Latest activity

AlanF · Jun 14, 2026

@zajicekpavel said:
It shows a 100-400 element, which I don't like (i use 100-400 with TC 1.4) and the details are blurry...
Unfortunately you can't get more out of it ... let's face it, the 100-400 with TC is not the sharpest lens (Don't take this as a criticism, I've been using that lens for a long time and I'm bothered by the fact that it's not very sharp and detailed, I always have to additionally sharpen the RAW photos in software)

You are using an R7 with a diffraction limited aperture of f/5.2, @Maximilian is using an R6ii with a dla of f/9.6. The RF 100-400 has an aperture of f/8. The two cameras respond differently when a 1.4x TC is put on the lens. The R7 is pushed further into dla-limitations but the R6ii less so. It's a waste of time if not disadvantageous putting TCs on to narrow lenses on the R7 but you can squeeze out more resolution with FF cameras. I know this from direct experience with my R7 and R5ii bodies as well as from theory.

@zajicekpavel · Jun 14, 2026

Maximilian said:
I don’t take this as criticism.
Thank you for your opinion.
I post those comparisons and you and I look at the results and analyse them.
I am pleased with the details. But I am also happy that the 100-500 looks better.
Esp. when you compare the price difference.

Yes, it's like comparing a "macro" taken with a 100-400 with TC to, say, an RF 100mm f/2.8L Macro. That's just different.

Peter Ebel · Jun 14, 2026

homebodyMacro2 said:
I use the 70-200Z + 2x to take a lot of butterfly shots at high magnification. Not necessarily right at MFD, but often close. My personal take for this lens with 2x at MFD is that "it is much better than it has any right to be". I don't anyone could reasonably be disappointed by it.
Some samples:
View attachment 230107
View attachment 230108
View attachment 230109
View attachment 230110

Some shots at MFD. This was a TINY fly, and these are very, very deep crops. Still looks quite good imo considering it is only 0.6x magnification
View attachment 230111
View attachment 230113
And a honey bee:
View attachment 230114

Nice shots, have plenty of fun with this lens!

Eloniel · Jun 14, 2026

rombe3jr said:
What about a 50-150mm f/2.8 to match Sony first?

50-150 f2.0 not f2.8

Peter Ebel · Jun 14, 2026

scyrene said:
Huh? Are you suggesting people would never use the macro wide open? I use the rather similar Sigma 180 macro and almost always shoot at f/2.8.

How is the sharpness of the new 70-200, especially at MFD? I tried the mark II EF as an alternative to a long macro lens and found the IQ too poor for close shots of flowers and insects. Macro lenses tend to have exceptional sharpness at 1x magnification.

How is the sharpness at MFD? Excellent, that's my experience, that't reviewers' testimony. Regarding 2.8: Shooting wildlife at .5x or even closer at least I need more depth of field than f/2.8 can provide. The word isn't flat, nor are the protagonists.

Proposal: Never take this 70-200 Z in your hands, this will be bad for your wallet.

rombe3jr · Jun 14, 2026

PinholeR5 said:
I've been wondering about that as well. I do have the RF 16-28mm & 28-70mm f/2.8 that I use with the R8 in a small/light kit (I have an even smaller/lighter R50 based one). I've used the 70-200mm F4 with it and it is fine. Actually, the 70-200mm F/2.8 is compact enough that it can fit in my small kit bag. It is heavier, but compact enough to fit so I often use the 2.8 version.

I do agree with @Exploreshootshare that it would have to be really compact and light, i.e., less than 500g like the 16-28mm and the 28-70mm. The 70-200mm F4 is only 695g, so even then the difference in weight (and probably size) wouldn't be that large, but for that focal length F2.8 vs F4 would make a difference. Also, the RF 70-200mm F2.8 is 1Kg, so the weight difference is considerable and I'd assume an RF 70-180mm F2.8 would be less than 50% the cost of the RF 70-200mm F2.8.

I did look into the RF 14-35mm F4, and perhaps that would have been the better option. The 14mm vs 16mm is a significant advantage and the 35mm vs 28mm is as well. The F2.8 vs F4 tends to be not that great of an advantage for me.

I have heard the 70-200 f/4 is a great lens. It seems like a low price right now for $1,500 USD. With such great ISO / low light performance from newer camera bodies these days, perhaps an f/2.8 isn't really necessary? A 180mm reach and weight under 500g does seem like a tall order but would be a fantastic set of specs. About the only thing I can think of to do it better would be to keep the 67mm filter size. Then you could have the holy trinity with one set of filters. Combined with a R6 II right now and you have a fantastic kit, affordable (as "affordable" as full frame Canons can get at "only" $6,000 USD), but quite capable!

john1970 · Jun 14, 2026

Perfectly content with the 24-70 f2.8; no reason for me to buy this lens.

@zajicekpavel · Jun 14, 2026

It shows a 100-400 element, which I don't like (i use 100-400 with TC 1.4) and the details are blurry...
Unfortunately you can't get more out of it ... let's face it, the 100-400 with TC is not the sharpest lens (Don't take this as a criticism, I've been using that lens for a long time and I'm bothered by the fact that it's not very sharp and detailed, I always have to additionally sharpen the RAW photos in software)

@zajicekpavel · Jun 14, 2026

Day 3 ... bck to 3200 I'm only taking photos, close up, the lens is set to focus only up to 0.5 m, I shoot handheld through the rear display, even though I hate this type of photography .. I can't lie down with the camera. I have about 200 usable photos - various insects (for today) ... this is not the best of them, I'll keep the premiere on my Instagram.

rombe3jr · Jun 14, 2026

What about a 50-150mm f/2.8 to match Sony first?

AlanF · Jun 14, 2026

koenkooi said:
So far, I'm happy with the results, it's not as sharp at the EF180L, but the ILIS+IBIS gives me a much higher amount of keepers. Below is a 100% crop of a hoverfly that was close-but-not-quite at MFD.
I ran it through DxO PR6, that adds (or brings back) a bit of detail, but not much more than the builtin denoise in LR. DxO did do a much better job here with making the background less splotchy, LR kept too much of the noise texture for my liking.

On the practical side, the 70-200Z+2x is marginally longer than the 100-500L, making it almost too large for my shoulder bag. That extra fingerwidth of length makes a big difference for that specific bag. Let's hope we'll have better weather next week so I can go out to find dragonflies and frogs.

View attachment 230105

The 70-200mm f/2.8 Z is on my buy list. However, for macro of about 0.6x I am now getting too old to bend down to get the mfd of 70cm away, but the 2x TC on the RF 100-500mm or RF 100-400mm means I can stand relatively straight at 1.2-1.4m! Here's a Green Bottle Fly I took at 1000mm on the R5ii a few minutes ago!

Nathalietje86 · Jun 14, 2026

ctk said:
Whats needed in a super zoom that is not available? There seem to be way bigger gaps on the RX100 style camera side.

Raw the last super zoom compact camera hs740 of canon has only jpeg, i can go to Panasonic but i dont like Panasonic thats just not my brand.
Or go to Sony the last super zoom with raw is the hx99, because the rx100 line has only 200mm is in my eyes not a super zoom.

So its time for new super zoom compact camera's with raw

AlanF · Jun 14, 2026

homebodyMacro2 said:
I use the 70-200Z + 2x to take a lot of butterfly shots at high magnification. Not necessarily right at MFD, but often close.
Some samples:
View attachment 230107
View attachment 230108
View attachment 230109
View attachment 230110

Some shots at MFD. This was a TINY fly, and these are very, very deep crops. Still looks quite good imo considering it is only 0.6x magnification
View attachment 230111
View attachment 230113
And a honey bee:
View attachment 230114

Beautifully sharp.

homebodyMacro2 · Jun 14, 2026

scyrene said:
Huh? Are you suggesting people would never use the macro wide open? I use the rather similar Sigma 180 macro and almost always shoot at f/2.8.

How is the sharpness of the new 70-200, especially at MFD? I tried the mark II EF as an alternative to a long macro lens and found the IQ too poor for close shots of flowers and insects. Macro lenses tend to have exceptional sharpness at 1x magnification.

I use the 70-200Z + 2x to take a lot of butterfly shots at high magnification. Not necessarily right at MFD, but often close. My personal take for this lens with 2x at MFD is that "it is much better than it has any right to be". I don't anyone could reasonably be disappointed by it.
Some samples:

Some shots at MFD. This was a TINY fly, and these are very, very deep crops. Still looks quite good imo considering it is only 0.6x magnification

And a honey bee:

sobrien · Jun 14, 2026

Interesting. Find it hard to imagine selling my 28-70 f/2. It has captured so many beautiful moments in my growing family’s life. Rarely if ever feel it’s not wide enough for events and the likes. Don’t mind the weight too much for the times that I use it. Would have been more interested in getting the best/lightest 24-70 f/2.8 Canon can make to complement it. Hmmm.

John Wilde · Jun 14, 2026

"We have been told that we should get some clarity at some point in June for both the Canon EOS R8 Mark II and the new PowerShot."

Come on sources. Don't make us wait any longer.

Del Paso · Jun 14, 2026

capturesintime said:
I would really love to see a 20-120mm f4 ideally L series landscape/ travel lens. just something a wee bit longer and wider than the 24-105mm f4 i have! Bigger faster lens dont overly apeal for my work… something light weathersealed and of quality is more important for me and i suspect many others

This is a zoom I would certainly never buy.
Extreme stretching the focal range of a zoom comes at a cost, namely optical quality.
We already have heard and read multiple times that a high-IQ zoom stretching from WA to short-tele (24-70) is already hard to design.
Keep on dreaming, but keep your feet on the optical ground!

blackcoffee17 · Jun 14, 2026

capturesintime said:
I would really love to see a 20-120mm f4 ideally L series landscape/ travel lens. just something a wee bit longer and wider than the 24-105mm f4 i have! Bigger faster lens dont overly apeal for my work… something light weathersealed and of quality is more important for me and i suspect many others

I would love that too. The perfect travel lens. Currently im interested in the 20-50 but might be a bit too short to replace the 24-105.

koenkooi · Jun 14, 2026

scyrene said:
Huh? Are you suggesting people would never use the macro wide open? I use the rather similar Sigma 180 macro and almost always shoot at f/2.8.

How is the sharpness of the new 70-200, especially at MFD? I tried the mark II EF as an alternative to a long macro lens and found the IQ too poor for close shots of flowers and insects. Macro lenses tend to have exceptional sharpness at 1x magnification.

So far, I'm happy with the results, it's not as sharp at the EF180L, but the ILIS+IBIS gives me a much higher amount of keepers. Below is a 100% crop of a hoverfly that was close-but-not-quite at MFD.
I ran it through DxO PR6, that adds (or brings back) a bit of detail, but not much more than the builtin denoise in LR. DxO did do a much better job here with making the background less splotchy, LR kept too much of the noise texture for my liking.

On the practical side, the 70-200Z+2x is marginally longer than the 100-500L, making it almost too large for my shoulder bag. That extra fingerwidth of length makes a big difference for that specific bag. Let's hope we'll have better weather next week so I can go out to find dragonflies and frogs.

Schermafbeelding 2026-06-14 om 14.26.12.png

Exploreshootshare · Jun 14, 2026

capturesintime said:
I would really love to see a 20-120mm f4 ideally L series landscape/ travel lens. just something a wee bit longer and wider than the 24-105mm f4 i have! Bigger faster lens dont overly apeal for my work… something light weathersealed and of quality is more important for me and i suspect many others

That would make a great spiritual successor for the RF 24-105mm F4 L. While I do believe going longer will eventually happen with successor for this lens, I doubt it will be wider. 24-120mm is a five-times zoom, 20-120mm would be a six-times zoom. I think there hasn't been a six-times L zoom with the exception of the EF 28-300mm F3.5-5.6 L zoom. And the reports its quality weren't really favorable. In addition, the difference between 20-24mm is really difficult to achieve, it is much more work than "just 4mm wider" would suggest. Lastly, I do believe Canon could deliver a 20-70mm F2.8 in order to differentiate from the rumored 24-70mm F2, but I don't believe "20mm is the new 24mm". If Canon would upgrade all zooms starting at 24mm with a 20mm replacement, they'd surely cannibalise their UWA zooms. We know Canon doesn't like to do that.

capturesintime · Jun 14, 2026

I would really love to see a 20-120mm f4 ideally L series landscape/ travel lens. just something a wee bit longer and wider than the 24-105mm f4 i have! Bigger faster lens dont overly apeal for my work… something light weathersealed and of quality is more important for me and i suspect many others

@zajicekpavel · Jun 14, 2026

Macro R7
Police horse

@zajicekpavel · Jun 14, 2026

R7 + Canon 2.8 macro

Aldherrian · Jun 14, 2026

As it's been already said, there are actually quite the lot of lenses in this range so it seems not so reasonable to hope for something different than the multiple offers on the market.
I've not yet had the opportunity to try out the RF24-70 but I'm often quite amazed of my RF70-200/4 over my RF24-105/4, I would be interested in a 24-70II shaving a bit more weight but no free lunch yada yada

Del Paso · Jun 14, 2026

danfaz said:
I was happy when when 24-105 2.8 was released, ending the 24-70 2.8 vs 24-105 f4 debate (for me).
Now, it's gonna be a whole new debate between the 24-105 2.8 and 24-70 f2

Have a nice cup of Yirgacheffe, it will help you find a solution to this cruel dilemma!
At least, it -usually- works for me.

Latest activity

Latest activity

Filter

Forum statistics

Gallery statistics