It'd be nice if they could do a 20-105/4 IS. That would be a very versatile range.

I will maybe be able to do a comparison of a R5II and BMPCC 6k in the following days. The C50 images looks very similar to the R52 from what I can see, but I am curious to how it compares to blackmagic. Form factor seems to be the most relevant difference when comparing Canon.

24 is the classic 'scene setter' but with video stabilisation and cropping.. an actual 24 is not really wide enough. We cant have a 20-70 fast enough. This would be a major ihncentive for me to stay in the canon system as im flirting with sony right now.

A 20-70/2.8 would be nice for capturing trail running events without having to bring the RF 15-35/2.8. We're only talking 5mm here, but those 5mm can make or break an image in the forest. In fact, Canon might as well make a 15-70/2.8 and use the resources of manufacturing the 15-35/2.8 for something else. And if a 15-70/2.8 cost $4000-4500 it would still be cheaper than the 15-35 and 24-70 currently available.

Great shots!

Beautiful shots, antonn. Well done!

mimbu said:

What, exactly, is "top of the line" about an FSI sensor with poor DR due to having the readout clocks cranked up too high?

Click to expand...

If someone with credibility made that comment, maybe it would be taken seriously. But when someone who lies repeatedly makes a claim, it should be taken with the mountain of salt it deserves.

mimbu said:

Sony still sells more MILCs than Canon does.

Click to expand...

Still no data to support your lie? Yeah, not surprised.

becceric said:

Those images made my eyes open WIDE!
But I'm not buying a bandsaw.

Click to expand...

No need for a fancy bandsaw. A simple hacksaw will do.

From the piece (emphasis added):

"The EOS M6 Mark II (oh man, remember those days?) had a genius implementation of an optional EVF attachment."

I do remember those days, especially when traveling with two of them.

Well-written review; nice contribution to CR.

Tom Helmut Rathke said:

(Suddenly there's this weird thought of trading in the 14-35 for the 10-20 as well... hmmm...)

Click to expand...

I have both, the use cases for me are very different. The 10-20/4 is for when I know I want really, really wide. It’s great for travel, and I bring it along far more often than I did the EF 11-24/4. The 14-35 is great for a walk around lens in urban settings, having the close-to-normal 35mm wide end means it has more general utility for me than the 10-20.

Having said that, if most of your shots with the 14-35 are at or near the wide end (which may be the case if you only use it when you need wider than the 24mm of your standard zoom), then you might find the 10-20/4 to be a lot of fun!

R1+RF600/4, Strix aluco. Extreme low light, handheld shooting, ISO 20k, 1/15

R1 + RF600/4, Accipiter nisus builds a nest)

Canon Rumors said:

[…] combining a top of the line image sensor […]

See full article...

Click to expand...

What, exactly, is "top of the line" about an FSI sensor with poor DR due to having the readout clocks cranked up too high?

The C50 has many interesting features and should push Sony to add more to the FX3 II, but come on...there is absolutely nothing "top of the line" about the sensor.

My daily carry is a Q3. But when actually shooting with the R52, I use the RF24-70 f/2.8 the most as my run and gun combo, and sometimes have the 14-35 close by. However, if the RF20-70 f/2.8 has the same sharpness and is not much bigger/heavier, I can imagine trading in the 24-70 and may end up leaving the 14-35 in the bag more often. (Suddenly there's this weird thought of trading in the 14-35 for the 10-20 as well... hmmm...). Also, have the RF70-200 f/2.8 and agree with m4ndr4e, I too love how compact it is.

neuroanatomist said:

The 500/4 II was widely used because it was light enough for most people to handhold, while the 600/4 II was not (though personally I have one, and can handhold it just fine). The 600/4 III and RF 600/4 are actually slightly lighter than the 500/4 II. I doubt we’ll ever see an RF 500/4.

Click to expand...

I hope a new RF500 F4 will be smaller, lighter and not so expensive as the RF 600/4. This was the tendency in the EF mount.

liv_img said:

There's no sign of the 500mm f/4, the most widely used lens in wildlife photography.

Click to expand...

The 500/4 II was widely used because it was light enough for most people to handhold, while the 600/4 II was not (though personally I have one, and can handhold it just fine). The 600/4 III and RF 600/4 are actually slightly lighter than the 500/4 II. I doubt we’ll ever see an RF 500/4.

@liv_img Got to follow the money, I guess…they probably sell more than 20 of these for each big white.

Lots of wideangles lenses these last years.

Canon was always been the leading brand in the telephoto lens range, but in the RF system, it seems to have forgotten about long focal lengths: 400mm f/2.8 and 600mm f/4 recycled from older EF lenses, 800mm f/5.6 and 1200mm f/8 recycled from those same 400mm and 600mm lenses, cheap telephotos like 600mm f/11 and 800mm f/11... There's no sign of the 500mm f/4, the most widely used lens in wildlife photography. Or 400/4DO or 200-400+1.4x/4. Nor are there any of the 150mm or 180-600mm F5.6 zooms that all other brands like Nikon, Sony, Sigma, etc., offer.

Love the brand I used all my life, but feeling a bit dissapointed about that.

My JJC lens hood arrived today

I have to say, I think JJC is building them better and better.

This is my fourth or fifth JJC lens hood and it’s the best so far. The plastic is thicker than ever, and it has the same textured finish as the petal-shaped version for the RF 35mm f/1.8 (similar to some Canon EF lenses).

It’s really good, I can see why they’ve been increasing their prices.

Friendly reminder: Canon’s RF lens hoods do not have velvet on the inside either.

A 20-70/2.8 would be THE lens for concerts in narrow clubs and small venues in general. If it is a bit brighter I'd also not complain. The sensors of the newer R cameras support photography with available light and autofocus systems are good enough to shoot wide open also under more demanding conditions. Bring it on!

Greetings from Middle Franconia, Hans

josephandrews222 said:

Really?

Click to expand...

Oh absolutely, I may work the entire month without resorting to f/2, sometimes.
Usually, I only use that aperture when available light drops a lot, it’s just too much blur for most things.

@amir_photography said:

In my opinion this could be a great lens paired with the 14 f1.4 vcm lens as well, since I find myself not always using the range of 16-20 on my 15-30...

Click to expand...

Or, why not, with the "coming-some-day" 14 TSE ?

a 20-75 mmf2.0 with a 2x tc would theoretically be a 40-150 f4.0 you are forgetting that when you use a tc it decreases the amount of light into the camera where as a 1.4 tc would then be a 28- 105mm @ f2.8 and as for macro tube it would also reduce the amount of light into the camera as well. I found the formula for light loss using extension tubes it is
To calculate light loss with macro extension tubes, divide the tube length by the lens focal length to find the magnification increase, then use the formula
and for a tc it is

• 1.4x Teleconverter: Loses 1 stop of light
  
  • 1.7x Teleconverter: Loses 1.5 stops of light.
  • 2x Teleconverter: Loses 2 stops of light (e.g.
  • 
    
    
    
    
    

Tirmite said:

I bet they probably won't because then you could have a 50-150mm 2.0 and a 70-280mm 2.8 with the 1.4x converter and that would cannibalize sales of Canon's $10,000 100-300mm.

Click to expand...

Wouldn't a 50-150mm 2.0 be a 70-210mm 2.8 with the 1.4x TC? That is more competing with the 70-200mm 2.8, not the 100-300mm 2.8. The Sony is priced at US $4K. The Canon 70-200mm F2.8 Z is at US $3.1K and the non-Z version around US $2.8K. I think it could happen. Though I suspect that TC compatibility wouldn't be high in the priority list for such a lens and that weight & size would be prioritized higher.

Thanks for getting back to me. This is helpful!

neuroanatomist said:

Still here, lol. Both were shot with the 24 MP EOS R3. The football kickoff was shot from the stands, around 50 m / 160' away from the kicker, and the image is cropped to ~6 MP. The violinists were shot from my seat in the auditorium, probably about 18 m / 60' away from the front subject, and cropped to ~8 MP.Thanks

Click to expand...