homebodyMacro2 said:

Canon really needs to get with the program on the sub 5-figure "not quite the fastest" supertelephoto market.

Nikon (current prices on Adorama):
400mm f/4.5 - $3050
600mm f/6.3 - $4000
800mm f/6.3 - $6000

Sony:
100-400 f/4.5 - $4300
300mm f/2.8 - $6600

Sigma E-Mount:
500mm f/5.6 - $3300
300-600mm f/4.0 $6600

Canon:
Best we have is doubled 70-200Z, 100-500L, or 200-800 non-L (none really competing in this space)

Click to expand...

homebodyMacro2 said:

Canon really needs to get with the program on the sub 5-figure "not quite the fastest" supertelephoto market.

Nikon (current prices on Adorama):
400mm f/4.5 - $3050
600mm f/6.3 - $4000
800mm f/6.3 - $6000

Sony:
100-400 f/4.5 - $4300
300mm f/2.8 - $6600

Sigma E-Mount:
500mm f/5.6 - $3300
300-600mm f/4.0 $6600

Canon:
Best we have is doubled 70-200Z, 100-500L, or 200-800 non-L (none really competing in this space).

...

Click to expand...

As primarily a bid photographer, the Canon 100-500L and the Canon 200-800 are the only two lenses I would even consider from this group, even though you consider that they don't even compete. The 3 Nikon lenses certainly look like good value for the money, but they are all primes, so much more difficult to handle for my use, and I would not even consider them. The two Sony lenses, not nearly long enough, although the new zoom sure looks good for other uses. The Sigma 300-600, way too expensive compared to the two Canon options. Under pretty much no circumstances would I need (or use) f/4 for birding.

David - Sydney said:

R6 mark ii (~USD2400)? All R bodies can adapt EF and EF-S lenses with the converter.
https://www.proshop.se/Kamera/Canon-EOS-R6-Mark-II-Body/3143406
You may even find a reasonable second hand R5 in Sweden for less money.

Click to expand...

The R6 mark ii ($2585) has the same 24 Mpix sensor as R8 (currently $1550 in Sweden) but also with IBIS. It is a much bigger and heavier camera. I like the idea of a lightweight camera like the R8 with somewhat better specifications. IBIS and 32 Mpix sensor is my wish. I doubt that a 24 Mpix (3x2) sensor is good enough for 4K video with 1,6 crop and 16x9 aspect ratio.

homebodyMacro2 said:

Canon really needs to get with the program on the sub 5-figure "not quite the fastest" supertelephoto market.

Nikon (current prices on Adorama):
400mm f/4.5 - $3050
600mm f/6.3 - $4000
800mm f/6.3 - $6000

Sony:
100-400 f/4.5 - $4300
300mm f/2.8 - $6600

Sigma E-Mount:
500mm f/5.6 - $3300
300-600mm f/4.0 $6600

Canon:
Best we have is doubled 70-200Z, 100-500L, or 200-800 non-L (none really competing in this space).

Maybe we can take a break from 9 wide/ultrawide lenses in the last 18 months or so lol
View attachment 229546

Click to expand...

No, no, no!
We can only take a break from wide/ultrawide lenses AFTER the introduction of number 10: The 14mm TS-E !

riker said:

For me it was the upgrade to the 100-500 form EF 100-400 II.

Click to expand...

If I could only justify it... haha

I am very curious about the R8 II though I've an inkling that it won't fit what I want. That's ok because the original R8 already does.

I do for example like that the R8 has no ibis, l and thus a moving part less. Makes me much more confident in throwing it into my daily bag with the 28mm on, inside a small pouch.

So let's what they'll bring, maybe the mark 2 will take the larger 6er batteries?

I saw a size comparison of the R6V R6iii and C50. Most interesting reveal was that the top-mounted she, while not a hot shoe with flash contacts does have concealed contacts at the front of the shoe which appear to be very similar to the contacts for the shoe-mounted EVF for the EOS M6ii and other M series cameras. Is it possible that older EVFs might work or that Canon might produce a future detachable EVF or use these for some kind of flash (with slow sync speed)?

A Linnet and Whitethroat while on my cycle ride. The RF 200-800 on the R5ii is just so useful for these opportunistic shots as the birds are so small, generally hidden and you have to be prepared to be quick on the draw.

neuroanatomist said:

I suspect Nikon and Sony are making $4000-6000 supertele lenses for the same reason.

Click to expand...

Canon has always made very targeted products for specific users, hence why we get both RF 100-400mm and RF 800mm f/11 that no other companies have been able to match in affordability. From my observations RF-mount was a rushed launched. The development capacity of lenses is limited and they have had to make priorities. Some user groups have been left out, astrophotography until recently. They had to let in Sigma and Tamron on RF-S. 4k to 6k supertele lenses will probably come someday. For now they can earn more profit making other lenses that either are higher volume or have better margin.

A valley near the California/Nevada border with some wildflowers. R5 + RF 10-20.

bloblom said:

That's a pretty big jump, you're effectively doubling the surface area of the front element. The entire lens would have to be redesigned, from each optical element to the body itself. It would be vastly different from the original 100-500: at least 1 kg heavier and bulkier. If it ever came out, it would certainly not cost "only" $4500-5000 and move much closer to the 100-300.
Canon's never done such a lens refresh. If they want to fill the gap, it'll be with a new lens.

Click to expand...

To be fair, Craig did say $5000-6000 white tele lens, and i think a faster RF 100-500 L is a more viable expectation than the RF 300-600 f5.6 L in that price point. They made a big splash with the RF 28-70 f2 L, they would make a huge splash with a RF 100-500 3.2-5 L.

This assumes a 70-85% cost increase to producing a lens a full stop faster, economy of scale and projected sales. I have no idea on Canon’s pricing margins, it’s often said Canon’s profits aren’t driven by their top end gear, presumably because of units sold, but when you see them knock $8000 off the RF 1200 L lens, there’s obviously some room for pricing. Maybe that’s why the speculation of a RF 300-600 L in a sub $7000 range.

Again, if I have to speculate, a faster RF 100-500 L is less to make, unless they ramp up their production of the front and other lens elements that they can use in both the RF 100-300 2.8L and the RF 300-600 5.6L and take advantage of the economy of scale, like they did in their 24 MP sensors (R6 and R8) and other shared sensor cameras.

Things that increase costs are the things we all want, internal zooming and fixed aperture, but at the end of the day we will forgo those things based on sharpness, strong weather sealing and cost.

scyrene said:

But it could be that Canon is segregating the long lens market differently to those other companies - or vice versa - and so there will never be precise equivalents of each thing across every range. It's often presented as though Canon needs to catch up with Nikon etc but they probably don't see it that way.

Click to expand...

Why did Sony 'blaze the FF mirrorless trail'? Because they needed to find a market segment where Canon (and Nikon, at the time) didn't dominate. I suspect Nikon and Sony are making $4000-6000 supertele lenses for the same reason.

ISv said:

I asked for a smile...

Click to expand...

Not very polite. But the photos are funny.

Beautiful shots, ISv. Well done!

Surab said:

That 100-400mm is one of the reasons I'm on RF.

Click to expand...

For me it was the upgrade to the 100-500 form EF 100-400 II.

Nemorino said:

105mm : 1.4=75mm

Click to expand...

Your correct, I forgot to check if the aperture even was possible. I would not even be to bothered if they made longer VCM lenses dimmer, 135mm f1.8 is just to much of a lens for me.

Got mine pre ordered.

Well I guess I wouldn't be a proper retard if I haven't posted my crybaby whislist every single time

- FF compact for photo!!! (R8V?)
- 28-70/2 Mk2 (make it 28-85 this time?) Make it lighter and not nose-heavy!
- non-L 28/1.8 or 28/1.4
- the rumored 55/1.8, in a very light edition but better IQ and AF than the 50/1.8. ~250g?
- the rumored 300-600/5.6 finally (can be 4.5-5.6 or whatever)
- 2in1 135/1.8 + 180/3.5 macro ==> 150/2 macro? 135/2 macro 2:1?

homebodyMacro2 said:

Perhaps, though I'm quite uninterested in those, and I was instead posting something I am interested in (and which applies to this and a recent article listing those Nikon primes)! The difference I pointed out is in no way mutually exclusive with what you've pointed out.

Nikon and Sony seem to have some decent "affordable" (imo) options, though I guess none are quite as slow and inexpensive as the ones you've listed.

Click to expand...

For the sake of the enthusiasts I hope you get what you want, it would be fun to see some novel telephoto options. But it could be that Canon is segregating the long lens market differently to those other companies - or vice versa - and so there will never be precise equivalents of each thing across every range. It's often presented as though Canon needs to catch up with Nikon etc but they probably don't see it that way. In any case we have more and better choices now than in the EF days when I started; back then you could go to 400 f/5.6 at ~£1500 but no further without leaping up to the hugely expensive big big whites.

tomcat said:

My R5 Mark II won't upgrade from version 1.2.0 to 1.3.0. Both the camera and EOS Utility say that a downgrade isn't possible. Is anyone else having this problem – or even better, does anyone have a solution? Thanks!

Click to expand...

Do you have older firmware files on one of the cards? I had that when going to 1.2.0, there was an old file on the SD card, the new one was on CFe.

neuroanatomist said:

What about the program of sub 4-figure “slow” supertelephoto market? Does everyone else need to get with that?

Canon:
RF 100-400mm f/5.6-8 - $700
RF 600 f/11 - $830
RF 800mm f/11 - $1100 (launched at $999)

Nikon:

Sony:

Sigma E-Mount:

Click to expand...

That 100-400mm is one of the reasons I'm on RF.

Marasmiellus sp. Could be Marasmius (Marasmiellus) palmivorus but Marasmiellus inoderma is pretty similar too. Anyway, the taxonomy of these fungi is rather fluid. No way to ID correctly just by a photo!

I asked for a smile...

Very hot day with a lot of moisture after the storm Fr./Sat.!
The last 4 photos are from the end of the session when I was resting in deep shade and around that running water - cooler!!!. The Red-crested cardinal on the fourth photo is indulging on a fruit of sapote (it has bunch of common names, I'm talking about Manilkara zapota). Internet says it's delicious but I still have to try it - shame...

Dragon said:

Looks like it is going to be a hummer summer. Only a few Annas are back, and we still have the Rufus to go. They are already going through over a gallon a day. Guess I will have to take a trip to Costco for sugar. R7+RF200-800


View attachment 229503


View attachment 229504


View attachment 229505

Click to expand...

Go to Costco! I hope they have enough sugar...