What We Expect Canon to Announce in the Coming Months

[dolina]

You can't have everything...like lighter weight and a faster lens...well not until you successfully break the laws of physics. Same probably goes for the other options: longer and lighter or longer and faster. Or maybe you can have them if your name is on this list: https://www.bloomberg.com/billionaires/. Fortunately for me, I've got the lenses I want and I can rent the others........

Weight savings from last EF lens to curent RF lens is 22-30%.

Prior EF lens main draw is lighter and faster.

 

[BlancRay]

Beautiful damselfly portraits! I am impressed that you get such good results with the manually focusing MPE and hand held - respect!

Thanks

 

[justaCanonuser]

I want to see a

• ...
• RF 500mm f/4L IS USM

Forget about any 500mm f/4 prime in future. Since Canon managed to strip down the weight of the 600mm f/4.0 to about 3 kg (same weight as my old EF 500mm F/4.5 L USM), an additional 500mm f/4 prime doesn't make any sense anymore. Canon would create only more production costs for two lenses that cannibalize each other's sales. In former times, in particular when the 6 kg EF 600mm f/4.0 Mk I was on the market, such a 500mm lens made sense, because it addressed users who wanted a fast, long supertele, but one they still could carry in a backpack with additional gear and, if trained enough, could shoot hand-held.

That's now all combined in the latest generation 600mm lenses, in particular because the radically new tele lens design Canon came up with the EF Mk III lens moved the center of weight towards the photographer. That made hand-held shooting even easier than before. My old club of an EF 500mm was much more top-heavy than the EF 600mm f/4.0 III, so I personally can follow e.g. flying birds perceptibly longer with the 600 than I could with the 500. So, to wrap it up: the market for a separate 500mm is killed by a huge progress in supertele lens designs. It is no neglect that Canon never came up with an EF 500mm f/4.0 III version.

 

[Del Paso]

Thanks for your comment, zardoz. On my side, I am very happy with the results I get with the MPE combined with my R5 and a diffused MT26EX-RT flash, without tripod (hand held), working at 3-4 magnification. I imagine what results could be obtained with a similar RF lens. I hesitate to buy an EF 180 macro, second hand, tu use it on the R5, because I still hope for a future RF 200 macro. If you want to have an idea of the results obtained with the MPE on the R5, have a look at my website https://www.lesjardinsmerveilleux.be/galerie.php?page=12 for example. The problem I see with Laowa macro lenses is the difficulty to use them with a good macro flash, like the MT-26. And as long as I see, the quality of the Canon MPE remains the best, even if this brave lens is quite old.

Splendide!

 

[dolina]

Forget about any 500mm f/4 prime in future. Since Canon managed to strip down the weight of the 600mm f/4.0 to about 3 kg (same weight as my old EF 500mm F/4.5 L USM), an additional 500mm f/4 prime doesn't make any sense anymore. Canon would create only more production costs for two lenses that cannibalize each other's sales. In former times, in particular when the 6 kg EF 600mm f/4.0 Mk I was on the market, such a 500mm lens made sense, because it addressed users who wanted a fast, long supertele, but one they still could carry in a backpack with additional gear and, if trained enough, could shoot hand-held.

That's now all combined in the latest generation 600mm lenses, in particular because the radically new tele lens design Canon came up with the EF Mk III lens moved the center of weight towards the photographer. That made hand-held shooting even easier than before. My old club of an EF 500mm was much more top-heavy than the EF 600mm f/4.0 III, so I personally can follow e.g. flying birds perceptibly longer with the 600 than I could with the 500. So, to wrap it up: the market for a separate 500mm is killed by a huge progress in supertele lens designs. It is no neglect that Canon never came up with an EF 500mm f/4.0 III version.

I think Canon's waiting for the Sony & Nikon's 500mm f/4 before releasing their RF 500mm at 2.45-2.55kg. This shaves 20-23% of the 3.19kg 2011 EF 500mm f/4L IS II USM.

By comparison 2.52kg's the weight of a 2008 EF 200mm f/2L IS USM. For that lens I expect the much rumored EF 200mm f/1.8L IS USM to weigh 2.2-2.3kg

 

[PeterParker]

I think it was asked earlier in the thread, but what about the digital retro AE-1-esque body? The 50th anniversary is right around the corner, is that rumor simply DOA?

 

[EthenJ]

Not next from Canon, but probably next to Canon....

Sigma RF-S 15mm f/1.4 DC DN (to replace their current RF-S 16mm f/1.4)

View attachment 228065

View attachment 228066


The old 16mm was equivalent to 24mm on fullframe when mounted on a 1.5x APS-C camera.
The new 15mm is equivalent to 24mm on fullframe when mounted on a 1.6x APS-C camera.

It is probably putting too much significance into this, if thinking Sigma has prioritized Canon's 1.6x crop-factor higher than 1.5x when considering fullframe equivalence of their new lens?

That's not crazy. There are tons of Canon crop cameras out there, and users have almost nowhere else to go for RF-S lenses; I can imagine such an exclusive, high volume market being a big business priority.

...On a related note, do you think Sigma (or Tamron) will add IS to any of their RF-S lenses besides the travel superzooms?

I find it odd, as stabilization was far more common in their EF-S lenses.

 

[neuroanatomist]

That's not crazy. There are tons of Canon crop cameras out there, and users have almost nowhere else to go for RF-S lenses; I can imagine such an exclusive, high volume market being a big business priority.

There are tons of Canon crop cameras out there, but most of those users are content with the lens(es) that came in the box with their camera.

 

[John Wilde]

That the problem if you look overall Numbers. If you look deeper: 2025 Mirrorless Camera Shares:

In their financial documents, Canon reports that they sold 2.88 million interchangeable lens cameras in 2025, for a market share of (2.88/6.7) 43%. In their financial documents, Nikon forecasts that their market share for this fiscal (not calendar) year will be (900/6700) 13%. In their financial documents, Sony never reports camera unit sales, so their market share is unknown.

 

[AccipiterQ]

I'm behind on the whole VCM thing....can someone explain if it results in lower IQ on photos? I get that the noiseless aspect is big for videos (although personally lenses like the 15-35 2.8 are silent enough for me to shoot video with), but is there a negative aspect for image quality using this motor??

 

[neuroanatomist]

I'm behind on the whole VCM thing....can someone explain if it results in lower IQ on photos? I get that the noiseless aspect is big for videos (although personally lenses like the 15-35 2.8 are silent enough for me to shoot video with), but is there a negative aspect for image quality using this motor??

The discussion is not about the focus motor, but the fact that the 24/1.4, 20/1.4 and 14/1.4 do not ‘cover the corners’ and require correction of the barrel distortion to ‘stretch’ the image into the corners.

This isn’t VCM lens thing, several other RF lenses have this same feature (24-240, 16/2.8, 14-35/4L, 24-105/2.8L). Other manufacturers do this, as well.

As for IQ, I found that the digitally corrected corners of the RF 14-35/4 at 14mm yield IQ equivalent to the EF 11-24/4 at 14mm (where the latter has much less distortion than at the wide end).

 

[Jethro]

That's not crazy. There are tons of Canon crop cameras out there, and users have almost nowhere else to go for RF-S lenses; I can imagine such an exclusive, high volume market being a big business priority.

...On a related note, do you think Sigma (or Tamron) will add IS to any of their RF-S lenses besides the travel superzooms?

I find it odd, as stabilization was far more common in their EF-S lenses.

A number of the lightweight FF RF lenses are pretty clearly also designed to sit and operate well on an APSC sensor body. For eg the RF 28-70 f2.8. I know it's not specifically designed for RF-S, but crop camera owners have always adapted FF lenses. And from Canon's point of view, yes, they would love crop camera owners to then upgrade to a FF body, and use their lenses on that body.

 

[Hector1970]

Interesting list of lens. True RF versions of the big whites are inevitable. It will be interesting whether they can be much lighter. Surprised a 200-400 with inbuilt teleconvertor is not on the list. I wonder can they design a converter that can be on and off without removing.
Personally I’d love a 14mm TS-E. I don’t need autofocus. 24 TS-E II is still amazing but the 17mm TS-E is fine but not as good.
A high MP R3 would be on my wish list.
I can’t help feel though improvements will be hard to come by from now on. EF lens are still great, just heavy. It’s hard to notice improvement from RF lens in images. On charts they might be better but practically the difference is minimal. Cameras too are coming to limits. FPS gains from here on are just creating photo management issues. ISO improvements are minimal these days. Higher MP is possible but there comes a point the file sizes are a pain. Tracking can still improve but how much better can it get. It’s been a great run but it’s coming to an end. Computational improvements may improve cameras but we’ve been able to do it in post processing anyway.

 

[justaCanonuser]

I think Canon's waiting for the Sony & Nikon's 500mm f/4 before releasing their RF 500mm at 2.45-2.55kg. This shaves 20-23% of the 3.19kg 2011 EF 500mm f/4L IS II USM.

By comparison 2.52kg's the weight of a 2008 EF 200mm f/2L IS USM. For that lens I expect the much rumored EF 200mm f/1.8L IS USM to weigh 2.2-2.3kg

Nikon took another very smart path with their light f/6.3 diffraction optics (= PF) supertele primes. The Z600mm f/6.3 is ultra compact and light (my wife has one, as I posted here earlier, superb for light birding gear), and the Z800mm f/6.3 is also only about 2.5 kg with hood. Looks like both lenses fancy a growing popularity amongst wildlife/bird photographers. I think, economically it makes no sense for Nikon to add a Z500mm f/4.0 to the Z600mm f/4.0, same with Canon.

I guess for Canon it would make more sense to revive the EF 400mm f/4.0 DO in an even lighter, more compact and optically improved RF version, but I am not sure that they sold enough copies of the EF II version to do that. It is hard to find one of these DO II lenses on the used market, what could have two reasons: (1) only a few copies sold, (2) users love them so they still keep them. The DO II version is much sharper and delivers more contrast than the original DO version (much easier to find on the used market), but optically it isn't up to the EF 300mm f/2.8 L IS II USM, what in particular can be noticed with extenders added, so that might have biased interested photographer's decison in favor of the 300mm lens.

 

[dolina]

Nikon took another very smart path with their light f/6.3 diffraction optics (= PF) supertele primes. The Z600mm f/6.3 is ultra compact and light (my wife has one, as I posted here earlier, superb for light birding gear), and the Z800mm f/6.3 is also only about 2.5 kg with hood. Looks like both lenses fancy a growing popularity amongst wildlife/bird photographers. I think, economically it makes no sense for Nikon to add a Z500mm f/4.0 to the Z600mm f/4.0, same with Canon.

I guess for Canon it would make more sense to revive the EF 400mm f/4.0 DO in an even lighter, more compact and optically improved RF version, but I am not sure that they sold enough copies of the EF II version to do that. It is hard to find one of these DO II lenses on the used market, what could have two reasons: (1) only a few copies sold, (2) users love them so they still keep it.

While I was catching up on the latest birding lens for international travel I also looked at what Nikon Z & Sony FE mount has to offer.

I'm amazed by the Sony 200-600mm & 400-800mm but equally amazed by the Nikons you mentioned. Namely the Z 800mm f/6.3 that is essentially a 500mm f/4 but lengthened to 800mm for a 2,385g lens. Having lived with the 4.5kg 2008 EF 800mm f/5.6L IS USM lens for over 17 years cutting nearly half the weight in exchange of 1/3rd stop of light loss is very acceptable especially when it is 1/2 the 2008 price of my EF 800mm.

Wish we had brighter EF bodies back 2 decades ago! RF bodies are amazing!

 

[justaCanonuser]

While I was catching up on the latest birding lens for international travel I also looked at what Nikon Z & Sony FE mount has to offer.

I'm amazed by the Sony 200-600mm & 400-800mm but equally amazed by the Nikons you mentioned. Namely the Z 800mm f/6.3 that is essentially a 500mm f/4 but lengthened to 800mm for a 2,385g lens. Having lived with the 4.5kg 2008 EF 800mm f/5.6L IS USM lens for over 17 years cutting nearly half the weight in exchange of 1/3rd stop of light loss is very acceptable especially when it is 1/2 the 2008 price of my EF 800mm.

Wish we had brighter EF bodies back 2 decades ago! RF bodies are amazing!

The EF 800mm f/5.6L IS USM was quite a tank gun of a lens. I only once have seen one in the wilderness. Did you carry it in a packpack?

I used my vintage EF 500mm f/4.5 L USM from 1995 until early past year (its 30st year! still works...), mainly because for many years it was the lightest option for a relatively fast supertele lens. 3 kg was light enough for extended hand-held shooting, even with a TC attached, and I did not miss IS much, because on the other hand 3 kg gives enough inertia mass to keep such a lens steady enough even for longer exposure times. Only the more nervous OVF image needed a bit of a learning curve, and if video, not stills, would be my main work, I'd changed earlier to a lens with good IS (in fact, for video I used my old Tammy 150-600 G2, which had a very good IS).

 

[Del Paso]

Interesting list of lens. True RF versions of the big whites are inevitable. It will be interesting whether they can be much lighter. Surprised a 200-400 with inbuilt teleconvertor is not on the list. I wonder can they design a converter that can be on and off without removing.
Personally I’d love a 14mm TS-E. I don’t need autofocus. 24 TS-E II is still amazing but the 17mm TS-E is fine but not as good.
A high MP R3 would be on my wish list.
I can’t help feel though improvements will be hard to come by from now on. EF lens are still great, just heavy. It’s hard to notice improvement from RF lens in images. On charts they might be better but practically the difference is minimal. Cameras too are coming to limits. FPS gains from here on are just creating photo management issues. ISO improvements are minimal these days. Higher MP is possible but there comes a point the file sizes are a pain. Tracking can still improve but how much better can it get. It’s been a great run but it’s coming to an end. Computational improvements may improve cameras but we’ve been able to do it in post processing anyway.

I fully agree on the 17mm TSE needing an overhaul, preferably as a 14mm TSE. When fully shifted, the sides and corners become a bit weak. A 14mm would also be ideal for very high edifices, like the many cathedrals we have in France. Norwegian stave churches often stand isolated in the landscape, cathedrals rarely...
So, I'm hoping for the rumor to take an actual physical shape, possibly at a still "human" price.

 

[dolina]

The EF 800mm f/5.6L IS USM was quite a tank gun of a lens. I only once have seen one in the wilderness. Did you carry it in a packpack?

I used my vintage EF 500mm f/4.5 L USM from 1995 until early past year (its 30st year! still works...), mainly because for many years it was the lightest option for a relatively fast supertele lens. 3 kg was light enough for extended hand-held shooting, even with a TC attached, and I did not miss IS much, because on the other hand 3 kg gives enough inertia mass to keep such a lens steady enough even for longer exposure times. Only the more nervous OVF image needed a bit of a learning curve, and if video, not stills, would be my main work, I'd changed earlier to a lens with good IS (in fact, for video I used my old Tammy 150-600 G2, which had a very good IS).

At the time of acquisition I was using 1,345g 1996 Sigma APO 170-500mm f/5-6.3 Aspherical RF that was 1st used with a 1995 EOS 50 film SLR. I had to have the Sigma re-chip when we got the 2003 EOS 10D that same year.

In 2026 the EF 800mm may come across as heavy metal but AF lens options available back then were

- 1999 Canon EF 600mm f/4L IS USM @ 5.36kg
- 2005 Sigma 800mm f/5.6 EX DG HSM @ 4.74kg
- 2005 Sigma 300-800mm f/5.6 EX DG HSM @ 5.88g
- 2007 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 600mm f/4G ED VR @ 5.06kg
- 2008 Canon EF 800mm f/5.6L IS USM @ 4.5kg

Before 2009 Canon was the 1st to drop a 600mm or 800mm to 4.5kg or lighter & had IS. 4.59kg Nikon's AF-S Nikkor 800mm f/5.6 didn't arrive until 2013. I would never have taken up bird photography if i had to put up with the nearly 6kg weight of the Sigmonster that had no form of IS. It came as a surprise to me that the Sigmonster also had no focus limiter switch. That time saving feature was present in my older 1999 EF 300mm f/2.8L IS USM & 1999 EF 500mm f/4L IS USM. It baffles me that the Sigmonster had no weather sealing so it ends up gulping air & dust during zooming what more heavy rain or salt spray while outdoors? Optically speaking that Sigma struggled with flare & ghosting when shooting toward the light. It had more CA at 800mm compared to other high-end primes.

The bag I used with the EF 800mm was initially the 2008 LowePro Lens Trekker 600 AW II then migrated to a 2012 Think Tank Airport Accelerator to comply 45 linear inch (56 x 36 x 23 cm) airline requirement. If I were to buy a bag for it today my choice would be the 2023 Think Tank FirstLight 46L.

About 15 years ago I knew of someone who was shooting with your 1992 EF 500mm f/4.5L USM. I looked it up and was really impressed with the 3kg weight. The senior citizen hand holding it did so with ease. When a RF 500mm f/4L IS USM comes out I expect it to be ~2.5kg. Although if I was shooting on Z mount I'd likely go for the 2,385g 2022 Nikon NIKKOR Z 800mm f/6.3 VR S. Been updating myself on 600mm & 800mm lenses and that beauty raised to the top.

 

[dolina]

I fully agree on the 17mm TSE needing an overhaul, preferably as a 14mm TSE. When fully shifted, the sides and corners become a bit weak. A 14mm would also be ideal for very high edifices, like the many cathedrals we have in France. Norwegian stave churches often stand isolated in the landscape, cathedrals rarely...
So, I'm hoping for the rumor to take an actual physical shape, possibly at a still "human" price.

I expect the TS-R lenses to come out about a decade after the last TS-E were released.

There are other higher volume focal lengths that have yet to come out on RF mount.

 

[Celts88]

The EF 800mm f/5.6L IS USM was quite a tank gun of a lens. I only once have seen one in the wilderness.

I only the other month sold my EF 800mm f/5.6L as it was getting a bit big for me as I've arthritis in my wrist so was having a bit of hassle with it. I've a 100-500mm and 200-800mm so these will do me for the present (can't afford the 100-300mm f/2.8).

A 300-600m 5.6/L (or whatever it ends up being) would be a great zoom for a large majority of people.