There will be lens announcements in November

[Loswr]

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.

Sigh. I have never said people should not hope for or ask for any lens, camera, or feature from Canon, or complain about the lack thereof.

But some people can't simply do that. They claim that Canon needs to give them what they want. They claim that the majority of photographers want the same thing that they want. They claim that massive numbers of people are switching to [insert brand that does offer what they want] because Canon isn't providing what they want. Do they support their claims with data? No. Because they can't.

I repeatedly ask for people who whine about my calling out their BS to quote a post where I've said they should not hope for something, ask for something, or complain about the lack of something. Do they reply with a quote? No.

So people will go on making ridiculous, unsupported claims about how Canon must address their personal wants or else, and I will go on calling out their BS. And people who can't deal with their opinions being contradicted by facts will go on tossing out insults. That's the internet for you.

 

[NorskHest]

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.

We all have been dealing with him for years. It’s sad that he always feels the need to belittle everybody.

 

[Del Paso]

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.

While I often need a more versatile macro for macros and landscapes, in order not to bring along a macro and a tele zoom when hiking. If, like you, I were mostly interested in specific tasks, like photographing butterflies, obviously a non-zoom would be the better lens.

 

[Del Paso]

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.

I had to take away the since I had only superficially read (and misunderstood) your post.

 

[Loswr]

While I oft6en need a more versatile macro for macros and landscapes, in order not to bring along a macro and a tele zoom when hiking.

Have you considered the 500D close-up lens? If gives decent results for what it is, and it's a low-impact carry. I've used one for occasional macro shooting when I'm traveling with a 70-200/2.8.

 

[AlanF]

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.

The RF 100-400mm is great for close-ups of dragonflies and butterflies and you can get to 03-0.4x at a metre away. Or do you want 1x or greater?

 

[Del Paso]

Have you considered the 500D close-up lens? If gives decent results for what it is, and it's a low-impact carry. I've used one for occasional macro shooting when I'm traveling with a 70-200/2.8.

Thanks, I have it and use it on the 100-400. And I disagree with you, results are more than decent. I plan to get one for the 70-200, unless an RF 180 macro is announced.
When on a long journey, countries, landscapes, cities, I try to limit my equipment, and a specific macro isn't always a necessity. Japan is on next year's program, 4-5 lenses will do (including my two favorites, the TSE 24 and the EF 100-400). And the 500D lens!

 

[Loswr]

I had to take away the since I had only superficially read (and misunderstood) your post.

For context, this was the relevant part of the post to which @1D4 is referring.

Someone please wake me up when Canon makes a lightweight 500mm f5.6 like Nikon's PF. All these super-expensive zooms are great for people who can justify the cost and don't mind traveling with bulky gear, but if Canon wants to bring more people into/keep more people in the R system, maybe it would be best to have lenses that attract a bigger segment of customers?

The market share data clearly show that Canon is having no trouble bringing people into the R system and keeping them there, but somehow they have to release the lens that @1D4 wants to make what's already happening happen. And somehow a $3600 lens is going to bring a huge segment of customers to Canon. Mmmmmkay.

Then in that thread @1D4 went off on how much better a 500/5.6 lens would be than the 500/7.1 lens Canon already offers because of 'better subject isolation' and 'f/7.1 isn't great if you want to isolate the bird/minimize distractions'. I debunked those claims with actual testing, but as is so sadly common here, he didn't let a little thing like objective evidence influence his opinion.

 

[Loswr]

Thanks, I have it and use it on the 100-400. And I disagree with you, results are more than decent. I plan to get one for the 70-200, unless an RF 180 macro is announced.
When on a long journey, countries, landscapes, cities, I try to limit my equipment, and a specific macro isn't always a necessity. Japan is on next year's program, 4-5 lenses will do (including my two favorites, the TSE 24 and the EF 100-400). And the 500D lens!

Fair point, and I stand corrected – yes the results with the 500D are good. The one I used was borrowed from a friend for a trip, I should probably pick one up for myself (in 77mm, I think, since I travel with either the 100-500L or the RF 100-400, and for the latter I have a 67-77mm step-up ring). I have never traveled with a telephoto macro lens (I have taken the half-macro 24/1.4, but that won't do for the subjects I'd consider macro), and don't plan to start. But I have run across some macro-type opportunities during travel. Sadly, I'll to get a used one if I go that route.

 

[LSXPhotog]

I'll be selling my 50mm 1.2 for that 1.4, the 35 VCM is a nice ass lens (especially as a hybrid shooter leaning more towards video). Couldn't manual focus video on the regular 1.2 to save my life, the 35 is so well dampened it's a night and day difference.

You and me both! I absolutely LOVE the RF 50 1.2L, but my work leans a lot more heavily toward hybrid shooting now and having the VCM autofocus has shown me how dang slow the 50L and 85L are for my motorsports and event work. So I will also be picking up the 1.4 when it comes out. Losing 1/3 of a stop in exchange for significant size/weight savings as well as better AF is worth it to me.

 

[P-visie]

The RF 100-400mm is great for close-ups of dragonflies and butterflies and you can get to 03-0.4x at a metre away. Or do you want 1x or greater?

The magnification I want depends on the situation but in general I like the subject to fill +/- half of the frame. Since the R5 I use the EF 1.4 III Extender with the EF 180 mm. AF is glacially slow, but I can still count the facets of a damselflies eye in the resulting images.

 

[AlanF]

The magnification I want depends on the situation but in general I like the subject to fill +/- half of the frame. Since the R5 I use the EF 1.4 III Extender with the EF 180 mm. AF is glacially slow, but I can still count the facets of a damselflies eye in the resulting images.

Couple from last week with the RF 100-500mm on the R5. The first with the 2xTC at 1000mm and at about 3.8m away, and the second with the bare lens at 500mm and 1.6m away. They are highly cropped (100% crops).

 

[Baywoof]

There’s currently a 100–500L zoom. What am I missing?

F4 all the way on the 200-500 instead of F4-F7.1 on the 100-500.

 

[tomscott]

Its observation. Many hobbyists and people in the wildlife game have been documenting the pros of Nikons offerings. The Z8/9 are cheaper and so are many of the lenses and its an appealing system for this genre and Nikon seem to be pointing some effort in that direction.

Im not really bothered about what the business case is. Its a very rare situation that a consumer or pro thinks like that about business case of a manufacturer making you a tool unless you have stock or some sort of benefit to gain from the business. Talking like it's gospel on a forum and trying to make people feel silly for voicing an opinion. Thats why it's snarky and I dont appreciate it.

The forum is a rumours site, mainly a wish list in many respects. If you want it and need it you are going to ask for it.

Essentially in all the wildlife reviews of the R5MKII it has been called out. It's all well and good offering an incredible camera but give us some brighter glass that isnt £14000.

The 180-600mm Is £1700, 600mm f6.3 £4000 and a very attractive option. Considering the 200-800 is £2300. The 100-500mm is £3000 both are compromises. Canon dont offer any large focal length primes between F4 and 11 that are in the pro/prosumer market. It's a huge gap and a huge price difference. Canon have shut off the RF mount to third parties who may offer something else. The RF mount is also 6 years young its been a hot minute...

So hell ye im going to shout out some annoyance. I think that it's great they offer backward compatibility but it would be nice not to have to adapt older lenses. The 500 MKII was released in 2013 its 11 years old. Im surprised canon hasn't stopped making parts available for repair. Buying now preowned or owning one is a bit of a risk. What other options are there the 600 MKIII is still £10k preowned.

My 24-70 F2.8 MKI has an element out of calibration and because canon have stoped making spare parts no-one will service it. It's a heavy paper weight at this point. Its not the sharpest but its a nice lens ive had since new and its just wasteful.

If you dont mention anything then nothing ever happens. There is room, 11k price gap in the long tele market in the RF mount and I would love another offering that isnt a huge heavy big white that you need mid range hatchback money for or a zoom that is more of a compromise. F4 for the rich F7.1-9 for compromise and F11 for the anyone who might be mildly interested. The F11s in the UK are compromised, the sweet spot is so narrow it's only useful in a handful of scenarios. Thats what it looks like right now in the long tele lineup. (im not counting the 400 but you need £14k for that too)

When you see other manufacturers making interesting lenses at competitive prices, ye im paying attention and wishing for some too. Its natural.

Quite honestly whether Canon care about my opinion or not isnt really why im talking about it. Nothing wrong with having wants and calling out a compromised line of lenses on a closed off ecosystem.

You may disagree but you're the type of guy who can afford 14k for a 600mm so all play to you. Not everyone is in that boat.

 

[romanr74]

What makes your personal want into a need for Canon? If Nikon is 'killing it' with those more interesting lenses that Canon doesn't offer, why is their market share not increasing?

Meanwhile, I have little doubt that Canon's f/11 DO lenses that go for <$1K are selling far better than Nikon's more expensive yet faster PF offerings.

these answers are so predictable…

 

[Elmonducky]

Sigh. I have never said people should not hope for or ask for any lens, camera, or feature from Canon, or complain about the lack thereof.

But some people can't simply do that. They claim that Canon needs to give them what they want. They claim that the majority of photographers want the same thing that they want. They claim that massive numbers of people are switching to [insert brand that does offer what they want] because Canon isn't providing what they want. Do they support their claims with data? No. Because they can't.

I repeatedly ask for people who whine about my calling out their BS to quote a post where I've said they should not hope for something, ask for something, or complain about the lack of something. Do they reply with a quote? No.

So people will go on making ridiculous, unsupported claims about how Canon must address their personal wants or else, and I will go on calling out their BS. And people who can't deal with their opinions being contradicted by facts will go on tossing out insults. That's the internet for you.

Perhaps you should respect other peoples opinions and keep your criticism to yourself?

 

[AlanF]

The 180-600mm Is £1700, 600mm f6.3 £4000 and a very attractive option. Considering the 200-800 is £2300. The 100-500mm is £3000 both are compromises.

We are being price gouged by Canon in the UK. In the USA, the Nikon 180-600mm is $1,897 and is price-matched by the RF 200-800mm at $1,899. The RF 100-500mm is $2695.

 

[Loswr]

Its observation. Many hobbyists and people in the wildlife game have been documenting the pros of Nikons offerings. The Z8/9 are cheaper and so are many of the lenses and its an appealing system for this genre and Nikon seem to be pointing some effort in that direction.

Yes, Nikon does seem to be heading in that direction. Will it help them regain the significant market share they've lost to Sony over the past few years? I know you don't care about that, but Nikon does. Sales are what's driving their choices of what lenses to make.

Im not really bothered about what the business case is. Its a very rare situation that a consumer or pro thinks like that about business case of a manufacturer making you a tool unless you have stock or some sort of benefit to gain from the business.

So you can observe, but you don't want to be bothered with the reasons behind the things you're observing. Well, that's your call. Ostriches and some people like to stick their head in the sand.

Talking like it's gospel on a forum and trying to make people feel silly for voicing an opinion. Thats why it's snarky and I dont appreciate it.

The forum is a rumours site, mainly a wish list in many respects. If you want it and need it you are going to ask for it.

One more time, from the top. Voice your opinion all you want. I'm not trying to make you feel silly for doing so. What you manage to look silly for doing, entirely without my help, is claiming that Canon needs to heed your opinion. That was my first question – why does Canon need to make the lens(es) you want? Hint: they will likely only do so if there's a business case for it. But you don't want to be bothered with that.

So hell ye im going to shout out some annoyance.

Be annoyed. Like I said, that's fine. But shouting in here is basically pissing into the wind. I want Canon to release a TS-R 14mm and an MP-R 65 1-7x Macro. Should I shout about that here? I understand that the market for such lenses is small, and thus Canon is likely to prioritize other lenses over those.

See, I expressed my desire for Canon to do something...but I didn't claim they must do it, or that they will suffer some sort of negative consequences if they don't. It's not hard.

Let's try that again. AF point-linked metering was a feature of 1-series DSLRs, and I used i often on my 1D X. According to the R1 specs, it does not have AF point-linked metering. I'm annoyed and disappointed that Canon is not providing that feature in their newest 1-series flagship, when its predecessors have had it for many generations.

Criticism of Canon. Posting an opinion. All fine.

What I did not do is claim that R1 sales will suffer for lack of inclusion of the feature. What I did not do is say that most professional photographers use that feature and will switch so some other brand that offers it. Again, not hard.

When you see other manufacturers making interesting lenses at competitive prices, ye im paying attention and wishing for some too. Its natural.

Like me ol' Irish Da used to tell me before he went to the great beyond, "Wish in one hand, sh!t in the other, and see which fills up first."

Quite honestly whether Canon care about my opinion or not isnt really why im talking about it. Nothing wrong with having wants and calling out a compromised line of lenses on a closed off ecosystem.

You may disagree but you're the type of guy who can afford 14k for a 600mm so all play to you. Not everyone is in that boat.

I don't disagree. What I disagree with is your contention that because Nikon makes a lens, Canon must make one, too. Sometimes that makes sense, other times it doesn't.

You might as well ask why Nikon doesn't make a 600/11 or 800/11, or a 100-300/2.8, or a 24-105/2.8 (or better yet, a 24-120/2.8). But you aren't, because you don't want those lenses.

So I'll repeat: it's fine to want something, it's fine to post your wants and wish that Canon would met them and/or complain that Canon is not meeting them. 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.

 

[mdy]

The article says "We do not believe it will have a built-in teleconverter, as there is a new teleconverter coming." Has there been anything reported about the teleconverter recently? I've been tracking any news and haven't seen anything. Also, are we still expecting it to be a variable teleconverter? Thanks.

 

[Loswr]

Perhaps you should respect other peoples opinions and keep your criticism to yourself?

Everyone is entitled to their opinions, and they are welcome to share them. No one is entitled to their own personal facts.

"Canon should make X or do Y."

"Canon needs to make X or do Y to stop people from switching in droves to Nikon and Sony."

The former is an opinion, the latter is someone trying to make their opinion sound like a fact by including false information. When I point out that the actual data show that people are not switching in droves from Canon to Nikon and Sony, they get offended because I'm not respecting their opinion. The opinion is fine, the false information isn't. But if you want to support the spreading of false information, there are some websites that will sell you a nice, red hat to wear.