If we're putting in requests for the CanonRumors-hating Canon people to not read, a TS-R 14mm and an RF 600mm f/4 + 1.4x, please.

vlasena said:

Thank you for sharing, but that is very sad that even after 2 generations of R6, Canon still does not have a solution and we have to use 3rd party software. I am not a pro, for me even the original R6 is still good enough, pictures and colors are amazing if not better, however for video all those GOPs and other funcy stuff is not a substitution of proper IBIS. Not sure how this is not in every single review. GoPro or DJI all have some kind of digital, canon just a stabilization for photos. Who cares about your amazing video if it is wobly and ugly?

Click to expand...

I agree. If it is any consolation, there is only one interchangeable lens camera brand doing IBIS well enough to eliminate a gimbal right now, and reliably shoot smooth looking hand held (even 200mm is achievable), and that is with a Panasonic Lumix. The Canon R6 is indeed still a compelling camera in many ways, especially if you are doing a limited amount of video. Shorter clips will look as good as the R6 II, slightly better in the R6 III but again, more incremental and not needed much unless you need to shoot video over 30 minutes at a time or 4k 60 fps over 10 minutes (to avoid overheating). I agree that brands like GoPro/DJI/Insta360 are moving into video fast. The DJI Osmo Pocket 3 for only $525 USD (new on B&H right now), is the clear leader and somewhat of a game changer. Its larger 1" sensor has helped it a bit in lower light situations over previous models, the gimbal for obvious reasons (no wobble) and the ability to pull the camera out and start recording so quickly. Its sensor can always improve, especially for low light, but the biggest limiting factor is probably the 20mm full frame equivalent field of view. For most "vlog" style video its perfect to shoot yourself and the scene behind you. A firmware update gives us a 40mm equivalent crop, but that does limit the sensor. My guess is the next generation Pocket 4 was going to work on these two weaknesses (sensor capabilities and field of view). The fact that it is over 2 years old means that DJI was probably close to releasing a version 4 but then the December, 2025 ruling in the United States banned not only drones from China/DJI but also any new device with radio communications (which includes the Wi-Fi / Bluetooth connectivity to your phone or lav mics standard on the new Pockets). The good news is that the Osmo Pocket 3 is still for sale in the US. DJI was so far ahead of the competition that it probably still has a couple years before anything else comes close. It is likely DJI will continue to innovate and have new models ready to offer the US market if/when the ban is lifted. For now, if you need 4k video in a 20mm equivalent field of view in moderate to well-lit situations, there is nothing easier than the Osmo Pocket 3.

m4ndr4ke said:

Being fair isn’t being a hater. Canon Rumors actually has decent writers, not merely blind fanboys.
I often find that Canon Rumors (CR) writes better than Sony Alpha Rumors (SAR) even for Sony gear, which is commendable for CR and laughable for SAR. Heck, a friend of mine, who is a Sony user, enjoys more reading this website than theirs, because the writing is clearly more responsible and mature here.

For this article, specifically, I think Sigma deserved a few recognitions, but that’s all I have to say.

Click to expand...

Yes and so is the community here.

Why Canon hates CanonRumors.com?
Anyways, I wish for a new version of the 24-105 f/4 L (smaller lighter maybe a bit sharper) but there is no sign and probably no need for Canon to update it (the current one still sells well), and I know, there is the 28-70 f/2.8 but that's just doesn't work for me.

Also, is an RF 24-70 f/4 L coming? Not that I want it but I expected that and I'm sure they can make it very small now.

Else, as always: give me a small fish-eye lens (size of RF 16mm).

Well done, Norman.

I'm so glad and lucky I built a new PC for myself early last year, before the prices started going crazy!

I jumped from a pair of 5DIII's to a R6mkII a few years back and the difference in camera was like night and day. Better high iso ability, way more optical resolution for a similar sensor resolution, faster fps, better metering. The AF was on a completely different level, I had a lot more dynamic range to play with. It's like every metric was vastly superior. Things had really moved on well beyond just MP ratings.
I found the EVF had a lot of benefits (like low light and I could now see into the sun without fear of retina damage). Histograms, electronic levels in the view finder....so much better. Although a good optical view finder is a joy...they were becoming quite rare.
Now that I have a R5, I came quite late to that party....i'm finding the age difference between the R6ii and R5 to be irksome. The AF is weaker on the R5 and there's a lot of other improvements on the newer body that make life so much nicer. I can only imagine what the R5ii or R6iii are like in that regard.
So here in early Jan 2026, I'm now telling myself to save for a R5ii to replace my R5 mkI later in the year and then focus on glass. I got such a good deal on my R5, I'll probably get close to what I paid for it anyhow.

neuroanatomist said:

I'm curious, how do you compare your copy of a lens to online tests of other copies or different lenses? People use different cameras, and take pictures of different things. Some of them do it better than others.

The only time I was confidently able to say that my copy of a lens was sharper than an online test was with my EF-M 18-150, where Bryan/TDP posted the usual shots of his 'enhanced ISO-12233' charts and I tested my copy of that lens on an equivalent camera (M2 vs M, essentially the same sensor), and I have the same charts that he uses. In that case, he bought another copy and tested that and it gave results similar to mine (i.e. better than his first copy). Even though I have the same charts, he uses a 45-50 MP 5-series camera for his testing, and I don't. Comparing the sharpness of even the same test chart shot with an R1 vs. an R5 won't enable me to determine the relative sharpness of my copy of an RF or EF lens vs. his.

It's not too difficult to spot results from a poor copy of a lens, but IMO confidently distinguishing between 'good' copies of a lens or comparing one lens to another requires testing both lenses under the same conditions. I don't see how one can take pictures with their lens and declare that their lens is sharper than other copies based on pictures posted by someone else online (the pictures may be sharper, but there is more that goes into a picture posted online than just the lens...subject, focus, processing, downsampling, etc.).


If you put your copy of the 70-200/2.8 II on an optical bench and quantified parameters like MTF, field curvature, etc., and compared those to data published by LensRentals for multiple copies of the same lens, that would be a valid comparison demonstrating that your lens is sharper.

Click to expand...

I agree, I have a few lenses that are outrageously sharp. They far out resolve the sensors on my R6ii and R5, even with teleconverters. This aligns with their respective theoretical MFT curves. However, I would never say that any of my lenses are sharper than their theoretical MFT chart scores. How would I validate it without lab testing my lenses and a large range of other lenses also? However, it is reasonable for me to estimate, seeing my results in Lightroom, I can say that they are probably close or similar to that value.

I also have a copy of the ef 70-200/2.8 LIS II, I bought it new back when it was a "just released" new model and it cost me a fair penny. It's a specific lens that I am very familiar with. On my 5DII/III it was an amazingly sharp lens. I also loved it's contrast, colour rendition, it's superlative AF and excellent IS. Great with a 1.4x TC III but not so great with a 2x TC III. It always needed a whole extra stop of aperture to sharpen up that lens to acceptable levels. It's image quality seemed to deteriorate close to it's Min focus distance than at infinity focus. Which is something that's rarely noted in lens reviews. I used it a lot with my old 5DIII's with their softer and less resolved sensor. I still have this lens and I use it far less than I used to. It's still nice to use on My R6ii and R5. It's big and heavy, I'm not using that aperture / focal length much these days. I really should get around to side grading it to a RF lens, maybe I'd use it more. However, It's no where near as sharp as my ef 100-400mm II LIS at 400mm. With a 1.4x TC it's nearly as sharp at 300mm and natively it's as sharp at 200mm. But I'd never say that it was "wozers" sharp! So for my copy, I can hand on heart say that it out resolved the 5DIII sensor. But the R6ii substantially out resolves the 5DIII and my R5 comfortably out resolves every sensor except the 5DSR. I can honestly say that the ef 70-200/2.8 LIS II is a sharp lens, probably as sharp as it's RF counterpart. However, there are a lot of copy variations and most of these have substantially lower MFT curves than their theoretical plots might suggest. The new RF 70-200mm f2.8 Z lens looks very impressive, I'm sure this is a lens that also follows closely to it's theoretical chart scores.
I have lenses like my EF 400mm f2.8 LIS II and EF 100-400mm f5.6 LIS II which seem seems to align with their theoretical MFT plots and lead me to belive these lenses are built very close to their theoretical values. However, one major caveat..... my sensors are not yet matching or exceeding the resolution of these lenses. Where as the 5DIII (and I suggest the R3) are hardly taxing their lenses much at all compared to what a R5/R5ii will.

It reminds me of recent conversation i had with a "professional" events photographer that was hired by a family and came to my local Church (even though I run the photography for this particular parish). He reliably informed me that his ef 70-200mm f2.8 LIS was one of the sharpest lenses Canon had ever made and his particaulr one was cherry picked and was one of the sharpest. He was also running 5DIII's and I didn't dare show him my kit bag or lens inventory. However, he ended up using a lot of my images in his portfolio he sent to his client (I made them available for him for free).
I never got to see his magic unicorn sharp lens....I suspect that I never will. I'll take measured MFT's as a guide over hyperboles every time. However, what he did do for me is to remind me that I needed to "up the quality" of my business cards....lol!

I consulted with an AI assistant and here is its forecast for Canon full frame lenses ín 2026:

highly probable
24-70mm f/2.8L Z
35mm f/1.2L
14mm f/2L or 16mm f/1.8L
400mm f/2.8L
300-600mm f/4-5.6L
20-50mm f/4 PZ

possible
600mm f/4L
200-500mm f/4L
TS-R 24mm f/3.5L
70-150/180mm f/2.8

very unlikely
500mm f/4L
800mm f/5.6L
180mm f/3.5L macro
200mm f/2L or f/1.8L
70-150mm f/2L and 24-70 f/2L
20-135mm travel zoom
100mm f/1.8L VCM

You may pick 5-6 models from the first and second category and give up hope for the "very unlikely" lenses in 2026.

My take is 4-5 lenses from group 1 and hopefully 1-2 more lenses from group 2.

My predictions would be:
The I think they're a "given" category:
1.) R7mkii
2.) Retro camera
3.) A "v" designated camera... either R8V or R10V
4.) R10mkii

The I have serious doubt about it:
4.) R3mkii

the very long shot:
5.) R8mkii in Q4

Lenses:
given:
1.) RF 70-180mm F2.8 STM
2.) RF 300-600mm L

possible and wished by many category:
3.) RF 35mm F1.2 L VCM or RF 28mm F1.4 VCM --> Canon won´t release both in one year
4.) RF-S 22mm F2 (along with the R10ii or R10V)
5.) RF 24-70mm F2 L --> yeah, they can't just copy Sony for the mkii... they gotta go up and beyond
6.) RF 70-150mm F2 L --> a double headed annoucement? In this case 28-70mm F2 would be ok.
7.) RF 14mm F1.8 VCM

The I wildly guessing category:
8.) RF-S 30-80mm PZ (or something similar) zoom lenses to complement the RF-s 14-30mm/ R10V
9.) a consumer RF lenses nobody had on their radar...
10.) retrodesigned RF prime lenses (35mm F1.8?)

My personal wishlist concerning new lenses:
1.) RF 24-70mm F2 L --> yeah, they can't just copy Sony for the mkii... they gotta go up and beyond
2.) RF 70-150mm F2 L
--> I would start saving for either one of these lenses.
3.) RF 24-70mm F4 L in a very compact and light way or a RF24-130mm F4 L as a successor to the 24-105mm L

I would be very curious to see how a new 28mm competes with the 28mm 2.8 EF on IS, corners quality and size (I guess that will not change).

I just bought a couple of CFe used as new, the new prices have increased 25% compared to 3 months ago.

Canon Rumors said:

Canon had a interesting 2025 when it came to cameras and lenses. We got some new non-L lenses that have been requested by a lot of shooters for the RF mount along with a lot of cool and relatively affordable cameras for videographers and social media contact creators. How did the 2025 Predictions Go? Our […]

See full article...

Click to expand...

No sign of a new macro lens ? Something that could replace the MPE-65 or a new 200mm macro lens ? Desperately waiting for an evolution of macro lenses...

For an extended trip far from civilization this spring, I initially bought just one additional 512GB CFexpress card at the end of November. It cost just under €160 at the time. Two weeks later, I planned to buy three more cards, as I was satisfied with the performance, but the price had increased to over €360. Now it's back down to around €240. And I'm getting almost daily warnings from the shop where I bought it, urging me to buy quickly – the price is supposedly going to multiply in the coming days. To me, it seems like, in addition to the RAM shortage (which some people doubt), they're also deliberately creating scarcity of all similar products to maximize profits.

Hoping for RF 24-70L and 15-35L mk2

And...what's with a new macro lens? Especialy with a long lens...more than 180mm?

P-visie said:

Yes I did. As you pointed out in another thread, @Del Paso failed on the difference between a MILC and a MILF. A chatbot would not fail that test .

Click to expand...

I tried the MILC/MILF test on: ChatGPT - failed MILC, so human; Gemini and Deepseek, both correct so Chatbot; and Copilot, too prudish so human.

P-visie said:

Yes I did. As you pointed out in another thread, @Del Paso failed on the difference between a MILC and a MILF. A chatbot would not fail that test .

Click to expand...

I am not an artificial intelligence.
According to my wife, I am sometimes a natural stupidity!

You cruelly "forgot" the RF 35mm f/1,2 and the RF 14mm TSE!

The Brown Violetear is one of five species of hummingbird in the genus Colibri. They are characterized by patches of violet feathers, auriculars, covering the ear openings, hence their name. Large and fiercely territorial, these hummingbirds raise these patches when signaling to or fighting with others. This male was photographed during an intense stare-down while birding at La Florida, Bosque de Las Aves, at km 18, Colombia, November, 2025.

R5MkII RF200-800mm

AlanF said:

How do you know he is not a chatbot? Have you tried the Turing test?

Click to expand...

Yes I did. As you pointed out in another thread, @Del Paso failed on the difference between a MILC and a MILF. A chatbot would not fail that test .

The reason to stay home and taking opportunistic photos is the pretty unpredictable weather. The forecast for today was for 80% rain and eventually thunderstorms (up to now - 3:46 P.M. non of these). Same yesterday but at least there was some light rain. Day before it was only 40% chance for rain and I was prepared to go and went out. It started raining (light rain but still...)! So, today just a portrait from my lanai. Easy job and on top of that you are dry ! All recent photos (insects and this one) are handhold with support from the terrain.

Click said:

I like its inverted position.

Click to expand...

I think when they are freshly "hatched" they are always in that position: gravity is helping to pump body liquid into the wings in order to stretch and make them usable for flight. In that process the wings are very vulnerable to any branches, leafs e.t.c. that may touche and deform them.

How about corners for landscape?