Latest activity

Rceres · Jun 11, 2026

Call me crazy, and I’m not in the market for these lenses, so take my opinion with the healthy skepticism it deserves, but for me, I question utility of built-in teleconverters.
I understand the convenience. One lens can effectively become two or three focal lengths at the flip of a switch. For professional sports or wildlife professionals it makes sense.
But every lens reflects design objective tradeoffs. Built-in teleconverters will add cost, complexity, size, weight, and potentially impact optical performance. Those tradeoffs are exactly why I’ve almost always preferred shooting primes over zooms.
For some, the convenience is absolutely worth it. And as noted already, others would prefer carrying a 1.4x and 2x teleconverter in a vest pocket that can be shared across multiple lenses.
Another of the comments above about handling long lenses in high winds struck me as particularly relevant. Every ounce and every inch matters when you’re already working at 400mm, 600mm, or beyond.
I might occasionally rent a 400mm f/2.8 with a built-in teleconverter, but I doubt I’d ever buy one.
On the other hand, if Canon announced an RF 200mm f/1.8L halo prime, I’d be reaching for my credit card immediately. Just please don’t put a built-in teleconverter in it.
Just my two cents.

john1970 · Jun 11, 2026

juststeve said:
A 500/4 lens with DO could be mighty attractive. Heck, spice it up a bit more with a 1.4x. As much as I weighed getting that Nikon 600/4 1.4x a year ago, a 500/4 DO lens would get my money so fast my credit card would ignite.

Years ago when I bought my 500/4 L ii the reason I went for it was it was enough more compact than the 600 and a bit lighter. But it was the more compact nature which attracted me. I photograph mainly in MT and WY. Often windy places. I found the 600/4, even at plus 13 pounds, bounced around in the wind, even with a heavy duty tripod and a high quality video head. The 400/2.8 L IS which followed, short, fat and heavy at 12 plus pounds, was better in the wind. Much later there was a time when the 500/4 L ii was at an especially good price and weighed 5 1/2 pounds less than the 400/2.8. Not having the backbone to resist the temptation I got the 500. It turned out to be a great choice for my use, light and agile enough to swing on birds, and still long enough to deal with critters large, fury and toothsome. Oh, and extremely sharp.

So as much as I like that lens and the 100-500 RF lens I nearly always carry, a 500/4 or 4.5 DO lens would be special for me. An instant purchase.

If Canon released a 500 mm f4 DO I would likely trade-in the 400 mm f2.8 for it.

john1970 · Jun 11, 2026

John D P said:
Thanks for your input. I'm going to Lake Clark. I'm taking two R5m2 cameras, 400 f2.8, 100-500 4.5-7.1, 70-200mm Z, and a 1.4 teleconverter. I haven't done this trip before. I have been researching on the internet, so I have some idea. I was thinking of doing the low light times with the 400 2.8 and the 70-200 2.8 Z ( possibly with the 1.4 giving me 96-280 f4 ). Then switching the 70-200 for the 100-500 when I have good light. I do prefer the versatility of a zoom for wildlife, but I want to use a prime. I've thought about the 100-300; how do you like it?

I like the 100-300 mm f2.8, but once you add the lens hood, lens coat, 2x TC it tips the scale at almost 7 lbs which get a bit heavy. With the 2x TC the 100-300 mm f2.8 is only a bit lighter than the 400 f2.8 with 1.4x TC. Go figure.

HeavyPiper · Jun 11, 2026

Shot with my 100-400mm lens.

Face Rock, Bandon, Oregon.

juststeve · Jun 11, 2026

A 500/4 lens with DO could be mighty attractive. Heck, spice it up a bit more with a 1.4x. As much as I weighed getting that Nikon 600/4 1.4x a year ago, a 500/4 DO lens would get my money so fast my credit card would ignite.

Years ago when I bought my 500/4 L ii the reason I went for it was it was enough more compact than the 600 and a bit lighter. But it was the more compact nature which attracted me. I photograph mainly in MT and WY. Often windy places. I found the 600/4, even at plus 13 pounds, bounced around in the wind, even with a heavy duty tripod and a high quality video head. The 400/2.8 L IS which followed, short, fat and heavy at 12 plus pounds, was better in the wind. Much later there was a time when the 500/4 L ii was at an especially good price and weighed 5 1/2 pounds less than the 400/2.8. Not having the backbone to resist the temptation I got the 500. It turned out to be a great choice for my use, light and agile enough to swing on birds, and still long enough to deal with critters large, fury and toothsome. Oh, and extremely sharp.

So as much as I like that lens and the 100-500 RF lens I nearly always carry, a 500/4 or 4.5 DO lens would be special for me. An instant purchase.

foxfender · Jun 11, 2026

Hey Canon! We Are still waiting for 4K60 « Fine » on the R5 Mark II

I’m wondering if you could at least add a 4K60 “fine” mode to the canon EOS R5 mark II for the CF-R20EP fan grip owners,

even if it is tied to the use of the CF-R20EP fan grip,
even if it is only available with fan set to high,
and even if it is limited to 30 minutes recording?

I think a lot of people would be so happy as it seems to be THE major request/complaint made by everyone thinking about getting the R5 mark II for its hybrid capabilities, and THE major reason why a lot of people turn their choice to a lower priced R6 Mark III or R6V, or even to the competition (Sony, Nikon).

I don’t think that would cannibalize either sells of lower or higher end products in the line-up, because not everyone needs, want or can afford the R5 Mark II, and some others prefer the Cinema OS and features (timecode, no IBIS, Shutter angle etc…) of the upper grade Cinema line…

In case any Canon Rep is passing by and reading this, and hopefully passing the message to the firmware upgrade team…

Thank you!

Click · Jun 11, 2026

ISv said:
Not much birds today...
Par of Red-whiskered Bulbuls and (off course) Warbling White-eye...

Another very nice series. Well done, ISv.

Click · Jun 11, 2026

photophil said:
Saw my first European Stonechat on vacation in Portugal and managed to creep quite close.
R6 classic + RF100-400

Also finally managed to get a decent shot of a Eurasian Kingfisher after figuring out where on the damn river their territory was.
R6 classic + RF800/1

Beautiful pictures.

AlanF · Jun 11, 2026

DocInfoSci said:
Ha! I think there’s many here who are opinionated — and I am among them! But at least most people have some experience, and better still not necessarily the same experience. Pool it all together and after the yelling dies down we all get to be a little wiser. And maybe a tad more humble. Or not. Either way, it’s generally fun.

If that's your opinion, you can get this from Amazon and put it on your Big White to remind you.

Del Paso · Jun 11, 2026

scyrene said:
Mine's a riesling, ta!

This forum is slowly becoming expensive for me!

DocInfoSci · Jun 11, 2026

Canon Rumors said:
That's good to hear! I don't think there's enough of it out there and I have been accused of being opinioniated, which is a hard accusation for me to deny.

Ha! I think there’s many here who are opinionated — and I am among them! But at least most people have some experience, and better still not necessarily the same experience. Pool it all together and after the yelling dies down we all get to be a little wiser. And maybe a tad more humble. Or not. Either way, it’s generally fun.

ISv · Jun 10, 2026

Not much birds today...
Par of Red-whiskered Bulbuls and (off course) Warbling White-eye...

ISv · Jun 10, 2026

And the Swallowtail!!! If you search just by that name you will find many different species. In your case it's the Eastern Swallowtail, specifically the subspecies Papilio glaucus meynardi. https://www.researchgate.net/figure...tern-tiger-swallowtail-A-and-B_fig2_263331640
Got headache

?

ISv · Jun 10, 2026

becceric said:
I was surprised by the variations when I attempted to find their names. I typed those in hoping to be accurate. It seems there is a fair amount of hybridization that occurs.

No hybridization, just two different species!!! I just checked the internet and was very surprised from what I found: the things created by AI in this specific case are totally misleading - it's talking about two FORMS or SUBSPECIES (American and Eurasian) instead of two SPECIES. Total mess!
In Wikipedia it's better (and still not perfect! Do they started using AI too?!).

SnowMiku · Jun 10, 2026

A bit off topic, but for those with the R6 II it is worth downloading the v1.7.0 Firmware. For this new feature: "Added Wi-Fi freq. band to Communication Settings, allowing selection of 5 GHz or 2.4 GHz when switching from Bluetooth to Wi-Fi."
I've tested this and for me selecting 5 GHz works significantly faster and more reliable then 2.4 GHz.

@zajicekpavel · Jun 10, 2026

becceric said:
After a futile hummingbird photo session (they went to the neighbor's feeder for their portraits), I was bringing equipment in and noticed two different butterflies on our Eastern Nine Bark.
They say the best camera is the one you have on you, so I used the R5 and EF 600mm f/4 III + 1.4tc. It felt like I was using a bazooka to shoot them!

Swallowtail
View attachment 230005

White Admiral
View attachment 230006

The bottom one is absolutely perfect.

John D P · Jun 10, 2026

john1970 said:
In 2023 I went to Katmai National Park and took two R3s and the RF 100-300 mm f2.8 and RF 400 mm f2.8 with both 1.4x and 2x TC. For the way I shoot, I used the RF 100-300 mm f2.8 with 2x TC (200-600 mm f5.6) almost exclusively. Having the ability to zoom was very very useful. YMMV depending on how you shoot.

Thanks for your input. I'm going to Lake Clark. I'm taking two R5m2 cameras, 400 f2.8, 100-500 4.5-7.1, 70-200mm Z, and a 1.4 teleconverter. I haven't done this trip before. I have been researching on the internet, so I have some idea. I was thinking of doing the low light times with the 400 2.8 and the 70-200 2.8 Z ( possibly with the 1.4 giving me 96-280 f4 ). Then switching the 70-200 for the 100-500 when I have good light. I do prefer the versatility of a zoom for wildlife, but I want to use a prime. I've thought about the 100-300; how do you like it?

Ian K · Jun 10, 2026

john1970 said:
In 2023 I went to Katmai National Park and took two R3s and the RF 100-300 mm f2.8 and RF 400 mm f2.8 with both 1.4x and 2x TC. For the way I shoot, I used the RF 100-300 mm f2.8 with 2x TC (200-600 mm f5.6) almost exclusively. Having the ability to zoom was very very useful. YMMV depending on how you shoot.

That’s good to read. I have one to collect in the next week or so. I think I’m doing a Namibia trip later this year (other factors allowing). That will be my wildlife lens of choice. I have the 2x and 1.4x so there’s lots of options. The only downside will be the inability to swap on the move.

I’ll be using an R7, but also have the R5 Mark II.

foda said:
Not sure why the EF 200-400mm f/4L IS USM Extender 1.4x lens didn't/doesn't get more attention. I got it right after it was released in 2013. The zoom range was great and I was never able to see any degradation in image quality when the extender was used. If I didn't already have it I would definitely purchase a used version at the ridiculously low prices I'm seeing. How would a 300-600 f/5.6 be better than this lens?

I took the 200-400 1.4x to Namibia the last time I went and it was excellent. I used it on a 7D mark II, giving a range of 320 - 896 pov equivalent. I always used it on a monopod so weight wasn’t much of an issue. It produced excellent results.

Noreaster · Jun 10, 2026

American Nursery Web Spider

patal05 · Jun 10, 2026

foda said:
Not sure why the EF 200-400mm f/4L IS USM Extender 1.4x lens didn't/doesn't get more attention. I got it right after it was released in 2013. The zoom range was great and I was never able to see any degradation in image quality when the extender was used. If I didn't already have it I would definitely purchase a used version at the ridiculously low prices I'm seeing. How would a 300-600 f/5.6 be better than this lens?

I 100% agree with you. Yes, it’s heavy and cumbersome. But I find the image quality absolutely fantastic, it adapts amazingly well, and I will keep using it until it breaks I think. There doesn’t seem to be any rumors of a similar replacement lens.

becceric · Jun 10, 2026

ISv said:
One of that (many) cases when the common name is the same for two or more different species. This is the American White Admiral (Limenites arthemis). The Eurasian White Admiral (Limenites camilla) is different looking on upper and the undersides.

I was surprised by the variations when I attempted to find their names. I typed those in hoping to be accurate. It seems there is a fair amount of hybridization that occurs.

foda · Jun 10, 2026

Not sure why the EF 200-400mm f/4L IS USM Extender 1.4x lens didn't/doesn't get more attention. I got it right after it was released in 2013. The zoom range was great and I was never able to see any degradation in image quality when the extender was used. If I didn't already have it I would definitely purchase a used version at the ridiculously low prices I'm seeing. How would a 300-600 f/5.6 be better than this lens?

john1970 · Jun 10, 2026

John D P said:
I'm renting an RF 400mm 2.8 for my up coming brown bear trip in July. I know there will be alot of good used RF 400mm 2.8 lenses hit the market as people upgrade. I debating how much I really want the built in teleconverter or how much I'm willing to pay for it. Truth is I really do want it! I would prefer a simple reliable 1.4 switchable teleconverter versus a complex 1.4 & 2.0 setup. Will have to see what they release.

The price is going to be interesting. The current Canon RF 400mm 2.8 is $13,400 new. The Sony 400mm 2.8 is $13,000. The Nikon 400mm with a built in teleconverter was $14,700, but is now $12,700 (B&H prices). I would be really annoyed if I bought the Nikon lens for $14,700 and it just devalued $2,000.

I prefer zooms for wildlife, but 400mm at the wider apertures is really nice for low light and bokeh. I was seriously considering the 300-600mm f4-5.6, but I'm not interested in a fixed 5.6 for the projected price. The original article mentioned that the Canon EF 200-400mm f4 with 1.4 teleconverter didn't sell well. That surprised me for 2013. I considered this lens, but not in love with the 8lb wt for the price. Maybe Canon is having second thoughts about the 300-600mm. I have the 100-500mm f4.5-7; it's actually a great lens. But not in love with the teleconverter situation, external zoom, or 7.1`on the long end. An updated f4.0-5.6 100-500mm or a 180/200-600mm would probably sell better then a 300-600mm.

I'm sure a 500mm 5.6 prime for $4000, similar to Nikon's small affordable prime lens, would make a lot of people happy. A 700mm f6.3 would also be great.

In 2023 I went to Katmai National Park and took two R3s and the RF 100-300 mm f2.8 and RF 400 mm f2.8 with both 1.4x and 2x TC. For the way I shoot, I used the RF 100-300 mm f2.8 with 2x TC (200-600 mm f5.6) almost exclusively. Having the ability to zoom was very very useful. YMMV depending on how you shoot.

scyrene · Jun 10, 2026

Del Paso said:
Thanks a lot! Even I understood your explanation.
You demonstrated the the French proverb: "Ce qui se concoit bien, s'enonce clairement".
OK for the malt!

Mine's a riesling, ta!