swingman said:

As a aps shooter, Cannon has washed their hands on all their bread and butter customers. Now I like to when Sigma is going to be allowed to bring longer formal range fast lenses. Not interested/ in paying £5K or more heavy lenes.

Click to expand...

I'm curious which bread-and-butter customers were using APS-C/EF-S bodies. The industry has moved on, with low cost full frame, enabling much better low light capabilities - and we've had some good options from Canon for these full frame systems, eg, the 28-70 2.8 which will run you at approx the same as a Sony 16-55 2.8 G APS-C lens would cost you. Canon has been serious about getting full frame out there since day one, at every market tier where possible. Granted, Sony seem to be kicking ass with lighter versions of the same full-frame lenses eg 24-70 GM II, 28-70, 16-35 GM II so I think that's going to be where Canon will focus their R&D - at least I hope, if they can do so without impacting the serviceability.

Most of the serious shooters I know out there on Sony are using the A7 series; I RARELY see the A6xxx series out there outside of vlogging use. I can't remember the last time I saw a Nikon Z DX body out there.

If you want super light, OM SYSTEM has some honestly pretty good options. It's not my cup of tea, but what I can achieve with the reduction of size/weight/heft etc is worth a look-in if you want some premium small sensor stuff.

That said, we haven't seen the R7 II yet, and we don't know if we'll get any interesting options there; hopefully we see some Sigma options (the 18-35 Sigma EF is practically mated to my Super35-equipped C200). Whilst there is an incredible library of third party fast lenses for APS-C/Super35 like some of the cine primes (which are typically MF so getting RF manual versions aren't a big problem), what options do you have for fast APS-C glass from first party manufacturers for their mirrorless mounts?

There is one hole - standard zooms, such as Nikon's 16-50 Z 2.8 DX VR and Sony's 16-55 2.8 G; Canon had the EF 17-55 2.8 IS (and Nikon had similar for their DX crop) so I would hope that Canon consider the same for their R7 II when it ships. An RF-S 17-55 or 16-55 would go down a treat I'm sure, but I wouldn't expect to see anything else like that from Canon.

zardoz said:

Knowing Canon, if they cheat and use digital correction, then I'm out, though.

Click to expand...

Do you honestly believe the other manufacturers don't do the same?

tron said:

To be just the distortion of Canon 11-24 and Sigma 12-24 must be compared at 14mm not at 11 and 12 respectively

Click to expand...

My point was comparing them at the wide end of their respective ranges, which is where each lens has maximal distortion. But you can compare them however you want.

tron said:

The ones that need 14mm.

Click to expand...

Lol, sure. I bought the 10-20/4 to use it at 14mm f/4. And I’m going to sell it now that I’ve ordered the 14mm f/1.4 and just use the prime at f/4.

EricN said:

Have you tried DXO Photolab?

Click to expand...

I haven't. I shouldn't have to. If Canon gave me options that weren't riddled with distortion, I wouldn't need to worry about this. If I can't even correct my lenses with the most popular photo post-processing tool around, then there's a big problem.

Every image I've ever shot is in Lightroom for dating back from my 1Ds Mark II and 20D. I'm somewhat wedded to that platform. LR's library management is critical to me.

I'll give it a test at some point to see how their profiles compare, but rather than uprooting my entire digital workflow, it would be simpler for me to buy lenses that don't require these corrections (and even if the geometry correction was functional, the noise pattern issues still remain).

swingman said:

As a aps shooter, Cannon has washed their hands on all their bread and butter customers. Now I like to when Sigma is going to be allowed to bring longer formal range fast lenses. Not interested/ in paying £5K or more heavy lenes.

Click to expand...

So it’s your opinion that Canon’s bread-and-butter customers are APS-C users who want longer, fast-aperture lenses? Your implication here is that you understand the camera market better than the company that has led that market for over two decades and continues to dominate it today.

Canon is not interested in meeting your personal wants. At all.

Dr_Flash said:

That the problem if you look overall Numbers. If you look deeper:
2025 Mirrorless Camera Shares: Sony still Nr. 1 with around 30%, Canon catch up mode 27,5% followed by Nikon 15%. Compared to 2024 Sony continue to loose market share and both Canon and Nikon are catching up.

Click to expand...

Please stop. You’re embarrassing yourself. The problem is you made asinine claims, then tried backpedaling on them saying you meant just a niche of the market, then when asked for data you went back to the broader market and proved you don’t understand what you read. I have an adage based on an older one: You can lead a person to data, but you can’t make him think.

Go back to your source for those numbers, read it again. Carefully. You’ll find that those numbers are for Japan. Only Japan. About 7% of the MILC market, and one that’s not very representative of the global market.

Case in point, Canon took the lead of the global mirrorless market away from Sony in 2022, and as of 2024 maintains a solid lead (37.5% to 30%, with Nikon well behind at 14%). Global numbers come out around November, so we’ll see what 2025 looked like at that point.

P-visie said:

Do you have data to backup your claims?

Click to expand...

Yes, here are the data. I’ve even drawn some conclusions from them!

• I only care about wildlife photography
• I don’t like Canon’s lens offerings for that use case
• I like Nikon’s lens offerings for that use case
• I’m smart and I agree with myself, so everyone out there agrees with me
• I’m thinking of switching to Nikon so everyone else is, too
• Oh boy, Canon is in trouble now
• If you don’t believe me, remember Kodak

How you like them data?

zardoz said:

• On the RF 35 f/1.4L VCM, Adobe Lightroom's profiles leave more barrel distortion post-correction than an un-corrected image from the EF 35 f/1.4L II, so I am SOL, and Canon's software is still stuck in 2005.

Click to expand...

Have you tried DXO Photolab?

The firmware versions make sense - I've had some weird camera reset issues where my camera will freeze and reboot ever since I've updated to 1.20. I wonder if they've got cameras on older firmware for that very reason....

As for the R3 II - my #1 gripe about the R1 is that the sensor has less latitude at high ISOs than my 1DX Mark II from ten years ago, so I'm still pulling out the EF body in low light situations where I know I'll be at 12800 and need to make ANY adjustments to exposure or shadows (including vignetting correction). I preordered the R1, assuming I'd get the same results as the R3 I evaluated from Canon, and was bitterly disappointed when I got my shots home and couldn't get the results I was able to get with the R3.

So I'll absolutely jump on the R3 II if I can get an improvement in low light performance that's equal to that of the R3 with the AF performance of the R1. Don't need to change anything else; just shut up and take my money. If it had a high resolution mode, then I get to sell my R5 which makes me even happier.

Cautiously optimistic that I may have a solution moving forward.

I appreciate that Canon are trying to achieve excellent optical quality with reduced complexity. This means:

• Smaller and lighter; less imposing for subjects and more enjoyable to use
• Less complex to repair / cheaper to repair - maybe?
• Reduced flare due to less elements
• Reduced transmission loss due to less elements (each piece of glass WILL soak up SOME light)
• Smaller lenses also mean smaller and cheaper filters
• Less glass to move resulting in quicker autofocus
• Having lenses the same size/weight profile makes it FAR easier to swap on gimbals/cinema rigs without having to re-adjust everything

But I still don't like it. The reasons are thus::

• On the RF 35 f/1.4L VCM, Adobe Lightroom's profiles leave more barrel distortion post-correction than an un-corrected image from the EF 35 f/1.4L II, so I am SOL, and Canon's software is still stuck in 2005.
• I shoot at high ISO (12800+) and distortion correction creates artifacts in the noise profile across the image.
• There's some increased vignetting, too. This is not great when the R1 sensor falls apart when boosting shadow or exposure at high ISOs which makes my corner correction looks much worse than they need to be.
• Compared to the Sony 35 f/1.4 GM lens, the Canon delivers poorer contrast, is heavier, and has significantly more optical distortion - so if Sony can do it, then what's going on over at Canon? Yes, the Sony distorts a little, but nowhere near the Canon and I can get away with it comfortably.
• Loss of resolution on the corners for extreme corrections. Sure, 24 megapixels isn't small, but it's not exactly winning any awards so I'm already limited in what I can do with it.

Some lenses like the 14 1.4 I can see a very good case for that compromise, to achieve a result that would be otherwise unmerchantable. The RF VCM lenses relying on digital correction makes sense if you're shooting video in-camera. The RF 14-35 is an interesting product; I'd shoot with the 15-35 any day of the week in lieu (and I'm in the market for that lens actually) - solely so I don't need to rely on software correction.

I was ready to insta-buy the 24 1.4L VCM, but after seeing the barrel distortion and running a few tests, I'm not jumping out of my seat to buy it.

If Sony are able to get away with it, why are Canon having so much trouble getting a good optical image out of a lens?

Rudbeckia hirta (black-eyed Susan)...

Hydrangea...

I've used the RF 24-70 2.8L IS briefly and found it to be good - the IS in it was certainly giving me better results than IBIS with the 28-70L, but they'd have to make it lighter (like the Son 24-70 2.8 GM II) for me to have any interest, otherwise I'll just stick with the EF 24-70 f/2.8L II when the situation doesn't call for the 28-70....

Get the weight down, and I might be tempted.

The 28-70 f/2L is what I see a lot of serious shooters using, and my three complaints with that lens are weight (c'mon, Sony are crushing it with their 28-70 GM weight which is around 500g lighter than the Canon), flare/glare when shot at wider apertures, and that 28mm just isn't wide enough. Knowing Canon, if they cheat and use digital correction, then I'm out, though.

I love the VCM primes, if not for the optical correction required in post, which messes with high ISO shots and noise profiles (and LR's profiles for the 35 VCM are still giving me more barrel distortion than the 35L II lens without any correction at all). I don't have any issues with VCM motors. My AF hit rate on the 35 VCM has been as high as I'd expect it to be, and the issues I've had with serviced USM motors being noisy would hopefully largely be moot with the VCM stuff moving forward.

Is anyone finding the AF on the RF 400 2.8L IS a problem? I spent a solid week with one and it was from another world compared to my older EF IS mark 1 version and had no complaints, although I'll take any improvement to weight saving if it's there. The most exciting thing for me, for a revised 400, would be the cheaper deals I could get on the mark 1 RF (or the EF III). I'd be keen on a lighter 300 2.8, but given the choice, I'd probably spring for the 120-300 2.8 and cop the weight penalty for a far more useful lens. Canon know what they are doing here.

As a aps shooter, Cannon has washed their hands on all their bread and butter customers. Now I like to when Sigma is going to be allowed to bring longer formal range fast lenses. Not interested/ in paying £5K or more heavy lenes.

Still (bitterly missing!) 28mm f/1,4, 35mm f/1,2, TS-E 14mm, 180mm macro, 24-70 L II , 50mm macro.
This is my personal "wanted toys" list!
Slowly but surely, Canon are completing their lens range. It would be silly to expect everything at once...

Richard CR said:

​

Click to expand...

I guess my question is, what's "astrophography"?

tron said:

To be just the distortion of Canon 11-24 and Sigma 12-24 must be compared at 14mm not at 11 and 12 respectively

Having said that I do have the RF14-35 f/4L lens and I like it a lot. It is very sharp and compact at the same time.
View attachment 228040

Click to expand...

How many people use them at 14mm when they can go to 11mm or 12mm?

BlancRay said:

I am desperately waiting for a new macro lens, something to replace the beloved MPE-65 or at least a longer (200mm ?) macro lens... It seems that macro people have been forgotten in Canon strategy...

Click to expand...

I want those too, but we should remember that besides the excellent 100mm, they also the three (24, 35 and 85) stm lenses. So, don't think they forgot macros in their strategy, the order the lenses are developed and put on market hasn't come again yet. Some people have already offered their firstborn in exchange for a 35mm f1.2...

P-visie said:

Do you have data to backup your claims?

Nikon’s results do not support your claims:

• Their marketshare has not increased since FY2022.
• Their sales prediction for lenses and bodies is down: “Nikon has decreased its projected camera sales for this fiscal year from 950,000 to 900,000 units and decreased expected lens sales from 1.4 million to 1.3 million.”
• Nikon attributes the loss in Q3 of FY2025 to “decline in average selling prices due to changes in the product mix” - which does not support selling a lot of 3000-5000$ tele lenses.

See: https://petapixel.com/2026/02/06/nikon-posts-big-losses-and-cuts-projections/

Click to expand...

And yet, everybody is leaving Canon for Nikon. Your Petapixel statistics are surely rigged!
Dominion?

BlancRay said:

I am desperately waiting for a new macro lens, something to replace the beloved MPE-65 or at least a longer (200mm ?) macro lens... It seems that macro people have been forgotten in Canon strategy...

Click to expand...

From the recent rf14 and rf7-15, they hit 2 niches pretty squarely at one time. Lower volume sellers especially after the initial orders.
Long macro and ts-r are still missing but also low volume so maybe the next niche to release. As the OP writes, gen 2 of the more popular rf lenses are more likely though

P-visie said:

Do you have data to backup your claims?

Nikon’s results do not support your claims:

• Their marketshare has not increased since FY2022.
• Their sales prediction for lenses and bodies is down: “Nikon has decreased its projected camera sales for this fiscal year from 950,000 to 900,000 units and decreased expected lens sales from 1.4 million to 1.3 million.”
• Nikon attributes the loss in Q3 of FY2025 to “decline in average selling prices due to changes in the product mix” - which does not support selling a lot of 3000-5000$ tele lenses.

See: https://petapixel.com/2026/02/06/nikon-posts-big-losses-and-cuts-projections/

Click to expand...

That the problem if you look overall Numbers. If you look deeper:
2025 Mirrorless Camera Shares: Sony still Nr. 1 with around 30%, Canon catch up mode 27,5% followed by Nikon 15%. Compared to 2024 Sony continue to loose market share and both Canon and Nikon are catching up. But here as well, It would be great to have an even more detailed view on high end models - Alpha1 vs R5II/R1 vs Z9/Z8. From my point of view Canon is currently leading here but 2026 will bring updates from Nikon and Sony, I fear not so much from Canon. As I said, I really love to see this competition which benefits us consumers. More options, better technology to a still OK price .

snapshot said:

start with 200 F1.4 for example!

Click to expand...

I dread to think how big that would be.

neuroanatomist said:

Please check basic facts before posting. Canon sells more cameras than any other manufacturer, by a wide margin. They have done so for over two decades. Most of the cameras that Canon sells are ‘entry-level’, such as the R50.

Yes, Canon (like many other manufacturers) is trying to push users to FF bodies and lenses to drive margins, and they’re succeeding in general. A decade ago the ILC market was 90% APS-C. A few years ago it was 75% and last year it was 64%. But the majority of cameras sold are APS-C and most of those are not high end (obvious because the average unit cost of ILCs in 2025 was $671).

Click to expand...

Agreed completely. Off the top of my head, crop bodies outsell full frame by 3 to 1 or 4 to 1 (or was it the professional vs. enthusiast?) But profit per unit sold is much higher for professional equipment, and my understanding is that if one has supply chain problems it is natural to focus on maximising per-unit revenue. Once Canon had more APS-C models than full frame ones, I know that time has passed and will never come back, and the lens choice for EF-S was never equal to that of EF lenses but there were some nice lenses. Today the choice of L lenses might even be better than before but for the rest I don't think it is (show me a nice RF-S lens?) They could have brought over some EF-M lenses to the RF mount, as various EOS-Ms were number one sellers for years, but I'd say their priorities lie elsewhere.

On the other hand, I would love that Canon bring everyone to full frame. I'm under the impression the introduction of the R ecosystem was aiming for that, and it kind of makes sense for Canon given the history of EOS cameras from 35mm onward. There being a sub-1000 priced full frame camera (the R8) is pretty groundbreaking and hopefully a sign of the things to come but currently it's neither here nor there, and the continuous economic crises aren't helping either.

Doug7131 said:

Would be nice to see Canon address the gap between the sub £3K tele zooms and the £10K+ primes. Currently there is nothing in this range. In the UK you can get a Nikon 600mm F6.3 and 800mm F6.3 and a Z9 body for less than you can buy a Canon 800mm F5.6 on is own.

Click to expand...

Yes, that's crazy, just like Canon pricing in UK in general. For example the Nikon 24-120 F4 is £1049 vs £1389 for the Canon 24-105 F4.