screenshooter said:

Example:
If I have a 45MP sensor, and the captured image is stretched to to save a 45MP image without barrel distortion, then the camera interpolated, through 2d convolution algorithms that are commonplace in graphical signal processing, the extra detail to enlarge the image. Is that a problem.. everyone will have to decide that on their own. Im not a fan, because inherently that math softens the image from what the sensor recorded.

Click to expand...

As you say, it's a question of whether you'd prefer to live with the distortion or with the loss of sharpness. But it's important to realize that the issue is not new. As I pointed out earlier in this thread (with humorous intent), lenses that were 'optically corrected' for DSLR/film are still not perfect. Compared to the Canon RF 14-35/4L that was the subject of this thread, the Canon EF 11-24/4L has nearly as much barrel distortion and the Sigma 12-24/4 Art has essentially the same amount of barrel distortion. The difference is that with the RF lens, if you want the output to be the full MP of your sensor then you are required to correct the distortion.

Either way, the effects of both the distortion and the algorithm to correct it are most apparent in the extreme corners of the image. Personally, when I compose a shot that's typically not where I put important subjects.

Sporgon said:

So digital correction is nothing to get hot under the collar about, as long as it’s not taken to the point where it is so severe that data is having to be created after the event.

Click to expand...

So I actually think we are already to this point and most people are oblivious to it.. its been discussed to some extent in this thread though without explicitly being stated..

Example:
If I have a 45MP sensor, and the captured image is stretched to to save a 45MP image without barrel distortion, then the camera interpolated, through 2d convolution algorithms that are commonplace in graphical signal processing, the extra detail to enlarge the image. Is that a problem.. everyone will have to decide that on their own. Im not a fan, because inherently that math softens the image from what the sensor recorded.

whatever happened to the X100-style retro Canon camera? this needed to be at market like two years ago...

Canon has bring the whole f1.4 VCM primes, can we have Sigma f1.2/1.4 FF lenses....

I think an internal zoom (not the existing pumper) RF 24-70 F2.8 L IS USM Mk II would make good sense. Nikkor has added their 24-70 f2.8 Mk II internal zoom.

Canon Rumors said:

I'm currently in Colombia chasing birds.

Click to expand...

Enjoy, have fun and maybe post a couple of those bird pics of yours for those at enduring the grey, rainy weather

Canon Rumors said:

Yes, it's coming.

Click to expand...

Do you have more specific information? Will it be a L lens? Or more like a pz lens? The focal range and the f-number suggest it will be compact and lightweight. I always wanted Canon to release a 24-70mm F4 L, but 20-50mm F4 sounds more intriguing imo.

On the subject of digital correction, where a curved image is stretched back out to be straight again it’s worth remembering that in the movie industry when wanting to shoot in wide screen format it was common practice to shoot a compressed (and so distorted - ‘squeezed’) image in order to use the full width of (normally) 35mm film, and then distort it out the other way (desqueeze) to give the required wide screen format. And the reason ? To improve quality, where using more of the film area gave an improved quality and resolution despite having to be significantly distorted ‘post processing’ in order to view.
Incidentally the same thing is often done in digital image filming.
So digital correction is nothing to get hot under the collar about, as long as it’s not taken to the point where it is so severe that data is having to be created after the event.

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.

Is there any chance of a 20-50mm F/4 that was previously mentioned?

Billybob said:

...an RF lens built for mirrorless would probably provide some weight and size benefits not to mention the potential for a built-in TC.

Click to expand...

For a supertele lens, the shorter flange distance is basically irrelevant. The 'built for mirrorless' allowed Canon to make lenses like the 600/11 and 800/11, since with autofocus moved to the image sensor it works reliably at apertures like f/11. But a 600/4 won't be smaller or lighter because of the shorter flange distance.

The lenses would still benefit from updated technologies for focus motors, updated designs, etc., and personally I'd preorder an RF 600/4 + 1.4x lens.

Billybob said:

This

"Canon does not need another $10,000-$15,000 big white lens."

and this

"The current versions [ RF 400 F2.8 L & RF 600 F4 L lenses] were designed for the EF mount, so it's time for native RF mount versions."

Interesting seeing the author disagreeing with himself...so I don't have to.

I agree with the latter quote although I'm unlikely to be a buyer (I'd need to sell my Nikon version of the 400mm f/2.8 first), but there are a lot of Canon shooters who are unhappy with the converted EF lenses. Sure, their IQ is excellent, but an RF lens built for mirrorless would probably provide some weight and size benefits not to mention the potential for a built-in TC.

I am interested in the 300-600mm. I prefer to travel with my Canon R5, but it would be nice to pair it with a (relatively compact) lens that is stronger for wildlife/birding than the 100-500mm (a lens I love but often wish for more).

Click to expand...

It doesn't necessarily have to be contradicting: "Canon does not need another $10,000-$15,000 big white lens" could easily mean not a 500mm big white. The current versions of RF 400/ 600mm would just get replacements, therefore these are not "another lens"...but honestly, I think were just splitting hairs here...

I really like what Nikon did with their "affordable" tele lenses and hope Canon will follow suit someday, although I seriously doubt it.

EricN said:

A true 100m fI.4 couldn't use a 67 mm front filter, but they could make it slightly shorter and / or slower. They could also choose to only allow a rear filter. So you can hope, if you want!

Click to expand...

Sounds right. I am not hoping for a 100mm VCM or keeping my fingers crossed. I just thought it might be interesting to have something longer than 85mm and since 135mm or 200mm doesn't seem probable at all, I thought 100mm might be.

This

"Canon does not need another $10,000-$15,000 big white lens."

and this

"The current versions [ RF 400 F2.8 L & RF 600 F4 L lenses] were designed for the EF mount, so it's time for native RF mount versions."

Interesting seeing the author disagreeing with himself...so I don't have to.

I agree with the latter quote although I'm unlikely to be a buyer (I'd need to sell my Nikon version of the 400mm f/2.8 first), but there are a lot of Canon shooters who are unhappy with the converted EF lenses. Sure, their IQ is excellent, but an RF lens built for mirrorless would probably provide some weight and size benefits not to mention the potential for a built-in TC.

I am interested in the 300-600mm. I prefer to travel with my Canon R5, but it would be nice to pair it with a (relatively compact) lens that is stronger for wildlife/birding than the 100-500mm (a lens I love but often wish for more).

zamorano said:

But professional equipment brings more profit per unit, and Canon concentrates on that - possibly because they can't produce big quantities of cameras or don't want to invest into expanding.

Click to expand...

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).

I want to see a

• RF 135mm f/1.4L IS USM
• RF 200mm f/1.8L IS USM
• RF 300mm f/2.0L IS USM
• RF 500mm f/4L IS USM

But I'd be surprised to see further lenses later in 2026.

As for the Series II RF 400mm f/2.8L IS USM & RF 600mm f/4L IS USM. It would likely be out approx 10 years later after Series I's 2021 release. By early 2030s to be used at the 2032 Summer Olympics in Brisbane, AU. A R1 Mark III & R5 Mark IV would be released with those 2 lenses as well hopefully with CFexpress 4.0's 4.0GB/s for 80-120fps @ 2x the MP of today's R1 & R5 Mark II.

What improvements to expect from these Series II fast white long primes at a higher price?

- physically squatter
- lower weight
- more stops of IS
- better USM
- shorter MFD
- optical improvements for higher MP FF image sensors
- >40fps continuous shooting support

We then can expect a Series II RF 800mm f/5.6L IS USM & RF 1200mm f/8L IS USM a year later. Likely with a permanently placed 2.0x TC to keep R&D cost down and profit margins up.

Then again Nikon's 400mm and 600mm lenses with built-in 1.4x Extenders are so desirable that Canon may push up the release of the RF 400mm f/2.8L IS USM & RF 600mm f/4L IS USM replacements to 2030 in time for the FIFA World Cup or Winter Games.

roby17269 said:

But what I meant is whether the lens' image circle convers the full sensor or not before any kind of digital correction. Mandrake says it does so it's different from the wide angle lenses (primes or zooms at their widest fl) which do not.

Debates? what debates? it's just me being right and misinformed people disagreeing with me

Seriously though. Some debates go on endlessly indeed... but it takes 2 (or more) to tango... In any case, IMHO, some "spice" is needed for a forum to be successful: if everyone was agreeing with and high-fiving everyone else then it will become a bit boring pretty quick. Heated debate is good (again, IMHO) as long as there are no personal attacks involved

Click to expand...

The only thing better than a heated debate is an off topic heated debate!

Exploreshootshare said:

Interesting lenses, for sure, but nothing there for me. The 70-XXXmm F2.8 could be for me, but only if there are definite benefits compared to the RF 70-200mm F4 L, which is near perfect imo. A 70-180mm F2.8 with a lot less weight is the only thing that comes to my mind.

The RF 24-70mm F2.8 VCM sounds really interesting because it might be the start for mkii versions (even if they aren't called mkii´s) of the first generation L zooms. Hoping for an updated 24-105mm F4 L at some point (if I don´t purchase the RF 28-70mm F2.8).

The VCM primes have one glaring hole as we all know I don't believe they'll make a 135mm VCM because F1.4 will probably not be possible due to size and F2 would be too close to the existing RF 135mm. Is there any chance they might make 100mm F1.4 VCM?

Click to expand...

A true 100m fI.4 couldn't use a 67 mm front filter, but they could make it slightly shorter and / or slower. They could also choose to only allow a rear filter. So you can hope, if you want!

Have you heard anything about a 70-135/150mm F2 zoom or a 28-70mm F2 successor? Those are the lenses I´d really be interested in, but I can easily wait a few years.

Interesting lenses, for sure, but nothing there for me. The 70-XXXmm F2.8 could be for me, but only if there are definite benefits compared to the RF 70-200mm F4 L, which is near perfect imo. A 70-180mm F2.8 with a lot less weight is the only thing that comes to my mind.

The RF 24-70mm F2.8 VCM sounds really interesting because it might be the start for mkii versions (even if they aren't called mkii´s) of the first generation L zooms. Hoping for an updated 24-105mm F4 L at some point (if I don´t purchase the RF 28-70mm F2.8).

The VCM primes have one glaring hole as we all know I don't believe they'll make a 135mm VCM because F1.4 will probably not be possible due to size and F2 would be too close to the existing RF 135mm. Is there any chance they might make 100mm F1.4 VCM?

zamorano said:

professional equipment brings more profit per unit, and Canon concentrates on that

Click to expand...

How do you imagine that they would focus on amateur equipment?

Exploreshootshare said:

Yes, it relies on digital correction. Apparently, for distortion it is not as extreme as with other vcm lenses.

Click to expand...

But what I meant is whether the lens' image circle convers the full sensor or not before any kind of digital correction. Mandrake says it does so it's different from the wide angle lenses (primes or zooms at their widest fl) which do not.

Exploreshootshare said:

Noooo! Of course not! But maybe spending less time arguing over - what feels like - endlessly ongoing debates (digital corrections/ dynamic range) and writing/ reading more about we all enjoy, look forward to or just share knowledge about photography. And, of course, guessing and debating new rumors and upcoming camera gear

Click to expand...

Debates? what debates? it's just me being right and misinformed people disagreeing with me

Seriously though. Some debates go on endlessly indeed... but it takes 2 (or more) to tango... In any case, IMHO, some "spice" is needed for a forum to be successful: if everyone was agreeing with and high-fiving everyone else then it will become a bit boring pretty quick. Heated debate is good (again, IMHO) as long as there are no personal attacks involved

Richard CR said:

This is Digital Lens Optimizer, which is different.

But DLO is pretty damned cool.

Click to expand...

I think he's referring to in-camera chromatic aberration correction, that is available when DLO is disabled.

I guess there are more amateur photographers than professionals by a wide margin. But professional equipment brings more profit per unit, and Canon concentrates on that - possibly because they can't produce big quantities of cameras or don't want to invest into expanding. I'm not sure if the R10 is entry level, it's kind of a step up from that (although beginner friendly for sure), but besides the R8 the next camera up the hierarchy is the pro R7. There's not much of a middle ground, and the lens choice reflects that as well: we get the lowly kit zooms that start at f4 and end at f6.7, and the professional L stuff with not much in between.

Let's hope this changes with the R10ii, I guess it's probable, as @Exploreshootshare stated, that R10ii should get similar or better software than R50V, and Canon will upgrade the hardware at least to be able to say they did (which should make it capable of higher spec 4k video, maybe even less rolling shutter but I'm not holding my breath for that - it seems very probable for the R7ii, though). This alone would polish the current wrinkles and make it a very good enthusiast camera. With IBIS, it would be killer.