roby17269 said:

Better than nothing! But we've been told many times that for manufacturers there is more money in the lenses than in the cameras

Click to expand...

Pretty clearly. Lenses prices are outrageous and building a camera seems like hell in comparison.

AlanF said:

Canon recognises and locks on to birds faster than Sony or even more so than Nikon. However, they are meant to have stickier tracking. (Faster AF acquisition is more important for me). Recently, I was shooting Peregrines and Kestrels side-by-side with my R5ii +RF 200-800mm and someone with the Sony A1ii and the 300mm f/2.8 + 2xTC against a tricky background. I was much more successful at catching them. It's probably a software thing and they should be able to catch up.

Click to expand...

DPAF offers a great deal more focus information than Nikon or Sony have to work with. So long as Canon has that advantage, they are only limited by processing power to stay in the lead with AF. The price, of course, is continually processing twice as many pixels, so the processors are power hungry.

Canon Rumors said:

Yes, there will be a light mode. It's almost ready to test out.

Click to expand...

Cool.

DocInfoSci said:

My kiddo was the topic of interest for far-flung parents, but a cooperative model she was not! But the face pics do reflect an honesty of the moment.

Click to expand...

My daughter goes thru phases... sometimes she wants me taking photos of her, sometimes she loathes it.
Most kids are not models and don't know how to pose / emote.
That's why I much prefer taking photos from a distance when she is playing with friends (like at a bday party): you get the best happy / intense expressions and I've taken a lot of great portraits of her that way. All natural light, no flashes and no photoshop.
It's very very different from fashion / beauty photography... but I cannot deny that having learnt how to take photos of people for fashion has helped me taking photos of kids

DocInfoSci said:

Makes sense. To the chagrin of many would-be employees we interview as much for soft skills as we do technical.

Click to expand...

I interview quite a bit of candidates for the bank and so true it's difficult to find people that have both sides

DocInfoSci said:

Will do! We have a client with a branch in the region, so when it comes time I’ll shout out.

Click to expand...

justaCanonuser said:

If Nikons Z8/9 perform with that lens AF wise like with the Z 600mm f/6.3 PF + 1.4,x extender (latest one from Nikon), I'd really prefer my Canon gear. Shooting side by side with comparable settings, my R5 II + EF 600mm f/4.0 and Canon's 1.4x TC III combo focuses much more reliably than the Nikon gear. I am really disappointed, since I made that 10 k€ gift to my wife as an upgrade of their DSLR F mount gear and hoped it will bring a boost in performance. The opposite is currently the case, and my wife is an experience photographer + she uses exactly the settings recommended by Nikon and Nikon reviewers for birding. Nikon really needs to improve their underwhelming Z AF system.

Click to expand...

Canon recognises and locks on to birds faster than Sony or even more so than Nikon. However, they are meant to have stickier tracking. (Faster AF acquisition is more important for me). Recently, I was shooting Peregrines and Kestrels side-by-side with my R5ii +RF 200-800mm and someone with the Sony A1ii and the 300mm f/2.8 + 2xTC against a tricky background. I was much more successful at catching them. It's probably a software thing and they should be able to catch up.

Canis Lupus said:

Not two TC, but Nikkor Z 600mm f/4 TC VR S is something Canon should have made long ago.

NIKKOR Z 600mm f/4 TC VR S | Z mount Lenses | Nikon Consumer

Click to expand...

If Nikons Z8/9 perform with that lens AF wise like with the Z 600mm f/6.3 PF + 1.4,x extender (latest one from Nikon), I'd really prefer my Canon gear. Shooting side by side with comparable settings, my R5 II + EF 600mm f/4.0 and Canon's 1.4x TC III combo focuses much more reliably than the Nikon gear. I am really disappointed, since I made that 10 k€ gift to my wife as an upgrade of their DSLR F mount gear and hoped it will bring a boost in performance. The opposite is currently the case, and my wife is an experience photographer + she uses exactly the settings recommended by Nikon and Nikon reviewers for birding. Nikon really needs to improve their underwhelming Z AF system.

Exploreshootshare said:

omg, how heavy was this lens? According to google AI, it was 16,8 kg. Instead of a tripod one should have probably used a golf cart Useful for a safari, for sure. But for which sport would one use a lens like this?

Click to expand...

Well, Canon's 1200mm f/5.6 was still pocketable compared to the medium format 1700mm f/4.0 tele lens that Zeiss designed especially for a rich Sheikh and his Hasselblad(s). I guess this guy hasn't to carry that lens by himself .

roby17269 said:

It's quite nuanced in fashion photography... a lot depends on the quality of the team (models, stylists etc.): it's very much a team effort, while other types of photography tend to be much more individual - I've found that access to better models (say) is more important than many other factors.

Click to expand...

My kiddo was the topic of interest for far-flung parents, but a cooperative model she was not! But the face pics do reflect an honesty of the moment.

roby17269 said:

Also other types of toys (lights and modifiers) can be more important than cameras and lenses.

Click to expand...

Very true!

roby17269 said:

I am not saying that the photographer's skills / artistic vision do not matter, they do. A lot. But networking and other "soft" skills count almost as much.

Click to expand...

Makes sense. To the chagrin of many would-be employees we interview as much for soft skills as we do technical.

roby17269 said:

Let me know if you happen to pass by Jersey City / NYC

Click to expand...

Will do! We have a client with a branch in the region, so when it comes time I’ll shout out.

phree_ed said:

How I would have liked a replacement to the 15-85 for my R7 but sorry Canon - too late. I got tired of waiting and just three days ago picked up a Sigma 17-40 f1.8.

Yeah I know it's only 40mm at the long end but I've got it and I won't be stuffing around selling it and purchasing another lens.

But never say never I guess

Click to expand...

I've been using the Sigma 17-40 on my R7 for months. I won't be switching.

P-visie said:

A 600mm f4 with a built in 1.4 extender would leave only a long RF macrolens on my RF lens wishlist.

Click to expand...

I think we can expect a built-in 1.4 extender, because Nikon's current Z 600mm f/4.0 has one. I guess the old rivalry will drive Canon to come up with such a solution.

neuroanatomist said:

Canon has filed patent applications for a switchable 1.4x-2x TC, essentially a 1.4x with a second 1.4x that flips out. Not sure it will become a product, but Canon is certainly thinking about such an optic.

View attachment 228790

Click to expand...

Ah, thanks for sharing! Looks quite complex...

Maximilian said:

I finally managed to go outside again to get some fresh air.
The winter damselflies are already out again and busy reproducing.
R6m2+100-500+2xExt.@1000mm (yeah, got that one new), almost no cropping.
f/16, 1/1000, ISO1600, focus on her eyes, parallel alignment with room for improvement
But I now can declare the 2026 Franconian d&d season open

View attachment 228812

Click to expand...

About time you got the 2x! It works surprisingly well with the 100-500.

DocInfoSci said:

Talent is on a multi-point scale — I'd be surprised if most people here can't knock something epic out of the park in the right context. But I hear you, and the time I invest vs. some people I know shows in the final work, and so I regularly stand humbled.

Click to expand...

It's quite nuanced in fashion photography... a lot depends on the quality of the team (models, stylists etc.): it's very much a team effort, while other types of photography tend to be much more individual - I've found that access to better models (say) is more important than many other factors.

Also other types of toys (lights and modifiers) can be more important than cameras and lenses.

I am not saying that the photographer's skills / artistic vision do not matter, they do. A lot. But networking and other "soft" skills count almost as much.

DocInfoSci said:

Haha! That would be awesome.

Click to expand...

Let me know if you happen to pass by Jersey City / NYC

Michael Clark said:

You can say I'm the Easter bunny. It doesn't make it true.

Click to expand...

If you put colored eggs in your kids basket, it would be true for them. Not everyone has to view reality the same way - especially with linguistic terms.

roby17269 said:

Better than nothing! But we've been told many times that for manufacturers there is more money in the lenses than in the cameras

Click to expand...

The Champaign of printer ink in the modern era!

roby17269 said:

I know a few pros in the fashion photography turf (my passion) and I'm a nobody and some of them have spreads on Vogue / Harper Bazaar / Numero, etc.... but my toys beat theirs all the time.

Click to expand...

Very cool!

roby17269 said:

Clearly they are more talented than me But to the point, they treat camera / lenses / lights as tools for their work. For me they are tools for my hobby. Those tools need to make money for them, while they need to make joy for me. Different phylosophies.

Click to expand...

Talent is on a multi-point scale — I'd be surprised if most people here can't knock something epic out of the park in the right context. But I hear you, and the time I invest vs. some people I know shows in the final work, and so I regularly stand humbled.

OTOH, I'm not above buying lunch to pick their brain!

roby17269 said:

I'm actually not on the market for a long exotic tele... love them but I've only rented them for safari so far.
But I'd like a 35 1.2 thank you very much
Sigma and Nikon make one.
Sigma's new 135mm and 200mm are interesting to me as well.

Click to expand...

I love my 24 / 50 / 100 combo for people in all manners of situations, and the Godox AD400 is excellent for outdoors or rustic locations. I'd love to add a great 35 to the collection, but for the cash Canon charges for modern 35s I think I need to shore up my > 400 range. My 300 + 1.4x extender + DLO is absolutely solid for lots of stuff in motion and makes a great base to start edits from, but the 2x extender is just OK and the AF is slow. Good for deer and birdhouses, but not for things moving at a pace when combined with EVF blackout.

Decisions, decisions...

roby17269 said:

I'm more of a wine / Aperol Spritz type of guy but I'd drink with you

Click to expand...

Haha! That would be awesome.

DocInfoSci said:

But do I want a nice, more-or-less sealed 300-600 with constant aperture? Oh yeah. So, I admit, Canon would technically lose my dollars to Sigma. OTOH, they're not getting my dollars for that lens anyhow, but at least they sold the body to me.

Click to expand...

Better than nothing! But we've been told many times that for manufacturers there is more money in the lenses than in the cameras

DocInfoSci said:

Interesting. I don't know enough pros personally to make a call, but I do understand business and business decisions.

Click to expand...

I know a few pros in the fashion photography turf (my passion) and I'm a nobody and some of them have spreads on Vogue / Harper Bazaar / Numero, etc.... but my toys beat theirs all the time.
Clearly they are more talented than me But to the point, they treat camera / lenses / lights as tools for their work. For me they are tools for my hobby. Those tools need to make money for them, while they need to make joy for me. Different phylosophies.

DocInfoSci said:

I'm happy to sacrifice some aperture, critical sharpness, edge-to-edge matching sharpness, weight, or wall-to-wall sealing for 1/2 to 2/3rds the price. I don't know if I'd ultimately go with a Sigma 300-600 f/4 vs Canon's, but for the price I'd sure as heck borrow one to find out.

I'd love to see Canon or third parties recreate the spirit of the EF 300mm f/4 IS and EF 400mm f/5.6 in the modern era. Something like a silver-ring set of 300mm, 400mm, 500mm f/5.6 primes to go with the 200-800 in terms of sealing, sharpness, quality, and cost — as an example, pencil in other wishes as appropriate. If Canon does this and excludes Sigma, fine. If Canon cannot get around to it, then I'm happy for Sigma (or Fred, or Sally, or...) do something similar.

I know, I know... all beaten to death. Just daydreaming while waiting for a process to finish...

Click to expand...

I'm actually not on the market for a long exotic tele... love them but I've only rented them for safari so far.
But I'd like a 35 1.2 thank you very much
Sigma and Nikon make one.
Sigma's new 135mm and 200mm are interesting to me as well.

DocInfoSci said:

My whisky is tipped in your direction

Click to expand...

I'm more of a wine / Aperol Spritz type of guy but I'd drink with you

DocInfoSci said:

I agree in the sense of practice in the field: it's not too useful unless you're shooting each format side by side and need to synchronize effect.

Click to expand...

Exactly, and who does that, right? But again, as I think you understand, that’s not the point of the concept. The utility is here, where we’re pressing keyboard keys and not shutter buttons, on CR and other settings where photography is discussed.

The whole point is to enable appropriate comparisons of different sized sensors. Many posts on this forum (and others) indicate a wide range of misapprehensions about some technical aspects of photography, and some of those are relevant to gear use and purchasing decisions.

Just to pick one common example, many times someone will comment that a crop sensor is better for macro photography because it gives a deeper DoF. Of course, the deeper DoF is occurring only because the camera is further from the subject, which is fine if that's what you want. But if you want maximum optical magnification (e.g. 1:1), then the camera will be at the same distance from the subject regardless of the sensor size, and the FF camera will deliver a wider FoV at that 1:1 magnification, and the crop sensor will actually have a shallower DoF. Plus, if you're light limited (often the case if you're stopping down to gain DoF), then the crop image will have more noise at the high(ish) ISO you may be using. What all of that means is that 'I use a crop sensor for macro to get deeper DoF' is at best an oversimplification (and note that I haven't even touched on pixel density, diffraction, and other relevant concepts).

So what the concept of equivalence does is enable one to have an informed discussion and make informed decisions about photography gear and settings. Personally, I'm a big fan of information-driven discussions and data-driven decisions. I suppose there are some people who prefer the opposite, so for the above example maybe something like this would be helpful.

roby17269 said:

I'd argue that Sigma's 300-600 f/4, and specifically its price point, is one of the reasons Canon does not want to open RF FF AF to 3rd parties.

Click to expand...

I do worry that's the case. I like Canon gear at the L tier and I own a bunch of it, but I just don't see myself and a variety of others ever spending $10k+ in today's dollars on a single lens. There are simply other life priorities of equal pleasure and competitive expense.

But do I want a nice, more-or-less sealed 300-600 with constant aperture? Oh yeah. So, I admit, Canon would technically lose my dollars to Sigma. OTOH, they're not getting my dollars for that lens anyhow, but at least they sold the body to me.

roby17269 said:

Actually well-heeled prosumers are more likely to go for the RF native lens - pro photographers are more sensitive to money and would give Sigma's a long look. That lens is a competitor to a number of big whites.

Click to expand...

Interesting. I don't know enough pros personally to make a call, but I do understand business and business decisions.

Myself, I've stuck with the still great yet cheaper EF lenses at this time. But, the truth is that the driving factors are:

1. I already had EF lenses when RF came out and I prefer to expand capability rather than replace capability, so there was inertia.
2. The initial RF lenses that I tried all sucked when it came to full time manual focus override in servo. Af is great on the R6, but it isn't that great. The one R3 I've seen in the field still gets tricked as well. Plus, some of the lenses seem to shift focus backward when acquiring it suddenly, like when an animal appears suddenly in the frame. A lot of that seems to be fixed now by hearsay on this forum and a few personal trials of a limited nature, but again... inertia.

So cheaper is probably a pleasant coincidence more than anything else. And that really depends on the lens: some RF lenses are quite competitively priced with their EF counterparts.

I'm happy to sacrifice some aperture, critical sharpness, edge-to-edge matching sharpness, weight, or wall-to-wall sealing for 1/2 to 2/3rds the price. I don't know if I'd ultimately go with a Sigma 300-600 f/4 vs Canon's, but for the price I'd sure as heck borrow one to find out.

I'd love to see Canon or third parties recreate the spirit of the EF 300mm f/4 IS and EF 400mm f/5.6 in the modern era. Something like a silver-ring set of 300mm, 400mm, 500mm f/5.6 primes to go with the 200-800 in terms of sealing, sharpness, quality, and cost — as an example, pencil in other wishes as appropriate. If Canon does this and excludes Sigma, fine. If Canon cannot get around to it, then I'm happy for Sigma (or Fred, or Sally, or...) do something similar.

I know, I know... all beaten to death. Just daydreaming while waiting for a process to finish...

roby17269 said:

Yeah, me neither

Click to expand...

My whisky is tipped in your direction

DocInfoSci said:

Here's a really nice article that walks through an example of image equivalence:

“Equivalence” in a Nutshell | Sans Mirror | Thom Hogan

Equivalence in camera systems

www.sansmirror.com

If you're purchasing a mixture of gear, or if you're purchasing gear and want to recreate what someone else has done with different gear, or if you're in the field with different formats and attempting to achieve the same effect then this is good stuff to know.

If you have one camera and you're doing your own thing, keep calm and carry on...

Click to expand...

I own an R6-2 and an R7 and have several lenses for each. Most of my FF lenses are EF and most of the APS-C lenses are RF. Sometimes I will go out with both bodies on a Black Rapid double harness. Typically, the longer lens is on the R7 and the shorter lens is on the R6-2, for example EF 24-105 f/4 and EF 16-35 f/4 or EF 70-200 f/4 and EF 24-105 f/4. My big complaint, the one that triggered my rant, is with DOF equivalence. As far as I'm concerned, it's a marginally useless concept, especially when trying to actually capture an image.

Update: My point is that the DOF of a lens is entirely independent of the size of the sensor which receives its image.

DocInfoSci said:

Third party could be permitted, within certain quality parameters so as not to tarnisht he brand, mid-tier bridging the gap. A perfect example is Sigma's 300-600 f/4 — solid for prosumers, but likely Canon's 300-600 will be the lighter and better refined money maker pro's need.

Click to expand...

I'd argue that Sigma's 300-600 f/4, and specifically its price point, is one of the reasons Canon does not want to open RF FF AF to 3rd parties.
The RF 300-600 f/5.6 (?), assuming it will materialize as rumored, will likely cost double, more or less, than Sigma lens. Actually well-heeled prosumers (i.e. us ) are more likely to go for the RF native lens - pro photographers are more sensitive to money and would give Sigma's a long look. That lens is a competitor to a number of big whites.

DocInfoSci said:

But, not holding my breath.

Click to expand...

Yeah, me neither

roby17269 said:

DPR has interviewed Sigma's CEO [...] He then goes on extolling the benefits of crop cameras.

Click to expand...

But of course, that's where all of the Sigma RF lenses are at the moment.

It would be nice to see Canon focus on top-tier gear and essential (if it's not there, why bother with the body) lenses. Canon can produce the best of the best for L, and the most pragmatic for entry cameras (~ 15mm -> 200mm).

Third party could be permitted, within certain quality parameters so as not to tarnisht he brand, mid-tier bridging the gap. A perfect example is Sigma's 300-600 f/4 — solid for prosumers, but likely Canon's 300-600 will be the lighter and better refined money maker pro's need.

Or if Canon's specialty is transitioning to prime-like zooms (increasingly since the EF 11-24, it appears so) then let the third parties tick all the major boxes with mid-grade primes (24, 50, 100, 200, 300, 400, 500).

I'm sure the worlds can coexist to make the best combination of tier coverage, quality, profitability, and corporate resources split among R&D / manufacturing / marketing / support.

But, not holding my breath.

This is all very nice but...
Where is my 14mm TS-E ?
And, why not, a New FF Canonet?

DPR has interviewed Sigma's CEO
Sigma Interview

FWIW, here is a quote which is relevant to this discussion:

He says full‑frame still has the highest demand, which means it has to be Sigma's priority for now. But he still sees the value in APS‑C, and that opinion goes beyond the fact that Nikon and Canon have primarily allowed APS-C lenses from third-parties

Click to expand...

He then goes on extolling the benefits of crop cameras.