Latest activity

Froschphoto · Apr 21, 2026

I would be so into a 300-600 5.6 that would hopefully be a decent weight.

DocInfoSci · Apr 21, 2026

neuroanatomist said:
No, it's not. That was the point...you stated that you would rather have a supertelephoto prime than a zoom, and indicated that the distortion correction required for your wide angle lenses was one reason. The point was that what you see in terms of distortion at 24mm is not relevant for 500mm prime vs. a zoom lens covering that range (e.g. 300-600mm).

If you're telling me I shouldn't use my experience with what I have to make a judgement call then we are disagreed.

I was using my experience of like to like at the 24 range, and then extrapolating that relationship to a posited 500 to 500-zoomed relationship for something I don't have.
I was not looking at 200 vs 24 (etc.) and going... oh yeah, those totally have different distortion patterns.

If you're telling me you both happen to know better because you have the lenses and it's going to be OK, then I appreciate the insight!

It wasn't clear to me that's what was happening.

I'd still buy both: the zoom for tricky situations where lens changes are foolish or impractical yet necessary, and the prime for a more zen like experience to my taste.

neuroanatomist · Apr 21, 2026

DocInfoSci said:
Not so sure this is a valid comparison. 200mm to 24mm?

No, it's not. That was the point...you stated that you would rather have a supertelephoto prime than a zoom, and indicated that the distortion correction required for your wide angle lenses was one reason. The point was that what you see in terms of distortion at 24mm is not relevant for 500mm prime vs. a zoom lens covering that range (e.g. 300-600mm).

DocInfoSci · Apr 21, 2026

neuroanatomist said:
Just to drive Alan's point home, compare the distortion of the RF 200-800 to that of the EF 24/1.4L II prime that you prefer for its 'lower distortion'.

https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Lens-Distortion.aspx?FLI=0&FLIComp=0&Lens=1677&Camera=1508&LensComp=823

Not so sure this is a valid comparison. 200mm to 24mm?

OK, quick switch in the tool for an apples to apples comparison... and the tool doesn't really tell me the end effect, however. I expect distortion, and if you compare the lenses I mentioned (24 1.4 ii vs 24-70 4) then both look distorted in the tool and yet in the real world the difference is so huge after correction I thought I had my zoom set to the wrong length the first time I stared at the test shots side by side (I was using the zoom to quickly decide the desired framing in an unfamiliar room arrangement for a portrait later in the day, and later slapped on the prime for the wider aperture).

I would be very interested in comparing real world tripod-anchored shots of the 200-800 set to 500 and an actual 500. I cannot reproduce that at home.

Regardless, my point good fellows was this: in the lenses I have — of which just one example is the 24 vis-a-vis the 24-70 — this "crop" is noticeable. It remains noticeable for my 24, 40, 50, and 100 primes vs my zooms in controlled situations. I agree that the effect is less for longer lengths. Maybe, but I don't know, moot by the time 500 rolls around. You say moot, I say I have to trust you but cannot know for myself in advance.

Which leads to my second point: I have a personal preference arising from situations like this (and combined with vignetting, etc.) for primes over zooms at the same or similar lengths. I just like primes. You guys like zooms. I'd still hang out with you in the Rockies despite your preference.

It's not like the effect is world changing — running around with a prime and a zoom covering the same range taking pictures of dogs, horses, and people will not be noticeable. It's just noticeable if I have a vision and plunk down in a location for a specific framing and spatial relationship. I suspect the more pragmatic differences are things like f/5.6 at 500 vs 7.1 for the 200-800 @ 500, etc.

rombe3jr · Apr 21, 2026

I hope it has the R6 III / C50 sensor. Also, one point of potential confusion in the future, after Canon releases the R6 IV probably in late 2027 would then come the R6… V (5) correct? So how would Canon differentiate these two cameras?

sanj · Apr 21, 2026

Baywoof said:
To me, a "retro" camera is one you put on the shelf, and stays there except when you want to show it off to a relative.

There have been many many fantastic photos made from retro cameras. Your comment does not make much sense, sir.

DocInfoSci · Apr 21, 2026

AlanF said:
There is a complete difference between comparing a 24mm zoom with a 500mm zoom when it comes to distortion. There is minimal inherent distortion from 500mm lens as the inherent curvature from a 500mm radius over a 36mm frame is tiny compared with that from a 24mm radius over 36mm, which requires massive optical and digital correction.

Good to know. I don't have a 500mm or 600mm zoom to compare with at this time, just Canon and Nikon primes in those ranges. I had assumed similar issues, however.

neuroanatomist · Apr 21, 2026

DocInfoSci said:
]I'm amazed at how much distortion correction eats into the scene, plus other issues, when comparing my shots from a tripod with prime vs zoom at same length. The EF 24mm 1.4 II captures a noticeable extra chunk over the 24-70 f/4 set to 24 as an example when corrections are applied.

Just to drive Alan's point home, compare the distortion of the RF 200-800 to that of the EF 24/1.4L II prime that you prefer for its 'lower distortion'.

https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Lens-Distortion.aspx?FLI=0&FLIComp=0&Lens=1677&Camera=1508&LensComp=823

AlanF · Apr 21, 2026

DocInfoSci said:
Canon EF 400mm f/5.6L USM | Super Telephoto Lens

The Canon EF 400mm f/5.6L USM super telephoto lens has one super UD-glass element with characteristics similar to fluorite and one UD-glass element, resulting in sharp pictures from corner-to-corner.

www.canon.ca

https://www.cpricewatch.com/product/00035/Canon-EF-400mm-f5.6L-USM-price.html?streetprice

Canon says if you still have one in stock then sell it at $1,599 CAD. In 2026. I didn't make the numbers up.

Totally fair! And I trust your opinion on lens quality comparisons for things like birds, etc.

I do think that the zoom + prime combo at either tier for likely pricing ranges would be solid. I'm amazed at how much distortion correction eats into the scene, plus other issues, when comparing my shots from a tripod with prime vs zoom at same length. The EF 24mm 1.4 II captures a noticeable extra chunk over the 24-70 f/4 set to 24 as an example when corrections are applied. I agree that zooms are the ultimate in convenience when subjects move much closer or further, but when the situation permits I prefer to reach for a prime instead. Extra nice is that my better half and I can split the set and she can carry the zoom while I futz with the prime.

There is a complete difference between comparing a 24mm zoom with a 500mm zoom when it comes to distortion. There is minimal inherent distortion from 500mm lens as the inherent curvature from a 500mm radius over a 36mm frame is tiny compared with that from a 24mm radius over 36mm, which requires massive optical and digital correction.

DocInfoSci · Apr 21, 2026

AlanF said:
The EF 400/5.6 L was introduced in 1993 at $1250, which equates to $2750 in 2026, to put in perspective.

Canon EF 400mm f/5.6L USM | Super Telephoto Lens

The Canon EF 400mm f/5.6L USM super telephoto lens has one super UD-glass element with characteristics similar to fluorite and one UD-glass element, resulting in sharp pictures from corner-to-corner.

www.canon.ca
https://www.cpricewatch.com/product/00035/Canon-EF-400mm-f5.6L-USM-price.html?streetprice

Canon says if you still have one in stock then sell it at $1,599 CAD. In 2026. I didn't make the numbers up.

AlanF said:
It was popular because there was no alternative. For a while, my favourite lens was the Nikon 500mm f/5.6 PF, an absolute cracker of a lens. However, I don’t miss it a bit as the RF 100-500 mm is just about as sharp and has all of the advantages of a zoom and close focussing, which outweigh for me the loss of 2/3 stops. Now, the extra 60% of focal length of the RF 200-800mm makes it my go to lens for birding. As good as a 500/5.6 is likely to be from Canon, I personally would probably give it a miss because it would not be used that much owing to the two Canon zooms. But, I am sure it would be the first choice for others and a useful and welcome addition.

Totally fair! And I trust your opinion on lens quality comparisons for things like birds, etc.

I do think that the zoom + prime combo at either tier for likely pricing ranges would be solid. I'm amazed at how much distortion correction eats into the scene, plus other issues, when comparing my shots from a tripod with prime vs zoom at same length. The EF 24mm 1.4 II captures a noticeable extra chunk over the 24-70 f/4 set to 24 as an example when corrections are applied. I agree that zooms are the ultimate in convenience when subjects move much closer or further, but when the situation permits I prefer to reach for a prime instead. Extra nice is that my better half and I can split the set and she can carry the zoom while I futz with the prime.

AlanF · Apr 21, 2026

DocInfoSci said:
All true, of course, but perhaps the point is that the 400 f/5.6 provided a reasonable way for people to get — for the era — a combination of reach and affordability, as opposed to more expensive commercial-oriented solutions. In that regard, the EF 400 f/5.6 vis-a-vis the RF 500 f.5.6 in terms of hopes remain a valid call-out by forum members.

In a nod to your comment, things do get better.

Continuing the general conversation...

Putting a potential RF 500mm f/5.6 into economic context for primes:

Canon EF 500 f/4 IS II: CAD $11,999 (MSRP still listed)

Canon RF 600 f/4: CAD 18,999

And for zooms:

Canon RF 200-800 f/6.3-9: CAD $2,799

Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6: CAD $2,999

Canon RF 100-500 f/4.5-7.1: CAD $3,999

And the lenses of question:

Sigma L or E 500 f/5.6: CAD $4,399 (market benchmark)

Canon EF 400 5.6: CAD $1,599 (MSRP still listed)

So if you look at the relative cost, the EF 400 f/5.6 was a fantastic option to get people into quality telephoto photography on the Canon platform. Given that for years anything over 400 was rather exotic the EF 400 5.6 was a remarkable offer, and with competitive IQ. Sure, no IS — but for a fraction of the cost of anything else and still with moderate internal sealing (no fogging)... uh, whatever.

If Canon made this a red ring lens then it would probably pair very well with a 100-500, and if a silver ring lens then the 200-800. I think Canon could offer it for around the same price as the Sigma, maybe a pinch more, if red and probably for CAD $3,500 if silver should they really want to make a market statement similar to the 200-800, which itself is priced very fairly compared to historic and modern "peers".

A dual silver offering of the 200-800 and 500 5.6 with similar, as appropriate, build, functionality, and costing would be an epic combo for the prosumer and advanced amature market. It would also probably be a great grab-and-go for tight spaces for pro's as well.

The EF 400/5.6 L was introduced in 1993 at $1250, which equates to $2750 in 2026, to put in perspective. It was popular because there was no alternative. For a while, my favourite lens was the Nikon 500mm f/5.6 PF, an absolute cracker of a lens. However, I don’t miss it a bit as the RF 100-500 mm is just about as sharp and has all of the advantages of a zoom and close focussing, which outweigh for me the loss of 2/3 stops. Now, the extra 60% of focal length of the RF 200-800mm makes it my go to lens for birding. As good as a 500/5.6 is likely to be from Canon, I personally would probably give it a miss because it would not be used that much owing to the two Canon zooms. But, I am sure it would be the first choice for others and a useful and welcome addition.

Dragon · Apr 21, 2026

ISv said:
Back to DxO PL. Long story -short: more than an year my PL8 stopped working, I upgraded to PL9 and it was the same - they didn't recognize my credentials (!?). It was with my old computer (Windows 10). My new computer is Windows 11 and voila - at once I'm a legitimate owner. The problem is that I can download only PL9 - the previous editions are not available in DxO store for downloading (I like the simplicity of PL6 and PL8 since I don't always need all of the new features of PL9)! Anyway: the noise reduction and the control of the colors are day and night in comparison with the Windows Photos program (not a surprise!). Today it was good day to take photos in low light (overcast and windy and most importantly - finally no rain!!!) and to see what the last edition of PL9 can do! I missed the fraction of second when the Japanese White-eye landed on the flowers of the Jade vine - it could be a nice photo...

View attachment 228972 View attachment 228973 View attachment 228974 View attachment 228976 View attachment 228977 View attachment 228978

The latest version of PL9 (just this week) finally uses Nvidia GPU well. Much faster processing times than in the past. Looks like they finally moved to Cuda.

DocInfoSci · Apr 21, 2026

AlanF said:
The RF 100-500mm is an order of magnitude or more better than the EF 400/5.6. It is sharper at 500 than the prime at 400, has excellent IS against its absence, faster AF, will focus close and had all the advantages of zoom for framing as well as longer with little extra weight. I’ve used both extensively and the zoom is indeed not close, it is miles ahead.

All true, of course, but perhaps the point is that the 400 f/5.6 provided a reasonable way for people to get — for the era — a combination of reach and affordability, as opposed to more expensive commercial-oriented solutions. In that regard, the EF 400 f/5.6 vis-a-vis the RF 500 f.5.6 in terms of hopes remain a valid call-out by forum members.

In a nod to your comment, things do get better.

Continuing the general conversation...

Putting a potential RF 500mm f/5.6 into economic context for primes:

Canon EF 500 f/4 IS II: CAD $11,999 (MSRP still listed)
Canon RF 600 f/4: CAD 18,999

And for zooms:

Canon RF 200-800 f/6.3-9: CAD $2,799
Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6: CAD $2,999
Canon RF 100-500 f/4.5-7.1: CAD $3,999

And the lenses of question:

Sigma L or E 500 f/5.6: CAD $4,399 (market benchmark)
Canon EF 400 5.6: CAD $1,599 (MSRP still listed)

So if you look at the relative cost, the EF 400 f/5.6 was a fantastic option to get people into quality telephoto photography on the Canon platform. Given that for years anything over 400 was rather exotic the EF 400 5.6 was a remarkable offer, and with competitive IQ. Sure, no IS — but for a fraction of the cost of anything else and still with moderate internal sealing (no fogging)... uh, whatever.

If Canon made this a red ring lens then it would probably pair very well with a 100-500, and if a silver ring lens then the 200-800. I think Canon could offer it for around the same price as the Sigma, maybe a pinch more, if red and probably for CAD $3,500 if silver should they really want to make a market statement similar to the 200-800, which itself is priced very fairly compared to historic and modern "peers".

A dual silver offering of the 200-800 and 500 5.6 with similar, as appropriate, build, functionality, and costing would be an epic combo for the prosumer and advanced amature market. It would also probably be a great grab-and-go for tight spaces for pro's as well.

Del Paso · Apr 21, 2026

Old Man FL/FD said:
Wow!

I'm impressed on your lens ID's - my Leitz enlarger and slide projector lenses.

Had (have) exactly the same...

Dragon · Apr 21, 2026

This is a big-glass-forward design much like the EF 500 f/4 II

. That was one of the sharpest lenses Canon ever made even with extenders, so we can only hope.

Old Man FL/FD · Apr 21, 2026

Del Paso said:
I see a Focotar and a Colorplan...very good choices!
The funny bayonet was the only reason why I chose the Minolta SRT 101 over Canon's FTb Ql.
While dreaming, still a poor student, of a Leicaflex SL and a Nikon F2. Which I both bought a few years later.

Wow!

I'm impressed on your lens ID's - my Leitz enlarger and slide projector lenses.

Del Paso · Apr 21, 2026

Old Man FL/FD said:
View attachment 229029

I see a Focotar and a Colorplan...very good choices!

The funny bayonet was the only reason why I chose the Minolta SRT 101 over Canon's FTb Ql.
While dreaming, still a poor student, of a Leicaflex SL and a Nikon F2. Which I both bought a few years later.

Old Man FL/FD · Apr 21, 2026

Baywoof said:
To me, a "retro" camera is one you put on the shelf, and stays there except when you want to show it off to a relative.

AlanF · Apr 21, 2026

stillviking said:
I'm asking here for this lens for years, thank god!! Make it happen Canon!!

I loved my EF 400mm 5.6L and never had a lens like this again! (no, 100-500 L is not close).

The RF 100-500mm is an order of magnitude or more better than the EF 400/5.6. It is sharper at 500 than the prime at 400, has excellent IS against its absence, faster AF, will focus close and had all the advantages of zoom for framing as well as longer with little extra weight. I’ve used both extensively and the zoom is indeed not close, it is miles ahead.

clarus · Apr 21, 2026

Marc73 said:
what is the use of a 300-600 f5.6 if Canon has the 100-500 of very decent quality. You would gain 100mm and 2/3 stop of light at the cost of 7k? IMHO 600/5.6 would be ideal in combination with the 100-500. Light, small and with very good optical quality. With the extender RF 1.4 and 2.0 ideal which would cover all needs from 100-1200mm.

It may not sound much, but to me it would. Given the lens is of decent optical quality and in combination with a TC it translates into an additional 140/200mm.

dwkdnvr · Apr 21, 2026

roby17269 said:
Apart from Leica, Ricoh and PhaseOne have done monochrome versions of existing models as well. In all cases the monochrome version costs more than the color one and in all case the only difference is lack of color filtering. The color versions are all niche products admittedly, but the monochrome ones are niche in a niche

The Astro-Cam market is also illustrative. Astro-Cams (from ZWO and QHY among others) are pretty close to 'sensor in a box' designs where most of the complexity is offloaded to a universal driver. They have many designs where they offer a color and mono version of the same camera differing only in which version of the sensor they use. Even here, the mono versions are always more expensive.

mimbu · Apr 21, 2026

This is the patent for the Sigma 500/5.6 that already exists, priced at $3300 on B&H or $2270 here in Japan. The Sigma is about 43.5mm shorter than the proposed Canon and with a tad more focal length. It's an absolute marvel of a lens. I wonder how much Canon will charge for their version of this lens while refusing to let Sigma onto RF?

Also interesting is that together with the 500/5.6, Sigma patented a 400/5 and a 700/8 that haven't yet made it to market:

Focal length: 400.00
F-value: 5.06
Angle of view: 6.14
Image height: 21.63
Overall length: 233.14

and

Focal length: 700.00
F-value: 7.97
Angle of view: 3.52
Image height: 21.63
Total length: 318.72

Would love to see both these come out too.

Click · Apr 21, 2026

Well done, Maximilian. I especially like the first one.

FabFR · Apr 21, 2026

People who bought Nikon ZR cameras seem to really love its giant screen, I hope Canon will do so with the R6V !

IBIS or not IBIS ? Some want it, some don't... In a cinema approach, there often are more cons than pros for IBIS, I think, considering the use of tripods, gimbals, steadycam, etc.
Alas, I suppose Canon would not put an IBIS firstly because of heat dissipation, wich is easier with a sensor screwed on a metal plate with dissipator, instead of a floating plate that cannot passively convey heat outside the body. If they keep IBIS, I think they'll need a fan for extreme long video shots.
But CR says there will be no fan, only vents for a passive heat circulation.

If we add the problem of body thickness when there are IBIS + vents, it's likely there will be no IBIS to keep the body thin enough. But will it be really thin ? CR doesn't clearly answer !!

However, for a video/cine camera, I don't believe Canon can (today, after the R5 story) heavily reduce the recording time at max resolution because of overheating ! So, we have 2 options : IBIS+fan or no IBIS+vents ! My 2 cents...

roby17269 · Apr 21, 2026

David - Sydney said:
Physical cooling is the main difference similar to what is being rumoured with the V version but takes out IBIS which offsets the passive cooling. We don’t know what the relative cost difference is.
The R5c has not only longer run times but also 8k60 vs 8k39 on the R5.
Adding the cinema menus but only via restart makes it a video SW version but looks to be shoe horned in vs a redeveloped integrated SW release.

my point was: the R5 and R5C are different beasts and extrapolating from them that a no video version would cost less would be incorrect in my opinion

David - Sydney said:
I can’t comment on colour vs monochrome as canon hasn’t done that before and Leica charge what the market will bare.
Canon has released 2 Astro sensor bodies with the IR filter removed and charged more but that was a long time ago

Apart from Leica, Ricoh and PhaseOne have done monochrome versions of existing models as well. In all cases the monochrome version costs more than the color one and in all case the only difference is lack of color filtering. The color versions are all niche products admittedly, but the monochrome ones are niche in a niche

Latest activity

Latest activity

Filter

Forum statistics

Gallery statistics