Latest activity

danfaz · May 3, 2026

Found a new use for pre-capture on the R5m2...lightning strikes!

ISv · May 3, 2026

Few more shots of Common waxbill from today.

@amir_photography · May 3, 2026

Exploreshootshare said:
A new remote? That tiny little detail in this rumor is what might actually interest me Does anybody use the Canon BR-E1 with the Canon R5? I´d love to hear about your experience. I´m getting tired of using "camera connect" as a remote and I am actively searching for BT option. It would be great if I can find one with a timer or a small display that shows the time in bulb mode. I am open for any suggestions

I actually have both, but I never used them together since that's not my style of photography.. I can check once I get back home

scyrene · May 3, 2026

neuroanatomist said:
I think Canon has done just that with the RF 600/11 and 800/11 and the RF 200-800

Precisely this! We couldn't have dreamed of lenses like this in the EF days.

neuroanatomist · May 3, 2026

OldrockyGN said:
I don't understand your response. I'm not a lens designer - just a simple(?) user. On the surface your response
seems to be based upon "the status quo" ... it doesn't seem, to me, to address my comments about how good
today's cameras are at high ISO values and IS.

Two points.

First, I think Canon has done just that with the RF 600/11 and 800/11 and the RF 200-800, which is f/9 at the long end. With such narrow apertures and a need for a fast shutter for moving subjects, high ISOs are often necessary. The fact that those lenses are much slower than the f/5.6 (and f/6.3 from other manufacturers) and thus much smaller/lighter/cheaper is quite consistent with designs taking the high ISO capabilities of modern cameras into account (and also their ability to AF with narrow apertures).

Second, you referred to a hypothetical 500-800mm f/11 zoom lens because the existing 200-800 is too large for travel, and my point about the other lenses is that your hypothetical lens won't be any smaller than the existing 200-800, which is only 2/3-stop slower than the prime at the long end (and making it a constant f/11 zoom won't help with size or weight).

OldrockyGN · May 3, 2026

Neuro,
I don't understand your response. I'm not a lens designer - just a simple(?) user. On the surface your response
seems to be based upon "the status quo" ... it doesn't seem, to me, to address my comments about how good
today's cameras are at high ISO values and IS. Maybe I used a 'bad example' but to me I am still wondering
why we don't have "new concepts of lens design" based upon accepted high(er) ISO values and current
image stabilization ... maybe what I'm asking for is a long focal length mirror lens? Just to be perfectly
clear on my motives ... I'm a birding photographer (not a videographer) who wants "more reach" in a
lens that is -very- capable of being hand held, and of being "the only lens I take with me when traveling
around the world to take pictures of birds". So I need a lens that is light and small enough to put in my
travel backpack - which the RF 100-500, mounted on the camera, does very well. I also take my 1.4 extender
and -one- "landscape lens" (the RF 24 -105).
- Jim in the PNW

OldrockyGN · May 3, 2026

neuroanatomist said:
Considering a 500-800/11 zoom, it's not going to be any smaller than the current RF 800/11, rather it will be slightly larger than that...pretty much the same size as the 200-800. Compare those two lenses with the 800/5.6. Also keep in mind that the 800/11 needs to be extended to use it, even though it's not a zoom lens.

View attachment 229279

AlanF · May 3, 2026

Sorry, but I do feel I have to correct misinformation and myths, here about the RF 200-800mm at 800mm. I bought both the RF 100-500mm and 200-800mm on the first days they were released and use both regularly. @foda has been taking what are among the very best , sharp, bird photos posted here using the RF 200-800mm in several continents, and @Dragon great humming birds. @Nemorino , I and other regular posters in the bird thread are also getting sharp shots at 800mm. I've done extensive tests on it. And not many of us have had the lens break in two.

https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/threads/summary-of-my-rf-200-800mm-testing.43239/

Internal zoom telephotos are usually heavier and more expensive than extending ones. Canon's 600mm f/11 is hardly heavy and big compared with the RF 100-500mm. The prime weighs in at under 1kg compared with the 1.6kg of the zoom with its tripod foot and hood, is the same length retracted and shorter than when both extended.

neuroanatomist · May 3, 2026

Considering a 500-800/11 zoom, it's not going to be any smaller than the current RF 800/11, rather it will be slightly larger than that...pretty much the same size as the 200-800. Compare those two lenses with the 800/5.6. Also keep in mind that the 800/11 needs to be extended to use it, even though it's not a zoom lens.

foda · May 3, 2026

AlanF said:
It's always exciting for us to see the first Cuckoo of the year - they are very elusive and they are easily heard but not seen. Ours was yesterday. I am posting the not at all exciting images of a very far away bird to show that the R7 + RF 100-400mm used by wife (the first shot) gives results hardly distinguishable from that of my much more expensive and heavier R5ii + RF 100-500mm (both very heavily cropped and not reduced in size). At that distance and image size, you are looking at pixel-peeping resolution.

View attachment 229268 View attachment 229269

Thanks for that direct, in-the-field, comparison! It's always great to have good data like this.

OldrockyGN · May 3, 2026

Why aren't there lenses like a 500-800 with a reasonable, but not super-fast
aperture (say f11)?

For birding (and for all wildlife and a lot of sports photography too?) it seems to me that
lens design hasn't "kept up" with the realities of the recent cameras ... I'm finding that I
have lots of 'options' to shoot in low light with a 'slower' lens - because my R5m2 is so
good at getting very acceptable images at high ISO values. And let's not forget the IS.

On a recent trip to Ecuador we were often out of the lodge well before sunrise and "on the
birding ground" as well. AND shooting under the canopy. Several times when I turned
on the camera (which defaulted to 1/4000 or 1/3000) the viewfinder was -way- too
dark ... then I'd roll the shutter speed down to what seemed like crazy slow speeds
and the birds would become visible, shots would result in not just usable but good
exposures. Not "great" but way better than "just acceptable".

Canon's 600 prime is only f11. I rented one for a couple of weeks. Big, heavy, and
no real advantage over the 100-500 with a 1.4. I own the RF 200-800 - but am
seriously considering selling it because it is just too big to travel with ... and pretty
"soft" above 600mm. And that weakness with respect to the way it breaks ....

Wouldn't a 'fast enough, small zoom range, long telephoto, light weight' be possible?
And maybe it should even be an internal zoom?
- Jim

john1970 · May 3, 2026

This lens fills a nice gap if one already has the 10-20 mm f4 and 70-200 mm f4 lenses. Great trio for landscapes and relatively compact for all three lenses.

neuroanatomist · May 3, 2026

rombe3jr said:
I do not understand this release. It is very similar to the C50 that was just released.

Fewer features, lower cost. Seems straightforward.

foda · May 3, 2026

Noreaster said:
View attachment 229230 View attachment 229231 View attachment 229232 View attachment 229233 View attachment 229234

Super happy with the American Bittern. It is so hard to get close to these things.

Excellent photos of the American Bittern! I got some long-distance views of the Pinnated and Least Bitterns last month in Belize, but your photos are better'n what I got...

ISv · May 3, 2026

AlanF said:
It's always exciting for us to see the first Cuckoo of the year - they are very elusive and they are easily heard but not seen. Ours was yesterday. I am posting the not at all exciting images of a very far away bird to show that the R7 + RF 100-400mm used by wife (the first shot) gives results hardly distinguishable from that of my much more expensive and heavier R5ii + RF 100-500mm (both very heavily cropped and not reduced in size). At that distance and image size, you are looking at pixel-peeping resolution.

View attachment 229268 View attachment 229269

These are very difficult to approach...

Dragon · May 3, 2026

AlanF said:
It's always exciting for us to see the first Cuckoo of the year - they are very elusive and they are easily heard but not seen. Ours was yesterday. I am posting the not at all exciting images of a very far away bird to show that the R7 + RF 100-400mm used by wife (the first shot) gives results hardly distinguishable from that of my much more expensive and heavier R5ii + RF 100-500mm (both very heavily cropped and not reduced in size). At that distance and image size, you are looking at pixel-peeping resolution.

View attachment 229268 View attachment 229269

The 100-400 even holds up pretty well with the R7 and 1.4 extender. Some diffraction loss, but otherwise decent and sooooo light.

mimbu · May 3, 2026

Del Paso said:
They should hire you as the universal genius!

They could do to learn from the best when it comes to run&gun video setups, and that would be Sony. That's not to say Sony is the best at everything, but they are the best at this.

Edit: Laugh all you want, Sony owned the run&gun market with the FX3 and ZV-E1 for years. Before that with the A7S and A7SII. Finally Canon releases the C50 (with a yesteryear FSI sensor) and Sony is coming back with a fully stacked FX3 II monster that's due this summer.

mimbu · May 3, 2026

Billybob said:
Intriguing lens. I automatically think of the Sony 20-70mm lens, which was $1100 on release. The Sony is a G lens rather than GM, which roughly corresponds to Canon's L, which means that Canon will undoubtedly have superior IQ, albeit with a shorter focal range. Nonetheless, the Sony gets favorable IQ reviews. I picked it up to shoot with my Sony A7rIV (60MP) as a compact standard-zoom range. The IQ was okay, but the 20-24mm additional range was less compelling to me than I thought. I ended up picking up the 24-70mm GM lens, which--though bigger-- is not that big and has much better IQ for my taste. When I need to go wide--or ultra wide--the Canon 14-35mm does the job much better for me, and I hope no problem carrying two lenses (and two bodies ). I started this post by calling this lens intriguing--which I'm sure it is for some--but not for me.

Being PZ, it's more like Sony's 16-35/4G PZ which sells for $1300 today. Excellent lens. But it sounds like the Canon is going to be a whole lot bigger and heavier which makes it pretty gimbal-unfriendly. I guess we'll see on release.

Del Paso · May 3, 2026

mimbu said:
So it's a lens for video shooters designed for gimbal use (PZ, internal zoom), but it starts at 20mm and is really big (24-105/4L size)...?

What is Canon thinking??

For a lot of gimbal use 20mm isn't really wide enough and the 24-105/4L is huge. This seems like an odd lens. I can only assume that Canon knows something I don't. (Or maybe Canon is still clueless about the needs of run&gun video? That's certainly possible.)

They should hire you as the universal genius!

gwb · May 3, 2026

Remove the AA filter from the sensor.

rombe3jr · May 3, 2026

I do not understand this release. It is very similar to the C50 that was just released.

SirIssacNewton · May 3, 2026

Turkey Vulture taken with my Canon R8 and RF 600mm f11

Billybob · May 3, 2026

Intriguing lens. I automatically think of the Sony 20-70mm lens, which was $1100 on release. The Sony is a G lens rather than GM, which roughly corresponds to Canon's L, which means that Canon will undoubtedly have superior IQ, albeit with a shorter focal range. Nonetheless, the Sony gets favorable IQ reviews. I picked it up to shoot with my Sony A7rIV (60MP) as a compact standard-zoom range. The IQ was okay, but the 20-24mm additional range was less compelling to me than I thought. I ended up picking up the 24-70mm GM lens, which--though bigger-- is not that big and has much better IQ for my taste. When I need to go wide--or ultra wide--the Canon 14-35mm does the job much better for me, and I hope no problem carrying two lenses (and two bodies

). I started this post by calling this lens intriguing--which I'm sure it is for some--but not for me.

neuroanatomist · May 3, 2026

Canon Rumors said:
...if Canon isn't doing any of their computational tricks, which I hope won't be the case.

That would be a surprise. Certainly other hybrid-use lenses do so, including the RF 24-105/2.8L Z.

Kjsheldo said:
Since it has internal zoom, then I would guess the size would be close to 24-105 f4 collapsed, but I’m hoping it is closer to size and weight of the 14-35mm

The 24-105/4L is only ~7 mm longer than the 14-35/4L, that doesn't bother me as either is fine to use on an R8 (in my use cases for that camera). Like you, I hope that the 20-50/4L is closer to the weight of the UWA zoom than the standard zoom, and I suspect that will be the case.

I guess we'll know in 10 days.

mimbu · May 3, 2026

Canon Rumors said:
Yes, it's an internal zoom.

So it's a lens for video shooters designed for gimbal use (PZ, internal zoom), but it starts at 20mm and is really big (24-105/4L size)...?

What is Canon thinking??

For a lot of gimbal use 20mm isn't really wide enough and the 24-105/4L is huge. This seems like an odd lens. I can only assume that Canon knows something I don't. (Or maybe Canon is still clueless about the needs of run&gun video? That's certainly possible.)

Latest activity

Latest activity

Attachments

Filter

Forum statistics

Gallery statistics