t be looking at the Z.

Click to expand...

You're agreeing with me without realizing it and reiterating my point. Someone (parent, school, amatuer) on a budget could see a $3000-3500 camera/lens combo (R7 II + hypothetical ~45-135mm f2.8) that's about the cost of a $3300 lens. Not being a professional, the cheaper but very capable R7 II could be a no-brainer for such a person, except for the hanging chad that the lens doesn't exist.

neuroanatomist said:

You could also say that for $3300 one could buy the RF 70-200/2.8 non-Z and an EOS RP to put it on.

Click to expand...

Who would do that though?

john1970 said:

My focus for 2026 will still be 1-2 lens(es). I really like the slightly smaller size of the R3 Mk2 vs. R1, but I will have to see what (and if)the R3 Mk2 brings to the table.

Click to expand...

My hope is that Canon releases 1-2 lenses that I actually want to buy.

Markov said:

In the Netherlands, the R5 mark ii is ridiculously expensive. About 4600 euro, versus 3900 $ in the US.

For the R5 mark ii the difference is much less: 2950 euro in the Netherlands versus 2800 $ in the US.

No idea why this is the case.

Click to expand...

By the time we pay sales tax is the U.S. (taxes are not included in posted prices in the U.S.), for the R5 Mark II that's another $312-390 depending on location as tax rates are different in different states, counties, and cities. If we want more than a 1-year warranty it's another $199 for 2 years, $280 for 3 years, and $390 for 4 years. So with sales tax and a 5-year warranty, we pay around $4,600 USD.

For the R6 Mark III, that adds $224-280 in sales taxes and $290 for four years of CarePAK past the one-year warranty, though some dealers are giving the 2-year CarePAK version at no additional charge as an incentive at the moment. So it's actually around $3,050 with sales tax and a 3-year warranty or $3,340 for a 5-year warranty.

My focus for 2026 will still be 1-2 lens(es). I really like the slightly smaller size of the R3 Mk2 vs. R1, but I will have to see what (and if)the R3 Mk2 brings to the table.

SereneSpeed said:

I’m not sure… (I’ve wondered that myself).

The R-single-digit cameras are all unique in some way and stand-out in some way.

R1 - Flagship
R3 - First with eye detect/First integrated-grip RF mount/Technology development (a bit different than the rest)
R5 - Highest resolution
R6 - Best balance of cost and performance
R7 - Best APSC
R8 - Entry level FF

Without something like an integrated grip, I’m not sure if Canon would create a new name for the flagship APSC?

Click to expand...

These are similar to the positions of the EF mount DSLRs. Of course there was no 8D. There were no 2D, 3D, 4D, or 9D series, either. Just 1D, 5D, 6D, and 7D.

There's no guarantee there will ever be an R2 or R4 camera. Or R9 for that matter. The R6 was the continuation of the EOS R. (Yes, The EOS R has the 5D Mark IV sensor, but most everything else about it was squarely in the 6-Series niche rather than the 5-Series.) The R8 is the budget FF that began with the EOS RP. (Again, the RP had the 6D Mark II sensor, but it was not a 6-Series camera in many other respects. It was more like a FF version of the 77D: A little more than a Rebel, not quite an x0D.)

The EOS 3 FILM body was the first to offer eye controlled AF.

Prior to 2012 The 1Ds series were the resolution kings.

For all practical purposes, the 5D Mark III was the continuation of the 1Ds line, other than the gripped indestructible body and larger battery.

The 2007 1Ds Mark III was 21.1 MP, compared to the 2008 5D Mark II at 21.0 MP (which seemed at the time to be intentional to not exceed the 1Ds Mark III)
The 2004 1Ds Mark II was 16.7 MP, compared to the 2005 5D at 12.7 MP.

The 5D Mark II had only a slightly better than x0D grade AF system with only 9 AF points (plus 6 AF "Assist Points" unmarked in the viewfinder that were only active when using AI Servo AF). It was fairly poor at shot-to-shot AF consistency. It was a consumer grade AF system.

When Canon introduced the FF 18 MP EOS 1D X in 2012, they claimed it unified the APS-H 1D Series and FF 1Ds series (the most current models were the 16.1 MP APS-H 1D Mark IV that could shoot at 10 fps and the FF 21.1 MP 1Ds Mark III that was limited to 5 fps). They said they did this because processing power had reached the point where one no longer had to trade resolution for speed.

But in reality the 18 MP 1D X was a FF 1D Mark IV successor that handled faster than the APS-H 1D Mark IV but gave up resolution compared to the 21.1 MP 1Ds Mark III.

It's no coincidence that just after the 1D X was introduced, the 5D Mark III followed with 22.3 MP and the same PDAF array part number found in the 1D X. (There were some slight differences in firmware and AF menu options. A few AF menu options were only available with the 1D X, but the 5D Mark III allowed the selection and customization of several AF "cases", just as the 1-Series had exclusively offered in the past.) The frame rate increased to 6 fps from the 5D Mark II with 3.9 fps. The 5D Series now had a pro grade AF system that it had previously lacked, a frame rate faster than the 5 fps 1Ds Mark III, higher resolution than the 1Ds Mark III, and a substantially lower price tag. Many 1Ds Mark III shooters, particularly wedding photographers, migrated to the 5D Mark III or later to the 5D Mark IV.

From the 5D Mark III on, the 5-Series was the functional continuation of the 1Ds line. Higher resolution but slower handling than the 1D series. The ultimate model in terms of resolution was the 50 MP 5Ds/5Ds R.

Planterz said:

That's why we were talking about Sigma or Tamron or other 3rd party making the lens. A lot of their lenses are ones that camera manufacturers don't or don't want to make themselves.

Click to expand...

Possible, but the same logic applies. If the market for such a lens was there, why did 3rd parties never make one? They made a slew of 17-50ish f/2.8 variants to match the framing of a 24-70 on FF.

Planterz said:

The new 70-200mm Z is a $3300 lens ($3100 on sale). But if this completely hypothetical ~45-135mm f2.8 3rd party lens is around $1000 (wild assumption), and the R7 II is around $2000 (again, wild assumption) or so, then the total cost would be about that of the $3300 70-200mm Z lens. I never said "less than".

Click to expand...

Fair, sorry I missed the Z. But using that lens for a budget-based comparison is a little bit contrived, right? You’re giving the 3rd party the benefit of offering a cheaper lens but using the OEM’s more expensive version as a comparator. Someone buying a 3rd party APS-C version to save money for equivant framing wouldn’t be looking at the Z.

You could also say that for $3300 one could buy the RF 70-200/2.8 non-Z and an EOS RP to put it on.

candyman said:

Add the RF 300-600L

Click to expand...

We can only hope and dream......

I'd be interested in purchasing these:
R3 II, RF 14mm TSE, RF 35mm F/1.2, and maybe the RF 300-600mm

neuroanatomist said:

You might want to consider what you wrote above more carefully. Fuji’s lens (50-140/2.8 not 45-150) hasn’t been updated in over a decade. No other major manufacturer makes a similar lens for APS-C. So the companies that collectively sell over 85% of ILCs don’t see a market for such a lens and the one niche player that thought there was such a market has let their offering languish.

There’s a logical conclusion that can be drawn from the above facts, even if you’d prefer to ignore it.

Something else to consider is that for manufacturers that offer both APS-C and FF, having their APS-C buyers switch to FF is profitable. While people may not mind ‘abandoning’ an APS-C kit lens with a format switch, I suspect many would be reluctant to do the same with a lens costing $2000 (the old Fuji 50-140/2.8 sells for $1700, a new lens like that from Canon would likely cost more).

Click to expand...

That's why we were talking about Sigma or Tamron or other 3rd party making the lens. A lot of their lenses are ones that camera manufacturers don't or don't want to make themselves. That's why Sigma makes lenses for Canon APS-C cameras now - because Canon doesn't want to.

Even when 3rd party manufacturers make lenses that overlap 1st party lenses, they make less expensive versions. Compare the standard f2.8 zooms. For first party lenses the Nikon 16-55mm f2.8 is $900, the Fuji 16-55mm f2.8 is $1400, and the Sony 16-55mm f2.8 is freaking $1700 (prices not on sale).

Sigma's 18-50mm f2.8 however is $570 and the Tamron 17-70mm is $600. If Sigma or Tamron made a ~45-135mm f2.8 it wouldn't be cheap, but it wouldn't be anywhere near $1700-2000. $800-1200, maybe?

neuroanatomist said:

Even if Canon sold such a lens for less than the Fuji version, say $1500, your suggestion that someone could buy that lens and an R7II for less than the cost of a 70-200/2.8 ($2500) is ludicrous.

Click to expand...

I said

Planterz said:

A high school's photography/journalism department or proud parent could feasibly get the camera and lens to shoot basketball or volleyball games for about the cost of the RF 70-200mm Z (no body).

Click to expand...

The new 70-200mm Z is a $3300 lens ($3100 on sale). But if this completely hypothetical ~45-135mm f2.8 3rd party lens is around $1000 (wild assumption), and the R7 II is around $2000 (again, wild assumption) or so, then the total cost would be about that of the $3300 70-200mm Z lens. I never said "less than".

This is exciting news... it'll be interesting to see where Canon goes with the R3 II.

I'll hold-off on my Hasselblad 2Dx II purchase... would prefer a high resolution (100MP is preferred) Canon with a built-in grip! Yes, I currently have a R5 II and have added a grip.

The R5 can occupy the under 100MP range, while the R3 occupies the 100MP and up range.

Michael Clark said:

Why didn't you just say that? It was less than clear that is what you meant with what seems to be intentionally vague:

View attachment 227282

Click to expand...

I did. Here's the original context, which you've ignored twice now.

Bob Howland said:

Sigma needs to add a small 50-135 or 140 f/2.8

Click to expand...

Planterz said:

Sony users have long lamented the lack of a ~45-135mm f2.8 APS-C lens to match the common 70-200m f2.8 telephoto zoom. I think once upon a time Sigma was rumored to be working on one, but clearly that never came to be. Fuji has a 50-140mm f2.8, but they're the only APS-C maker to do so. Now that there's potentially 4 mounts (X, E, Z, RF-S), maybe it'll finally make sense for Sigma or whomever to make one.

Click to expand...

Planterz said:

If indeed the R7 II is more "entry-pro"/enthusiast level, a 70-200mm equivalent f2.8 APS-C makes a lot of sense to me. A high school's photography/journalism department or proud parent could feasibly get the camera and lens to shoot basketball or volleyball games for about the cost of the RF 70-200mm Z (no body).

Click to expand...

I'm not going to make excuses on your behalf if you're going to misread things out of context.

Planterz said:

That'd be ~45-135mm for Sony/Nikon/Fuji with a 1.5x crop or ~42-125mm on Canon's 1.6x crop. Fuji has one, the 45-150mm f2.8, but it's old and heavy, as has already been mentioned. Neither Sony, Nikon, nor Canon have made one.

Click to expand...

You might want to consider what you wrote above more carefully. Fuji’s lens (50-140/2.8 not 45-150) hasn’t been updated in over a decade. No other major manufacturer makes a similar lens for APS-C. So the companies that collectively sell over 85% of ILCs don’t see a market for such a lens and the one niche player that thought there was such a market has let their offering languish.

There’s a logical conclusion that can be drawn from the above facts, even if you’d prefer to ignore it.

Something else to consider is that for manufacturers that offer both APS-C and FF, having their APS-C buyers switch to FF is profitable. While people may not mind ‘abandoning’ an APS-C kit lens with a format switch, I suspect many would be reluctant to do the same with a lens costing $2000 (the old Fuji 50-140/2.8 sells for $1700, a new lens like that from Canon would likely cost more).

Even if Canon sold such a lens for less than the Fuji version, say $1500, your suggestion that someone could buy that lens and an R7II for less than the cost of a 70-200/2.8 ($2500) is ludicrous.

Del Paso said:

The best of 2026?
R3 II & RF 14mm TSE & RF 35mm f/1,2

Click to expand...

Add the RF 300-600L

The best of 2026?
R3 II & RF 14mm TSE & RF 35mm f/1,2

AlanF said:

Thank you. I was, in fact, a strong chess player in my youth, which was useful training for playing with pigeons. Though I now prefer to photo them. Here is one looking out of a clock taken on my R7 in a beautiful town in Tuscany this summer.

View attachment 227193

Click to expand...

Why does the shadow cast by the "little" hour hand look like a ground squirrel?

Planterz said:

For anyone who wants to continue this discussion, we were/are talking about a lens with a ~42-135mm zoom range with an f2.8 aperture.

Click to expand...

Why didn't you just say that? It was less than clear that is what you meant with what seems to be intentionally vague:

Planterz said:

I said a 70-200mm equivalent f2.8 APS-C, not a 70-200mm f2.8 equivalent APS-C.

Click to expand...

Philnick said:

We are, after all, in a discussion thread about an anticipated APS-C body - and many of us -perhaps most - see the R7 as their main camera, not merely a telextender for their full-frame setup.

Click to expand...

The R7 Mark II, if it turns out to be the camera many here think it might be, is probably not the best choice from among Canon's current or near future APS-C offerings for a generalist camera.

The current R7 or R10 (or R20 if that is the name of what replaces the R10 in the presumably near future) would continue to be a better body for a generalist using it as their only camera that what many think the R7 Mark II will be. The specifications in the rumor at the top of this thread might be interpreted by some to point in that direction. Personally, I'll believe it if and when Canon announces such a camera.

It's no different than the comparisons between the 7D Mark II and the 80D/90D.

The 80D/90D were better all around cameras for non-professional generalists (i.e. those not shooting hundred to thousands of frames per day several days per week every week of the year) using it as their main body. The 80D/90D had better DR at low ISO. The 80D and 90D only had shutter life ratings of 100,000 and 120,000 actuations, respectively. The 80D/90D had polycarbonate bodies.

The 7D Mark II was a better tool for specific use cases like birding or sports. The 7D Mark II had a shutter life rating of 200,000 actuations. The 7D Mark II had a more sophisticated and better performing AF system than the 80D/90D, particularly when using AI Servo with targets like birds in flight or fast moving athletes. It had a magnesium alloy body and was "the most thoroughly weather-sealed camera I’ve ever run across" at the time Roger Cicala took a 7D Mark II apart.

Even further back, the original 7D was the more logical successor to the 50D, while the 60D was a downgrade from the 50D in several ways. (The 50D and 7D both had AFMA, the 60D did not. That's a big difference when using fast and long telephoto lenses as many 7D users did. The 50D and 7D had magnesium alloy bodies, the 60D was a polycarbonate body. Etc. )

For what it's worth, the R7 is more of an 80D/90D type of camera than it is a 7D Mark II type of camera. It remains to be seen which way the R7 Mark II will lean.

I shoot both, but rarely did I find the need to use tilt for controlling DOF. I just stop down and am happy with the results. Since I use a tripod anyways and actually prefer long exposures, this has worked out for me.

I use shift function way, way, way more often, mainly because I stitch a lot.

The only time I really do use tilt is for product shots in studio, but that's usually with 90TS and 135TS. As far as I'm concerned, I'd be perfectly fine not having tilt functionality on 17, 24 and 50 TS lenses.

Michael Clark said:

There's very little difference in size, weight, and cost between a 70-200/2.8 with a FF image circle and a 70-200/2.8 with an APS-C image circle. The front group, which is where a significant portion of the money is spent, has to be the same size either way to allow 200mm f/2.8. The most expensive piece of glass in most 70-200mm f/2.8 is an aspherical high index (UD in Canon speak) element which is usually the second or third element in the front group.

To be f/2.8 "equivalent" for APS-C , it would need to be an f/1.8 lens, rather than f/2.8. That makes it even more expensive than a FF 70-200/2.8.

Click to expand...

Yeah. I know. I knew this before I was "corrected" by Chunk, and you just repeated what he said. Neither of you are reading what I said, and you're ignoring the context in which it was said.

Planterz said:

I said a 70-200mm equivalent f2.8 APS-C, not a 70-200mm f2.8 equivalent APS-C.

Click to expand...

We were discussing an APS-C lens to match the zoom range of the commonly used 70-200mm f2.8. That'd be ~45-135mm for Sony/Nikon/Fuji with a 1.5x crop or ~42-125mm on Canon's 1.6x crop. Fuji has one, the 45-150mm f2.8, but it's old and heavy, as has already been mentioned. Neither Sony, Nikon, nor Canon have made one.

A 42-125mm lens would give APS-C Canon users the 70-200mm equivalent range, and f2.8 would give them the same shutter speeds. It'd be smaller and lighter and presumably cheaper than a 70-200mm f2.8.

I said nothing about having an equivalent depth of field or any other sort of equivalence. Let me copy/paste it for you one more time.

Planterz said:

I said a 70-200mm equivalent f2.8 APS-C, not a 70-200mm f2.8 equivalent APS-C.

Click to expand...

I suppose I should have used the word "effective" instead, but I seriously doubt it that would prevented the inevitable flood of people arguing equivalence for several pages even though nobody postulated a theoretical and extremely unlikely 42-125mm f1.8 APS-C lens.

For anyone who wants to continue this discussion, we were/are talking about a lens with a ~42-135mm zoom range with an f2.8 aperture. This range on an APS-C camera would roughly effectively match the zoom range and field of view of the commonly used 70-200mm lenses used by professionals for indoor sports, weddings, events, and other things. The f2.8 aperture would let you shoot at the same shutter speeds, albeit with less shallow depth of field, which everybody understands and doesn't need to be argued further. It should be lighter and cheaper than a 70-200mm f2.8, which on a Canon APS-C camera would give an effective 112-320mm full frame field of view, but might be too long/narrow, especially if the situation calls for the 70-200mm field of view.

Philnick said:

Total amount of light gathered is relevant to what? Exposure and signal to noise ratio both depend only on the intensity of light hitting each photosite and the exposure time. What does total amount of light gathered across the whole sensor affect? Answer: Nothing, unless you're trying to use your camera to sunbathe.

Click to expand...

Correct answer: The ratio of signal to Poisson distribution noise. (a/k/a "shot" noise) Light has random distribution within a field from a point source. The randomness increases as the square root of the intensity. So the more photons you collect, the more uniform (thus, less random) the intensity of the field is.

scyrene said:

Mistakes won't show more easily on higher MP sensors if you view the image at the same magnification. It's only if you insist on viewing at 100% or cropping more on the higher pixel sensor that eg diffraction or camera shake will be more clearly resolved.

Click to expand...

What many pixel peepers fail to realize is that viewing at 100% from a 22MP sensor is a much lower enlargement ratio than viewing at 100% from a 50MP sensor.

On a standard FHD 24" monitor with 96ppi, at 100% you're looking at a piece of something like a 60x40 inch enlargement for the 22MP image. On the same monitor at 100% you're looking at a piece of something like a 90x60 inch enlargement for the 50 MP image. The more you enlarge, the more you magnify everything, including blur and noise.