There will be lens announcements in November

[koenkooi]

Wouldn`t you prefer a 70-180mm macrozoom?
Whether F/4 or F/2,8, I wouldn't care. But a macrozoom with OIS:

I would likely find it too heavy and unwieldy, relegating it to being a paperweight on my desk.

 

[Loswr]

Mainly to fulfil the wildlife category that Nikon is serving well.

TBH I dont know why you have to be so snarky with every reply, it's really quite tiring tbh almost every post of yours is the same.

It is perfectly acceptable to want more from what canons RF range is offering. Ive been shooting canon for 20 years and not interested in changing but observing another brand making good product is also positive, competition is positive.

Im one of many asking for other options watch wild Alaska, Duade Patton, Jan Wagner etc etc there are a lot of people wanting different options for wildlife.

I get that you want Canon to make such lenses, and you're not alone in that desire. What I don't get is why you think that means Canon needs to make them. What will be the consequences for Canon if they don't make those lenses. Why...specifically, what is the business case for doing so? Canon is a business, I trust you're aware of that fact. Their continued domination of the market suggests they have an excellent understanding of that market.

They obviously know what lenses Nikon makes. Unlike you and I, Canon probably knows quite accurately how many of those lenses Nikon is actually selling. Don't you think that if Canon believed that making such lenses would be profitable for them, in light of the opportunity cost of using resources to make those lenses instead of other lenses, they would not be doing so?

I guess you think that someone who disagrees with you is being snarky, that's fine. Maybe you just have trouble dealing with the reality that your desires are not being met.

As I keep repeating (maybe you and others will listen someday), it's fine to want something. It's not realistic to claim that Canon (or any other manufacturer) needs to do the thing you want, or the implied 'or else' that goes with that. I wonder if people on Nikon forums are saying that Nikon needs to come out with <$1000 600mm and 800mm lenses because Canon has them.

It is rather ironic that you say competition is good, then expect everyone to make all the same lenses. How is that really competitive?

 

[Del Paso]

With macro lenses i prefer absolute best image quality. I doubt a zoom macro can be as good as a prime.

Maybe, but if you think of the RF 100-300, EF 200-400?
And the EF 70-200 is as sharp as the EF 180 macro. The risk is, of course, sharpness compromises at macro settings. There could be a price to pay...
On the other hand, many macros suffer at infinity, thus reducing their use as "universal" lenses, at least in my experience with Zeiss 50mm, EF 100 and EF 180.
My exceptions being the Leica R 60 macro and 100 Apo macro, Zeiss 100 macro, identical sharpness close and at infinity. But their price was a different affair...
Oh, I forgot, the RF 100, sharp at any setting!

I would likely find it too heavy and unwieldy, relegating it to being a paperweight on my desk.

Not necessarily, look at the EF 70-200 f/4, or at the weight of the EF 180...

 

[NorskHest]

Mainly to fulfil the wildlife category that Nikon is serving well.

TBH I dont know why you have to be so snarky with every reply, it's really quite tiring tbh almost every post of yours is the same.

It is perfectly acceptable to want more from what canons RF range is offering. Ive been shooting canon for 20 years and not interested in changing but observing another brand making good product is also positive, competition is positive.

Im one of many asking for other options watch wild Alaska, Duade Patton, Jan Wagner etc etc there are a lot of people wanting different options for wildlife.

Narcissist can’t help himself he is obsessed with condescension and being the hardest fanboy of Canon and thinking that they are God, well a God only next to him

 

[EricN]

Out of those lenses, only the 50 f/1.4 sounds interesting to me. Come on Canon, announce the RF180L IS Macro already!

Have there been any rumors about an RF 180 macro yet?

 

[EricN]

Maybe, but if you think of the RF 100-300, EF 200-400?
And the EF 70-200 is as sharp as the EF 180 macro. The risk is, of course, sharpness compromises at macro settings. There could be a price to pay...
On the other hand, many macros suffer at infinity, thus reducing their use as "universal" lenses, at least in my experience with Zeiss 50mm, EF 100 and EF 180.
My exceptions being the Leica R 60 macro and 100 Apo macro, Zeiss 100 macro, identical sharpness close and at infinity. But their price was a different affair...
Oh, I forgot, the RF 100, sharp at any setting!

Not necessarily, look at the EF 70-200 f/4, or at the weight of the EF 180...

I was really wishing the ef 100 was sharp at infinity this morning because it was raining and I didn't want to change lenses.

 

[Halfmoon]

I'm very curious about the RF 70-200mm F2.8L IS Z performance.... and how it will compare with the compact RF 70-200mm F2.8L IS...... was holding back to consider between Extender compatible vs compactness...

Will also be interested in the RF 50mm F1.4L VCM too....

I do think Canon is making many innovative and new lenses with RF and setting some new benchmark... like compact RF 70-200mm F2.8 & F4 versions.... RF 24-105mm F2.8.... and hope to see more interesting and competitive lenses... though I do not think my wallet is fat enough to buy most of them.... haha...

 

[AlanF]

Canon needs some better options in the large tele space that aren't as limiting as the current offerings are limiting.
Iim not sure a reincarnation of the 200-400mm F4 in the 200-500 F4 is the answer it will be too big too heavy and ending up in niche situations.

Nikon are killing it with their more interesting offering like the
600 F6.3
180-600mm F5.6-6.3
Even the 500mm F5.6 PF lens

Its great canon are experimenting with these higher F stop lenses but here in the UK where its dark and grey most of the time and most of the wildlife is small and hidden away in trees these F9-11 lenses... although work can be compromising unless your in ideal scenarios which makes the sweet spots for these lenses are small.

The 100-500mm is a good compromise at 7.1 but 5.6 or 6.3 in the 600 range would be great 500mm on full frame is still limiting for small birds and 800 is more in the right ball park. If the 200-800 was good at 800 I wouldn't mind the F9 but from what ive read you need to stop it down to get better sharpness.

In the mean time we still have the EF glass but im sure canon will be discontinuing parts supply for the MKII versions in the not too distant future.

Nikon does make excellent lenses, and I particularly like the Nikkor 500mm f/5.6 PF. However, there some important points about the Z 100-600mm vs RF 200-800mm. The Nikon at 600mm has to be stopped down to f/8 to be sharpest (loses 20% MTF50 from f8-6.3). The 200-800mm at 600mm f/8 is pretty close in sharpness. (Comparative reviews https://www.digitalcameraworld.com/reviews/canon-rf-200-800mm-f63-9-is-usm-review https://www.digitalcameraworld.com/reviews/nikon-z-180-600mm-f56-63-vr-review) The 200-800mm doesn't gain any resolution on being stopped down (my own measurements and also in the Digital Camera World). My own reviews of the 200-800 find that the loss of MTF50 from 600-800mm is compensated for by the increase in focal length so you get effectively more resolution than at 600mm and a less pixellated image - https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/threads/summary-of-my-rf-200-800mm-testing.43239/. In my opinion, the RF 200-800mm is a better lens for birding than the Z 180-600mm, though my favourite all-rounder is the RF 100-500mm, which for lightness, AF, close focussing and IQ is the best for me, as I also do insects etc. A 200-500mm f/4 would be beyond my physical capabilities for hand holding and hiking.

 

[Deleted member 7828]

With the RF 200-800 f/6.3-9L IS USM now off of the Canon delayed list, we think lens production maybe somewhat back on track.

Any more info on this by any chance? I wasn’t aware they removed it. At least in the US, this lens seems to be on back-order virtually everywhere with long wait lists, and no one (including Canon USA themselves) seems to have any idea when it will finally be in stock. The closest I can find is Adorama’s estimate of 11/2024 (which was 10/2024 a couple of weeks ago) which tells me supply of this lens will remain restricted for the foreseeable future…

Something tells me that 70-200 will be hard to find for some time after announcement as well…

 

[stillviking]

I can't understand the lack of a RF fisheye instead of the old EF 8-15 mm at this point.

 

[Loswr]

Narcissist can’t help himself he is obsessed with condescension and being the hardest fanboy of Canon and thinking that they are God, well a God only next to him

I hope you have a great day. Might difficult since reality seems to offend you, but good luck, nevertheless.

 

[Loswr]

I can't understand the lack of a RF fisheye instead of the old EF 8-15 mm at this point.

Canon launched the EF 15mm f/2.8 Fisheye in 1987, and the EF 8-15mm f/4L Fisheye in 2010. That 23-year gap suggests there's not a huge demand for such lenses, so I can certainly understand why there's not one for the RF mount yet.

 

[Loswr]

I'm very curious about the RF 70-200mm F2.8L IS Z performance.... and how it will compare with the compact RF 70-200mm F2.8L IS...... was holding back to consider between Extender compatible vs compactness...

Now you may get to choose between compactness and extender, and if you choose extender, you'll then have to choose whether your lens is the same color as that extender or the camera body behind it.

 

[P-visie]

Maybe, but if you think of the RF 100-300, EF 200-400?
And the EF 70-200 is as sharp as the EF 180 macro. The risk is, of course, sharpness compromises at macro settings. There could be a price to pay...
On the other hand, many macros suffer at infinity, thus reducing their use as "universal" lenses, at least in my experience with Zeiss 50mm, EF 100 and EF 180.
My exceptions being the Leica R 60 macro and 100 Apo macro, Zeiss 100 macro, identical sharpness close and at infinity. But their price was a different affair...
Oh, I forgot, the RF 100, sharp at any setting!

Not necessarily, look at the EF 70-200 f/4, or at the weight of the EF 180...

My subjects form macro are mainly butterflies and dragonflies. I find shorter focal length macro lenses (almost) unusable due to the short working distance from sensor to subject if you want your subject at a reasonable size in the frame. I sold my EF 100mm L macro and have not replaced it for that reason.
The image quality of my EF 180 mm macro runs rings around the EF or RF 70-200 L f 2.8 and the RF 100-500 zoom lenses at the shorter subject distances.
If we are talking macro zoom lenses, make it a 200-300 zoom, without compromises at the macro end of business.

 

[YuengLinger]

I can't understand the lack of a RF fisheye instead of the old EF 8-15 mm at this point.

Having the Rf 10-20mm f/4L, I can't understand the NEED for a fisheye.

 

[P-visie]

Have there been any rumors about an RF 180 macro yet?

Yes , see: https://www.canonrumors.com/canon-patent-application-telephoto-macro-lenses/

 

[1D4]

Mainly to fulfil the wildlife category that Nikon is serving well.

TBH I dont know why you have to be so snarky with every reply, it's really quite tiring tbh almost every post of yours is the same.

It is perfectly acceptable to want more from what canons RF range is offering. Ive been shooting canon for 20 years and not interested in changing but observing another brand making good product is also positive, competition is positive.

Im one of many asking for other options watch wild Alaska, Duade Patton, Jan Wagner etc etc there are a lot of people wanting different options for wildlife.

He did the same thing to me when I said I was hoping for Canon versions of the Nikon PF lenses and went off on me, acting like I said you can't get good birding photos at/above f/7.1. And how Canon knew what they were doing because OMG, look at those sales numbers! I had to put him on ignore because someone who gets that bent out of shape over a camera lens that another photographer is hoping for, is not right in the head.

 

[stillviking]

Having the Rf 10-20mm f/4L, I can't understand the NEED for a fisheye.

Fisheye is for underwater photography, needed to avoid big domes.

 

[frankchn]

Having the Rf 10-20mm f/4L, I can't understand the NEED for a fisheye.

For astro-landscapes it helps because coma is more easily corrected with a fisheye than with standard rectilinear lenses (see Sigma 14 f/1.4 vs 15 f/1.4 fisheye coma performance). Of course, the disadvantage is that you have to de-fish in post.

 

[NorskHest]

I hope you have a great day. Might difficult since reality seems to offend you, but good luck, nevertheless.

Actually, reality doesn’t offend me, but it is comical when people clap back to you how that offends you, gets you insecure as well as other things I bet and that makes me happy so I will have a great day. You are my favorite troll because you are so simple. You disguise insecurities with knowledge to make everyone look at you like an authority