Latest activity

Del Paso · Apr 21, 2026

Old Man FL/FD said:
View attachment 229029

I see a Focotar and a Colorplan...very good choices!

The funny bayonet was the only reason why I chose the Minolta SRT 101 over Canon's FTb Ql.
While dreaming, still a poor student, of a Leicaflex SL and a Nikon F2. Which I both bought a few years later.

Old Man FL/FD · Apr 21, 2026

Baywoof said:
To me, a "retro" camera is one you put on the shelf, and stays there except when you want to show it off to a relative.

AlanF · Apr 21, 2026

stillviking said:
I'm asking here for this lens for years, thank god!! Make it happen Canon!!

I loved my EF 400mm 5.6L and never had a lens like this again! (no, 100-500 L is not close).

The RF 100-500mm is an order of magnitude or more better than the EF 400/5.6. It is sharper at 500 than the prime at 400, has excellent IS against its absence, faster AF, will focus close and had all the advantages of zoom for framing as well as longer with little extra weight. I’ve used both extensively and the zoom is indeed not close, it is miles ahead.

clarus · Apr 21, 2026

Marc73 said:
what is the use of a 300-600 f5.6 if Canon has the 100-500 of very decent quality. You would gain 100mm and 2/3 stop of light at the cost of 7k? IMHO 600/5.6 would be ideal in combination with the 100-500. Light, small and with very good optical quality. With the extender RF 1.4 and 2.0 ideal which would cover all needs from 100-1200mm.

It may not sound much, but to me it would. Given the lens is of decent optical quality and in combination with a TC it translates into an additional 140/200mm.

dwkdnvr · Apr 21, 2026

roby17269 said:
Apart from Leica, Ricoh and PhaseOne have done monochrome versions of existing models as well. In all cases the monochrome version costs more than the color one and in all case the only difference is lack of color filtering. The color versions are all niche products admittedly, but the monochrome ones are niche in a niche

The Astro-Cam market is also illustrative. Astro-Cams (from ZWO and QHY among others) are pretty close to 'sensor in a box' designs where most of the complexity is offloaded to a universal driver. They have many designs where they offer a color and mono version of the same camera differing only in which version of the sensor they use. Even here, the mono versions are always more expensive.

mimbu · Apr 21, 2026

This is the patent for the Sigma 500/5.6 that already exists, priced at $3300 on B&H or $2270 here in Japan. The Sigma is about 43.5mm shorter than the proposed Canon and with a tad more focal length. It's an absolute marvel of a lens. I wonder how much Canon will charge for their version of this lens while refusing to let Sigma onto RF?

Also interesting is that together with the 500/5.6, Sigma patented a 400/5 and a 700/8 that haven't yet made it to market:

Focal length: 400.00
F-value: 5.06
Angle of view: 6.14
Image height: 21.63
Overall length: 233.14

and

Focal length: 700.00
F-value: 7.97
Angle of view: 3.52
Image height: 21.63
Total length: 318.72

Would love to see both these come out too.

Click · Apr 21, 2026

Well done, Maximilian. I especially like the first one.

FabFR · Apr 21, 2026

People who bought Nikon ZR cameras seem to really love its giant screen, I hope Canon will do so with the R6V !

IBIS or not IBIS ? Some want it, some don't... In a cinema approach, there often are more cons than pros for IBIS, I think, considering the use of tripods, gimbals, steadycam, etc.
Alas, I suppose Canon would not put an IBIS firstly because of heat dissipation, wich is easier with a sensor screwed on a metal plate with dissipator, instead of a floating plate that cannot passively convey heat outside the body. If they keep IBIS, I think they'll need a fan for extreme long video shots.
But CR says there will be no fan, only vents for a passive heat circulation.

If we add the problem of body thickness when there are IBIS + vents, it's likely there will be no IBIS to keep the body thin enough. But will it be really thin ? CR doesn't clearly answer !!

However, for a video/cine camera, I don't believe Canon can (today, after the R5 story) heavily reduce the recording time at max resolution because of overheating ! So, we have 2 options : IBIS+fan or no IBIS+vents ! My 2 cents...

roby17269 · Apr 21, 2026

David - Sydney said:
Physical cooling is the main difference similar to what is being rumoured with the V version but takes out IBIS which offsets the passive cooling. We don’t know what the relative cost difference is.
The R5c has not only longer run times but also 8k60 vs 8k39 on the R5.
Adding the cinema menus but only via restart makes it a video SW version but looks to be shoe horned in vs a redeveloped integrated SW release.

my point was: the R5 and R5C are different beasts and extrapolating from them that a no video version would cost less would be incorrect in my opinion

David - Sydney said:
I can’t comment on colour vs monochrome as canon hasn’t done that before and Leica charge what the market will bare.
Canon has released 2 Astro sensor bodies with the IR filter removed and charged more but that was a long time ago

Apart from Leica, Ricoh and PhaseOne have done monochrome versions of existing models as well. In all cases the monochrome version costs more than the color one and in all case the only difference is lack of color filtering. The color versions are all niche products admittedly, but the monochrome ones are niche in a niche

riker · Apr 21, 2026

Since I would use it mostly for photo, I'd like to see IBIS stay.

Btw I don't think the logic is spot on - I'm not sure it's "how much you need to take out to keep price down". Prices are not only defined by the cost. It's part of marketing strategy, profit maximalization, etc. And of course real value and useability.
A compact camera always needs to be cheaper, even if internals were the same. It's primary goal in not professional work, it's in no way a replacement/alternative option for the R6 line.
It's a backup body, a street/travel cam, a vlogger cam. Even if it had the internals of the R6m3, it would need to be way cheaper.
Btw beyond the lack of EVF, it obviously won't have dual card slot, battery life, vertical grip option, the AF or FPS performance of the R6 and who knows what else. UTP/GPS option? All the stuff that is intended for higher segment.

candyman · Apr 21, 2026

riker said:
I appreciate every extra option but I don't see myself buying one. The 100-500 is such a great lens and hopefully adding the 300-600 soon will be more than I'd ever need.
Maybe if the 500/5.6 is pretty light and cheap?

There is an RF 600 f/11 and it is relatively cheap. An RF 500 f/5.6 will not be cheap.

riker · Apr 21, 2026

I appreciate every extra option but I don't see myself buying one. The 100-500 is such a great lens and hopefully adding the 300-600 soon will be more than I'd ever need.
Maybe if the 500/5.6 is pretty light and cheap?

Steve Balcombe · Apr 21, 2026

Maximilian said:
Interesting.
Did you do a comparison about the differences in contrast and flare between those two hoods?

Not a formal test, no, but in practice I don't have any problems at all. The vast majority of wildlife shots are taken with the light behind the shooter of course.

Canon used to sell a half-length hood for the 600; not sure if they still do. It was a crazy price of course.

Steve Balcombe · Apr 21, 2026

Canon Rumors said:
I use tupperware lids for a lens cap. $4 You look weird in a store trying them on. I should just fumble around in blender and print a hood for $10, I haven't looked to see if anyone has already designed them. It would be nice to collapse them from the side .

I first came across this idea many years ago, but never met anybody who actually uses a Tupperware-style lens cap! I did use a £5 cheapo lens cap on my OM 150-400 for a while, before succumbing to another Zemlin cap.

Zemlin's hoods and caps are 3D printed, but I don't know how easy it would be make your own to the necessary standard. I don't have a printer but one really good application could tip me over the edge! And if somebody can come up with a way to make it collapsible widthways, yet still fit around the lens so it doesn't actually need more space in the bag...

blackcoffee17 · Apr 21, 2026

I used to have the 400 5.6 prime on APS-C. Was amazing but for full frame i would prefer at least a 600 5.6 or 6.3. I would not choose a 500 5.6 over the 100-500, unless it's really sharp or tiny.

Steve Balcombe · Apr 21, 2026

Canon Rumors said:
Length yes, but it does fit in some "small" backpacks that make good use of space (Shimoda, Gura Gear). I find it's the lens hoods that cause the space issues. They're quite annoying. I'd like to see an evolution of the 2 piece Nikon hoods. I didn't love how they fit together. I haven't found any third-party hoods that I like.

Aha - I bought Karl Zemlin's half-length hood so long ago that I didn't even think about the Canon original which is enormous. However you do still need the full diameter in the bag, it's only when in use that the shorter hood is a benefit. I also have Zemlin's lens cap which I 100% recommend.

Steve Balcombe · Apr 21, 2026

Canon Rumors said:
Canon's RF line-up is missing the 500mm f/4 lens from the EF days. With how much weight Canon has shaved off of the 600mm F4 L IS USM over the years, I don't think there's a need for a 500mm F4 in the line-up.

I have an EF 600/4L Mark III, which I bought to upgrade my previous 500/4L II. The problem isn't weight, it's bulk. The 600 is awesome for working from a hide or another fixed position with reasonably nearby parking, but it's too big to fit in a conventional backpack along with the other things you need for a wildlife day away from the car. It's the only real mistake I made in many years of buying Canon gear, but I was never quite unhappy enough to take the financial hit and switch back.

If the RF 500/5.6L is for real, it could potentially be a better choice than my 100-500 in some situations, especially if it plays well with the 1.4x or even the 2x.

DocInfoSci · Apr 21, 2026

Finally! If priced competitively with industry peers this would be my first RF lens. And 1.4x extender. Sans 300mm f/4 and 400mm f/5.6 this is a huge hole in the lineup, imo. Fingers crossed!

In Canada the Sigma 500mm f/5.6 goes for $4,400 on their site so would be looking for something similar. Or, if a silver ring edition then closer to $3,500 to be priced in line with the 200-800 zoom assuming a similar build but better optical quality due to, say, a larger optical exit lens. The zoom goes for ~ $2,800.

@adhagglund · Apr 21, 2026

Interesting. It could be a nice combo with the expected R7II

stillviking · Apr 21, 2026

I'm asking here for this lens for years, thank god!! Make it happen Canon!!

I loved my EF 400mm 5.6L and never had a lens like this again! (no, 100-500 L is not close).

Marc73 · Apr 21, 2026

what is the use of a 300-600 f5.6 if Canon has the 100-500 of very decent quality. You would gain 100mm and 2/3 stop of light at the cost of 7k? IMHO 600/5.6 would be ideal in combination with the 100-500. Light, small and with very good optical quality. With the extender RF 1.4 and 2.0 ideal which would cover all needs from 100-1200mm.

justaCanonuser · Apr 21, 2026

Michael Clark said:
That sounds like the original 7D in AI Servo mode.

The 7D I and II needed a lot of light, then their AF perfomances improved, in particular the Mk II started to perform substantially more accurately. So their AF sensors were quite noisy.

justaCanonuser · Apr 21, 2026

Michael Clark said:
It seems to me that with MILCs the issue is usually how accurately the lens can move compared to how much the camera told the lens to move, and how well the camera can know how much the lens actually moved without continuing to focus during the movement when processing cycles might be better spent for predictive analysis of where the target will be when the shutter (mechanical or electronic) is actuated. Move and refocus is much slower than measure focus, tell the lens which way to move and how far, then confirm the lens has moved that far without measuring focus again, and take the picture.

In fact, with DSLRs it was basically the same procedure, despite they had a separate AF sensor (for shooting with OVF). The camera needs a reliable info about the AF drive's exact position to able to focus fast and accurate. The difference is that ML cameras, using their image sensor, can reside to simple contrast AF if other information is lacking, but that requires AF pumping and slows down the whole focusing process so much that you can forget about shooting action.

With our Nikon Z system it turned out that the camera received a wrong information about the real AF drive position, so the lens was mechanically not adjusted to the camera. I don't know how Canon's AF system works exactly (surely details are protected), but seemingly it delivers more information about the AF drive's exact position so the camera can adjust its AF system to a particular lens. This explains also why some older EF lenses don't work very well with the new R cameras. I recently sold my old EF 300mm f/4.0 L IS USM, which still was in good condition, because it pumped too much on my R7 and R52, it wasn't really useable anymore with AF switched on. So, this old lens is obviously not able to send enough data to the camera for any AF adjustments.

Exploreshootshare · Apr 21, 2026

Yet another surprise. I thought I read the RF 500mm F5.6 won't happen because it isn't needed anymore and a 400mm plus a 1.4 TC is basically the same thing.

“There is a need to provide an optical system that is small, lightweight, and has good correction of various aberrations.”

Maybe Canon found a way to make it very lightweight and therefore it could make sense.

justaCanonuser · Apr 21, 2026

For those interested in my reports about our Nikon Z8 & Z600mm f/6.3 PF AF issues, with and w/o Nikon's native 1.4x Z TC, a brief update. We AFMAd both combos with my old Spyder Lenscal, distance 10 m (typical setting for shooting smaller birds). Without TC it showed a massive backfocus, with TC on it was even worse. The Z8 allows to save different AF microadjustment settings for the combo with and w/o TC, fortunately. Our first days out for birding after that procedure showed a substantial improvement in AF performance for both combos, in fact the combo with TC was the first time really useable without residing to manual focusing. Only real action with birds in flight is not yet tested due to the lack of occasions.

So it really makes sense that Nikon still offers the option in their Z camera menus to AFMA lenses (at least in their pro/prosumer cameras). Canon, by contrast, obviously relies much more on auto correction algorithms "under the hood" with the RF system. So far, I have no complaints, as a Canon user I am happy that I don't have to bother anymore with AMFAing all my "AF critical" lenses, what always required quite a bit of work.

Latest activity

Latest activity

Filter

Forum statistics

Gallery statistics