neuroanatomist said:

150/2 = 75
200/2.8 = 71.4

200/2 = 100

There's a big difference in the amount of glass needed to achieve 200/2 compared to 150/2 (the latter being similar to 200/2.8). Physics.

Also, what makes you think Canon's goal is to compete against any particular Sony product?

Click to expand...

That's another reason for it to not happen and the lens to stop at 150-180.

Canon will want it's own f2.0 trinity, at this point it's even a question of reputation against Sony that is building it's own.

Another kingfisher, photographed with an OM 1 MK II, a 150–400 mm zoom lens and a 2x teleconverter.

The little ones mostly eat fish; the undigested bits have to come back out...

Eisi sagt: „Über 30 Grad Mitte Juni, das ist echt zum Kotzen!” by Helmut Gloor, auf Flickr

A kingfisher I managed to photograph a few days ago.

R7 with EF 500mm F4 and 2x TC.

I'm Walking by Helmut Gloor, auf Flickr

Eloniel said:

I can't see this happening if they want to compete against the 50-150 f2.0 from Sony which is way less expensive.

Click to expand...

150/2 = 75
200/2.8 = 71.4

200/2 = 100

There's a big difference in the amount of glass needed to achieve 200/2 compared to 150/2 (the latter being similar to 200/2.8). Physics.

Also, what makes you think Canon's goal is to compete against any particular Sony product?

From today...

ISv said:

"Thanks! Thats only one state away!" - I really appreciate your dedication (really!!!)!

Click to expand...

Well, I doubt I'll make in time for this year's blossoms, but my wife and I are creating a list for next spring.

Chig said:

It would cost at least as much as the 100-300 f/2.8 but probably 10-15% more

Click to expand...

I can't see this happening if they want to compete against the 50-150 f2.0 from Sony which is way less expensive.

neuroanatomist said:

A 70-200/2 would likely be around $10K, not really a threat at all.


Exactly like one can do with the 100-300/2.8.

Click to expand...

I can't see this happening if they want to compete against the 50-150 f2.0 from Sony which is way less expensive.

Eloniel said:

70-200 f2.0 would already be incredible.

If it accept extender (which I think it would not) it would be insane because it would compete against the 100-300 f2.8 which is very very expensive.

Click to expand...

It would cost at least as much as the 100-300 f/2.8 but probably 10-15% more

neuroanatomist said:

I want world peace. I give that an equal chance. Maybe a bit better.

Click to expand...

The only thing I can say with any certainty is what is likely to cause me to pull out my credit card and spend my money. Think of my wishes as a form of marketing input to Canon.

Sporgon said:

Yes, just like Sony the Germans couldn’t keep up with slr developments In this modern age the Leica SL mount is competitive, but the M rangefinder cameras are serious money for what they are. I know that the rangefinder mechanism is complicated and hand assembled, but even the new film Leicas are about £5300 in the UK. Now when you consider that a state of the art hand assembled Nikon F2 Photomic was about £390 (433*)in 1978, so that’s equivalent to £2434 now (using current VAT rates for both dates*), it puts into perspective just how much the Leicas are.

Click to expand...

And, I would add that the Nikon F2 was a much better camera than the Leicaflex SL & SL2. I owned all 3. The important Leicaflex advantage was the selective exposure measuring. And much better built R lenses.
Speaking of the M: The latest versions have not much -quality wise- in common with the M3. The are very fragile, not only when dropped. Many "weight-optimised" parts inside, thin aluminium or plastics instead of brass and so on. And the repair service is not only excessively expensive, but also slow and disappointing.
The worst yet, is the lack of a sensor cleaning function. After a longer vacation, zero EOS R dust spots, but hours spent on removing them from the M pictures.
Should I also mention that I had to send in for (expensive) repair or repair myself half a dozen newer M lenses with mechanical damages or factory misaligned mounts? Lose mounts have seemingly become recurrent (Apo M 2/28, Apo M 2,8/28, M 4/90 +++).
Edit: I meant of course "Asph" M 2/28 and "Asph" M 2,8/28, and NOT "Apo"

This lens is tempting. I have the Voigtlander Nokton 75mm f/1.5 and love it. The build quality makes it a pleasure to use, image quality is good, and I like how the photos look that I take with it. I have the Canon RF 35mm f/1.8, so I have a hard time justifying a just-for-fun manual 35mm lens at $700. Maybe if I find a copy of this Voigtlander 35mm used or on sale someday.

Bob Howland said:

I want a longer sibling to the 20-50 f/4 L IS Z, with the same design philosophy and at the same price, perhaps 35-85 f/2.8 L IS Z or 60-150 f/2.8 L IS Z.

Click to expand...

I want world peace. I give that an equal chance. Maybe a bit better.

Del Paso said:

I still own a Voigtländer Avus (named after a German racetrack).
Never used it (film plates!), but I truly like the way it was built.
Decades later came Topcon, Yashica, Nikon, Minolta, Pentax, Canon etc...
After so many years of market domination, the German companies simply forgot to innovate and paid a hefty price.
Leica are left, but cater to a very limited number of users and collectors.

Click to expand...

Yes, just like Sony the Germans couldn’t keep up with slr developments In this modern age the Leica SL mount is competitive, but the M rangefinder cameras are serious money for what they are. I know that the rangefinder mechanism is complicated and hand assembled, but even the new film Leicas are about £5300 in the UK. Now when you consider that a state of the art hand assembled Nikon F2 Photomic was about £390 (433*)in 1978, so that’s equivalent to £2434 now (using current VAT rates for both dates*), it puts into perspective just how much the Leicas are.

AlanF said:

I had a secondhand Voigtlander Bessa folding 120 camera when I was a schoolboy. The German cameras cost a fortune then. The bellows on the folding cameras were dodgy, but 6x9 contact prints were fun, and I could afford to develop and fix using home made chemicals.

Click to expand...

I still own a Voigtländer Avus (named after a German racetrack).
Never used it (film plates!), but I truly like the way it was built.
Decades later came Topcon, Yashica, Nikon, Minolta, Pentax, Canon etc...
After so many years of market domination, the German companies simply forgot to innovate and paid a hefty price.
Leica are left, but cater to a very limited number of users and collectors.

Lovely shots. I especially like the B&W.

scyrene said:

What about the 200mm f/1.8L?

Click to expand...

He did say 70-200 f/1.4 (or f/2) The front element would have to be the same size as a 400 f/2.8. I want a longer sibling to the 20-50 f/4 L IS Z, with the same design philosophy and at the same price, perhaps 35-85 f/2.8 L IS Z or 60-150 f/2.8 L IS Z.

Sporgon said:

Indeed, that’s why it’s retailing at £499 instead of £4999 !

Click to expand...

I had a secondhand Voigtlander Bessa folding 120 camera when I was a schoolboy. The German cameras cost a fortune then. The bellows on the folding cameras were dodgy, but 6x9 contact prints were fun, and I could afford to develop and fix using home made chemicals.

AlanF said:

As presumably many know, it's designed and made in Japan by Cosina who have just licensed the Voigtlander name and they simply use it and associated names like Nokton for branding. It no longer has any German connection.

Click to expand...

Indeed, that’s why it’s retailing at £499 instead of £4999 !

Sporgon said:

I just checked, and the lens aperture has ten blades, so I’m sure it is manual. Auto aperture lenses have a smaller number of blades due to them having to snap open and closed in an instant, and the more blades there are the greater the friction and wear.

Click to expand...

The Voigtländer website clearly says that focus AND aperture are indeed manual.
So, I was wrong!

As presumably many know, it's designed and made in Japan by Cosina who have just licensed the Voigtlander name and they simply use it and associated names like Nokton for branding. It no longer has any German connection.

I just checked, and the lens aperture has ten blades, so I’m sure it is manual. Auto aperture lenses have a smaller number of blades due to them having to snap open and closed in an instant, and the more blades there are the greater the friction and wear.

Del Paso said:

Are you sure this lens has a manual diaphragm? I believe it rather behaves like Zeiss' Classic series, manual focus but electronically controlled aperture.

Click to expand...

I’ve not used any of the Voigtlander RF lenses yet, but my understanding is that despite the contacts and communication with the camera body the aperture is fully manual, as the design is from a rangefinder lens ( where apertures are always manual) as opposed to slr lenses. Personally this doesn’t worry me at all, in fact I like it, because it does away with any focus shift issues, gives correct dof, as well as giving the correct live histogram all the time. Ultimately my migration to mirrorless will be because of the smaller size, ability to have much smaller lenses ( m mount adapted if necessary) but importantly the live histogram makes optimising exposure in challenging conditions whilst on the hoof a real benefit.

Eloniel said:

A 70-200 f2.0 compatible with teleconverter would be a threat to the 100-300 F2.8 so I assume the it will not be compatible with teleconverter.

Click to expand...

A 70-200/2 would likely be around $10K, not really a threat at all.

Eloniel said:

Imagine stacking a 1.4x for outdoor sport + a 2x birds a single lens 3/4 differents use case

Click to expand...

Exactly like one can do with the 100-300/2.8.