Latest activity

Zadak · Jul 7, 2026

neuroanatomist said:
wwYAPODFC.

b4? Lol. I’d been using the above abbreviation for ‘yet another prediction of doom for Canon’ for well over a year when I responded with it to this post:

That was in 2014. At that point, Canon had been leading the ILC market for 11 successive years. Now they are up to 23 years of leading the market.

But I’m sure this time you’re correct. They are doomed, Charlie.
w

Canon as a company does more than just consumer-facing stuff, hence is why I said it as an ironic gotcha to whoever thinks I was touting that it is doomed as a company. So you just proved my point really. A group of people on these forums like to make fun of people criticizing Canon's decisions and path and all they are met with is "haha look another Canon is doomed poster" and "Oh this was said X years ago"... as if past performance is indicative of future prospects.

Anyway, just because Canon is and will be fine as a company, that doesn't mean the market of consumer-grade imaging solutions is not getting more and more captured by the like of DJI and Insta360. To be fair, it is a good thing overall. For Canon? It needs to get moving with updates, software integrations (no that doesn't mean AI necessarily), and in general great stand-out hardware

Del Paso · Jul 7, 2026

Rceres said:
Mostly portraits and candids, but not only portraits.

The obvious use is photographing people from far enough away that you are not really in the scene. People, kids, and animals often stop reacting to the camera, and the expressions become more natural.

But my personal raison d’être for the RF 135mm f/1.8L is compositional control. The narrow field of view forces careful thinking about foreground, subject, and background. A step or two left, right, forward, or backward can completely change the geometry, compression, and layering of the image. Getting low to photograph children or animals at eye level can make the lens feel especially immersive.

To me, the lens is about connection, compression, and separation. It works for portraits, candids, pets, some wildlife, and even landscapes.

I use my old EF 100mm f/2 in a similar way, but the 135mm imposes a different discipline and produces a different feel.

Here are two recent examples I have handy on my phone, a dog portrait and a landscape.

The 135 isn’t a lens for every subject, it’s a lens that reveals the world a very particular way and rewards us when align and think that way. I encourage you to take it out of the box and mount it up. Try a day with only the 135mm and see if it changes how you think and see. It truly is a marvelous lens and I hope its design philosophy finds its way into other new Canon primes like the rumored RF 100 1.4L design.

Beautiful dog!

DhlcadR6 · Jul 7, 2026

Meanwhile I'm still wishing Canon cramp R8's sensor into M6ii like body.

esspy2 · Jul 7, 2026

Danglin52 said:
I am a long time Canon user (1980’s) with R6 iii, r5 Ii and high quality wildlife lenses. That said, I hate dragging around FF gear for general recreational travel - cruises, city visit, etc. I had the M5 and sold it thinking canon would eventually replace with better features. Unfortunately, canon seems to have abandoned that space. What I would like to see with the R8 Retro is the Fuji x-t5 body w/ Canon AF and a set of small f2.8 zoom lenses (think Sigma f2.8 10-18, 18-50 and a Fuji 70-300 equivalent). I actually bought the x-t5 + Sigma 18-50 f2.8 and 70-300 f4-5.6 as a light travel kit three weeks ago but decided to returned due to the AF. That said, I plan to immediately buy back in if the rumored T6 solves my AF issues and they don’t drastically modify the body. I loved the old style dials/ergonomics with the exception of the small grip. Timing should let me determine if the new R8 meets my desires for a small, light fun to shoot travel package. I am definitely not giving up my canon gear for adventure trips, but I have a feeling the Fuji is in my future for general travel.

I’m sure you’ve considered it, but the R7 probably focuses better than the X-T6 and can take the sigma 10-18mm and 18-50mm. If they can put out a 50-140mm or 70-300mm equivalent you’re most of the way there, just without retro features. But I have a hard time seeing canon putting an APS-C sensor in an R8 retro body

Rceres · Jul 6, 2026

Zadak said:
What are you shooting with your 135? I bought it last summer and I used it literally just once. Just gathering dust

Mostly portraits and candids, but not only portraits.

The obvious use is photographing people from far enough away that you are not really in the scene. People, kids, and animals often stop reacting to the camera, and the expressions become more natural.

But my personal raison d’être for the RF 135mm f/1.8L is compositional control. The narrow field of view forces careful thinking about foreground, subject, and background. A step or two left, right, forward, or backward can completely change the geometry, compression, and layering of the image. Getting low to photograph children or animals at eye level can make the lens feel especially immersive.

To me, the lens is about connection, compression, and separation. It works for portraits, candids, pets, some wildlife, and even landscapes.

I use my old EF 100mm f/2 in a similar way, but the 135mm imposes a different discipline and produces a different feel.

Here are two recent examples I have handy on my phone, a dog portrait and a landscape.

The 135 isn’t a lens for every subject, it’s a lens that reveals the world a very particular way and rewards us when align and think that way. I encourage you to take it out of the box and mount it up. Try a day with only the 135mm and see if it changes how you think and see. It truly is a marvelous lens and I hope its design philosophy finds its way into other new Canon primes like the rumored RF 100 1.4L design.

Danglin52 · Jul 6, 2026

I am a long time Canon user (1980’s) with R6 iii, r5 Ii and high quality wildlife lenses. That said, I hate dragging around FF gear for general recreational travel - cruises, city visit, etc. I had the M5 and sold it thinking canon would eventually replace with better features. Unfortunately, canon seems to have abandoned that space. What I would like to see with the R8 Retro is the Fuji x-t5 body w/ Canon AF and a set of small f2.8 zoom lenses (think Sigma f2.8 10-18, 18-50 and a Fuji 70-300 equivalent). I actually bought the x-t5 + Sigma 18-50 f2.8 and 70-300 f4-5.6 as a light travel kit three weeks ago but decided to returned due to the AF. That said, I plan to immediately buy back in if the rumored T6 solves my AF issues and they don’t drastically modify the body. I loved the old style dials/ergonomics with the exception of the small grip. Timing should let me determine if the new R8 meets my desires for a small, light fun to shoot travel package. I am definitely not giving up my canon gear for adventure trips, but I have a feeling the Fuji is in my future for general travel.

sanj · Jul 6, 2026

Zadak said:
What are you shooting with your 135? I bought it last summer and I used it literally just once. Just gathering dust

I use it a lot in my video productions. Glowing Close ups and mid shots. I would presume it works great for fashion.

neuroanatomist · Jul 6, 2026

Zadak said:
Mhm, well it is doubtful unless a company like Canon reinvents itself it will keep making sense for more and more regular people to just go with the cheaper, "good enough" and more portable alternatives.

YAPODFC.

Zadak said:
Inb4 "oh look Canon is doomed poster haha"

b4? Lol. I’d been using the above abbreviation for ‘yet another prediction of doom for Canon’ for well over a year when I responded with it to this post:

Tugela said:
Right now Canon are living off past glories, but unless they get off their backsides all their glory will be in the past.

That was in 2014. At that point, Canon had been leading the ILC market for 11 successive years. Now they are up to 23 years of leading the market.

But I’m sure this time you’re correct. They are doomed, Charlie.

Del Paso · Jul 6, 2026

Old Man FL/FD said:
Does anyone know why we have 105mm focal lengths rather than a nice, even, round 100mm?

I recall a Nikkor 105mm f/2.5 lens in the 1960’s.

Maybe to generate more room for an 85mm?
50, 85, 105 ?

justaCanonuser · Jul 6, 2026

Old Man FL/FD said:
Does anyone know why we have 105mm focal lengths rather than a nice, even, round 100mm?

I recall a Nikkor 105mm f/2.5 lens in the 1960’s.

Good question - why does Nikon still produce a Nikkor 105 mm and Sigma also a 105mm f/2.8 macro lens? No idea. I don't think that Canon has a patent on "clean" 100mm lenses

justaCanonuser · Jul 6, 2026

Del Paso said:
If you take a close look at the Nikon SP series, you'll easily recognise in it the genes of the future F.
I still wonder at how quickly Nikon's market dominance came to an end, when neither Canon's F1, Pentax's LX or Contax's RTS stood a real chance against the F2.
I shouldn't have sold my F2.

We still have three FM-2 bodies in our collection - it's a simpler successor (no option to change the prism for waist-level shooting), but one of these cameras proved to work flawlessly in deep Siberian winter (below -40 degrees Celsius). This was the legendary Nikon quality that I miss today. Nikon lost most of the pro market in the 90s when Canon came up with fast and silent USM AF drives. Nikon crippled their AF system with the in-camera motors and the "screw-driver" drives in the lenses - loud and slow. Nikon tried to keep up compatibility with older lenses, whereas Canon made a clean cut with the switch to the EF mount what gave the engineers a lot of freedom for innovation. At that point of photo history, Nikon lost a big part of the pro market to Canon.

Tom Helmut Rathke · Jul 6, 2026

Old Man FL/FD said:
Does anyone know why we have 105mm focal lengths rather than a nice, even, round 100mm?

I recall a Nikkor 105mm f/2.5 lens in the 1960’s.

When I was a salesman in a camera store back in the mid 80's (as far a you know, I was in kindergarden at the time... that's my story and I'm sticking to it) almost every brand had a 105mm lens. Was usually marketed as a portrait lens.

Zadak · Jul 6, 2026

scyrene said:
Doubtful.

Mhm, well it is doubtful unless a company like Canon reinvents itself it will keep making sense for more and more regular people to just go with the cheaper, "good enough" and more portable alternatives.

inb4 "oh look Canon is doomed poster haha"

Because if you're not doomed apparently you cannot say anything against muh perfect Canon company that's living in the past, especially on the software side

Companies like DJI and Insta360 will destroy companies that can't adapt, especially in the hobbyist space, since they are expanding fast and will continue to do so at a faster and faster pace. What's worse, since AI is also 'good enough' for most people and even companies, there's even fewer opportunities for professional work.

Over the years this will result in a shrinking demand and therefore market for what a Mirrorless system that's not purely cinema grade can offer. Unless they can come out with something great.

scyrene · Jul 6, 2026

Zadak said:
That should bring back some excitement to someone like me

Doubtful.

Aldherrian · Jul 6, 2026

Old Man FL/FD said:
Does anyone know why we have 105mm focal lengths rather than a nice, even, round 100mm?

I recall a Nikkor 105mm f/2.5 lens in the 1960’s.

It would be an easy differentiator compared to the RF100 which is marketed towards the macro niche
I don't think there is much more to it

Zadak · Jul 6, 2026

Rceres said:
The EF 100mm f/2 was and is an underrated gem. I still use mine on the R5 II and, as noted here, it does have flaws: CA, some fringing, and a long minimum focus distance among them. But it is predictable, effortless to handle, and has a delightful rendering.

One reason I never bought the optically fabulous RF 85mm f/1.2L was my hope that Canon would eventually produce a modern RF 100mm f/1.4L.

I had hoped for a lens inspired by the truly exceptional RF 135mm f/1.8L — a masterpiece that combines near-perfect image quality, confident autofocus, and excellent handling in a way few lenses ever have.

I’m not sure a VCM design philosophy is exactly what I had in mind for a 100mm portrait lens, but kudos to Canon anyway. They have shown a thoughtful commitment to the hybrid prime lineup, and many photographers clearly love these lenses. We have also heard an awful lot recently about new zooms.

Still, is it too much to ask for a few more stills-first halo primes?

Where are the RF 50mm f/1.2L II and RF 85mm f/1.2L II that apply the lessons of the RF 135mm to improve handling and autofocus while preserving their legendary rendering?

Where are the RF 24mm and 35mm f/1.2L lenses?

Those feel like surprisingly large gaps in an otherwise great system. Perhaps Canon has a surprise up its sleeve and another line of stills-focused halo primes is still to come.

Hope springs eternal.

Until then, I’m still shooting the heck out of my beloved EF 100 and my newest friend, the RF 135.

What are you shooting with your 135? I bought it last summer and I used it literally just once. Just gathering dust

Rceres · Jul 6, 2026

The EF 100mm f/2 was and is an underrated gem. I still use mine on the R5 II and, as noted here, it does have flaws: CA, some fringing, and a long minimum focus distance among them. But it is predictable, effortless to handle, and has a delightful rendering.

One reason I never bought the optically fabulous RF 85mm f/1.2L was my hope that Canon would eventually produce a modern RF 100mm f/1.4L.

I had hoped for a lens inspired by the truly exceptional RF 135mm f/1.8L — a masterpiece that combines near-perfect image quality, confident autofocus, and excellent handling in a way few lenses ever have.

I’m not sure a VCM design philosophy is exactly what I had in mind for a 100mm portrait lens, but kudos to Canon anyway. They have shown a thoughtful commitment to the hybrid prime lineup, and many photographers clearly love these lenses. We have also heard an awful lot recently about new zooms.

Still, is it too much to ask for a few more stills-first halo primes?

Where are the RF 50mm f/1.2L II and RF 85mm f/1.2L II that apply the lessons of the RF 135mm to improve handling and autofocus while preserving their legendary rendering?

Where are the RF 24mm and 35mm f/1.2L lenses?

Those feel like surprisingly large gaps in an otherwise great system. Perhaps Canon has a surprise up its sleeve and another line of stills-focused halo primes is still to come.

Hope springs eternal.

Until then, I’m still shooting the heck out of my beloved EF 100 and my newest friend, the RF 135.

neonlight · Jul 6, 2026

GMCPhotographics said:
Trends seem to come and go, not long ago everyone wanted an over lap in their focal ranges, ef 16-35 / 24-70 / 70-200 @ f2.8 seems to be wisdom of the "holy trinity". Then the f4 range came along and we got the 16-35, 24-105. but Canon chose to drop a curious 70-200mm f4 (a great lens) into the linage, where a 100-300/f4 would have seemed more logical. These days, Canon have released a 24-105/2.8 and a 100-300/2.8 (although slightly different classes of lens). Leaving the sub 24mm 2.8 UWA zoom available still available.
A lot of photographers like an over lap in the focal ranges, others like the (almost OCD) coverage...where one lens ends, the next one begins. Others seem quite happy to have gaps in their range. Personally, my current walkabouts trinity is my ef 11-24 f4 L, ef 24-70 f2.8L and ef 100-400 f5.6 II L. I have a gap between 70mm and 100mm. it's slightly worse than those fogures suggest because my 100-400 is closer to 110mm at the wide end and my 24-70 is closer to 60mm at the long end (depending on focus breathing). But I've rarely needed the 70-100mm because I usually can walk - zoom.
I think Canon will want to plug the new f4 gap with a 50-XXX f4 lens, they seem to like their trinity groupings. However, yes you are right the RF70-200 f4 LIS is a fine optic and plugs that gap more than adequately.

Well, the 70-200 was quite light. I shoot with the 7DII but my "trinity" was EFS10-22, EF24-105f/4L and EF100-400f/5.6L II, but I also have a walk-around EFS17-55, and if on a "maybe need a longer lens" outing, the 70-200 F/4L which makes a nice complement for reduced weight.

Latest activity

Latest activity

Attachments

Filter

Forum statistics

Gallery statistics