What We Expect Canon to Announce in the Coming Months

[justaCanonuser]

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).

The 200-800 is a real fun lens, much better than I expected when I bought it, but it needs a lot of light. The RF 100-300mm f/2.8 isn't a bargain, that's true. To me, it is also too short & heavy as a combo. I'd prefer a zoom with the double focal length natively that sits right in the middle between such a super fast tele zoom and the slow 200-800. When I need a fast supertele, I prefer the current generation of EF/RF 600mm f/4.0 III/I primes.

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

Yepp, I'm in your club! Could hand me over a 300-600 member card?

 

[justaCanonuser]

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.

Shooting fast flying birds like puffins was quite easy with that lens - because of the lack of IS you hadn't remind yourself to switch it to the panning mode. I love gear that is as simple as possible so it doesn't distract from shooting when it gets to real action. Here's one example of thousands of puffin-in-flight shots with that old lens that accidentally happens to be just saved on the SSD of my MacBook (not the best BIF shot of a lying puffin with fishes I have but an okay one):



Footnote:
That vintage EF 500mm f/4.5 L USM lens also impressed me by its nearly non-destructible ruggedness (it still works, but its mount is quite worn off now). I had several massive accidents with it over the years, e.g. in Norway a storm kicked the tripod (I don't shoot always hand-held) over, when I just turned to my backpack to change the camera's battery. So this lens with the original 7D crashed on a stone, and I thought, that's it. But the camera had just a scar, and everything worked perfectly - the 500 was wrapped in a lenscoat anyway, and it was already a battered club when I bought it used. My wife's Sigma 500mm f/4.5 for Nikon, which weights 3 kg only, too, is comparatively new (bought in 2012 as a new lens), already needed a new AF drive. But that's more a problem of caused by the AF system of Nikon's DSLRs I guess. Focusing is always accompanied by a rattling pumping (be it a D300, 300s, 500, or D700 from my wife's collection), that also destroyed the AF drives of other tele lenses, twice the drive of a Nikkor 300mm f/4.0 (the old one, not the newer with which introduced their diffraction optics tech), and recently the AF drive of her much newer Nikkor 70-200 f/2.8 VR lens.

Shooting both gears side by side for many years I only had one repair with my old 7D (thumb wheel had to be exchanged), with our Nikon gear we had a lot of repairs and drop-outs in the field. That kept me with Canon, besides Canon's ergonomics that I personally prefer. There is also a solid reason behind the fact that used Canon gear is more expensive that comparable Nikon gear, I just recently found out again.

 

[Del Paso]

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.

Not so sure...
If it hadn't been for the TS-E 24 II and 17, I would have bought the Nikon DSLR and not the EOS 5D III in 2014, and never have entered the Canon ecosystem.
Such lenses matter for many photographers, especially pros!

 

[justaCanonuser]

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

I know, that kept me with my old 4.5/500. Btw I once had the opportunity to test the 300-800 "Sigmonster" on an exhibition, and I wasn't impressed, it's sharpness @ 800mm was underwhelming. It was a good lens for film photography, I guess, since wildlife required faster, more grainy films anyway, but it wasn't up to the resolution of DSLRs even back then (about 15 years ago).

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.

My vintage EF 500 f/4.5 was so slender that it fitted in my old Lowepro Trekker 300 AW back with a camera attached, hood reversed. So I could load a 2nd camera, a 1.4x TC, extension rings, a standard zoom or my Zeiss 3.5/18mm for landscape, and an EF 100mm f/2.8 L IS USM macro lens, or sometimes even an EF 300mm f/4.0 L IS USM (that I liked to use as a "distance" macro for more shy small animals). When I upgraded to an EF 600mm f/4.0 III past year, I got a Lowepro Lens Trekker 600 AW III with two additional (big) quivers attached. I like the very good carrying system of this backpack, I can carry it for hours w/o an aching back. The old Trekker 300 AW was less comfortable, when it was loaded with 10+ kg of glass and camera - it was a bit over top of its specs I guess, but load-wise perfectly flexible. I still have one for smaller gear.

 

[TonyB_FL]

Has Canon given up on the DO technology? An updated 400 f/4 for RF mount and a 600 and 800 would put them squarely on par with Nikon, and offer more affordable options over the current and rumored replacements. Some of us just can’t justify or afford those 5 figure big whites.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Has Canon given up on the DO technology? An updated 400 f/4 for RF mount and a 600 and 800 would put them squarely on par with Nikon, and offer more affordable options over the current and rumored replacements. Some of us just can’t justify or afford those 5 figure big whites.

Repeating previous replies to the same question, the RF 600/11 and 800/11 are DO lenses so no, Canon has not ‘given up on DO’.

 

[stillviking]

Beyond the afformentioned lens, I have also had a few suggestions that Canon will be updating the the RF 24-70 F2.8 L IS USM with a VCM version at some point in 2026. I think it would be great to see it before the peak July and August wedding season.

How real we will have a new RF 24-70 2.8 L VCM Z soon? I'm too excited for this one..!

 

[Del Paso]

How real we will have a new RF 24-70 2.8 L VCM Z soon? I'm too excited for this one..!

Me too! Me too!

 

[Ozarker]

Sony will soon have a complete trinity of f2 zooms (16-28, 28-70, 50-150) while Canon ist stuck with a rather heavy 28-70/2 alone.
They need to do something about this!

Why?

 

[Michael Clark]

I know, that kept me with my old 4.5/500. Btw I once had the opportunity to test the 300-800 "Sigmonster" on an exhibition, and I wasn't impressed, it's sharpness @ 800mm was underwhelming. It was a good lens for film photography, I guess, since wildlife required faster, more grainy films anyway, but it wasn't up to the resolution of DSLRs even back then (about 15 years ago).

My experience with pretty much all Sigma telephoto zoom lenses from before the introduction of the Global Vision Series (ART, SPORTS, Contemporary) has been that they get progressively blurrier at the longer focal lengths, and quite noticeably so.

 

[Michael Clark]

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.

Back in the EF era I'm not sure any other EF lens was up to the EF 300mm f/2.8 L IS II! Optically it was the King of the Big White Super Telephotos for sure.

 

[Michael Clark]

Canon you are on the clock until early summer... A real RF 400mm 2.8 replacement with build in TC is long overdue and I'm really loosing hope. As soon as Nikon will release the Z9 II, even more wildlife photographers will leave Canon, including me...

Maybe if Canon had just remounted the original 1999 EF 400mm F/2.8 L IS into the RF 400mm f/2.8 L IS, or even the 2011 EF 400mm f/2.8 L IS II you'd have a real gripe about the RF 400mm f/2.8 L IS not being a "real" RF lens.

But the 2018 EF 400mm f/2.8 L IS III was designed at a time when the RF system was on the very near drawing board and was almost certainly designed for both systems from the get go. The EF III was 25% lighter than the EF II and only 1.9mm longer with hood. The RF 400mm f/4 L IS is only 40 grams (1.4 ounces) heavier and 18.2mm longer with hood, in spite of RF having a registration distance 24mm closer to the sensor than EF.

Wanting a built-in 1.4X is an entirely different discussion. In 2018 the only built-in extender was Canon's 2013 EF 200-400mm f/4 L IS 1.4X. No one else was doing that then.

 

[Michael Clark]

totally with you on that, hearing it even for 25 years .I would never switch overall. But, I'm not talking whole camera market, I just focus on wildlife photography as I focus on the super tele lenses. This niche market was dominated by Canon for a very very long time, similar to Sports using the same equipment. After Sony came in with great AF in their mirrorless (toy) cameras but not super great lenses - still a significant number switched. With the Z9 and the 400 2.8 with TC in 2021, Nikon had an OKisch AF and the best Lens on the market. More switched, even in not so easy times after COVID. Since then Nikon pushed a lot for high quality "mid" price range super tele (600mm 5.6, 800mm 6.3) and updated their camera software far more than Canon. So you see definitely more effort from them, as they know they have to win over customers.

As I said before, I'm not looking forward to have Canon and Nikon in my bag. I would love to see more effort from Canon to keep me as a local customer also for my wildlife photography. If Canon come to the conclusion, we don't need this niche anymore, we found e.g. video content creators as our new focus customer group - bad for me, but as you said, they probably continue to dominate for at least a couple more years the overall market - as once Kodak did

Nikon does seem to understand better than Canon, or at the very least want more than Canon, the largest portion of the wildlife/birding market, which are not the handful of pros actually making a good living doing it to whom Canon closely listens, but rather are the hordes of amateurs who can afford to do it for fun and leisure if mid-range lenses, relatively speaking, are available.

 

[neuroanatomist]

But the 2018 EF 400mm f/2.8 L IS III was designed at a time when the RF system was on the very near drawing board and was almost certainly designed for both systems from the get go.

Except that the RF 400/2.8L and RF 600/4L (and their corresponding lenses with the built-in 2x in the design) are the only regular* RF L lenses without a control ring.

(*The RF 5.2mm F2.8 L Dual Fisheye doesn’t have a control ring.)

 

[Michael Clark]

Do you have data to backup your claims?

Nikon’s results do not support your claims:

• Their marketshare has not increased since FY2022.
• Their sales prediction for lenses and bodies is down: “Nikon has decreased its projected camera sales for this fiscal year from 950,000 to 900,000 units and decreased expected lens sales from 1.4 million to 1.3 million.”
• Nikon attributes the loss in Q3 of FY2025 to “decline in average selling prices due to changes in the product mix” - which does not support selling a lot of 3000-5000$ tele lenses.

See: https://petapixel.com/2026/02/06/nikon-posts-big-losses-and-cuts-projections/

Compared to more pedestrian focal lengths, no one has ever really sold "a lot of $3000-$5000 tele lenses."

They've always been a niche market apart from sports journalism. And sports journalism ain't nuthin' like what it used to be in terms of the number of staff shooters being issued company owned Super Telephotos. Today's freelancers are not complaining about using their EF 400/2.8 with EF-RF adapters on RF bodies. They're too busy hanging on for dear life working for pennies on the dollar using their own gear compared to when they held full-time staff positions and company issued gear.

 

[Michael Clark]

I've used the RF 24-70 2.8L IS briefly and found it to be good - the IS in it was certainly giving me better results than IBIS with the 28-70L, but they'd have to make it lighter (like the Son 24-70 2.8 GM II) for me to have any interest...

Knowing Canon, if they cheat and use digital correction, then I'm out, though.

You think Sony is not doing digital correction with the 24-70/2.8 GM II?

 

[Michael Clark]

A MPE-65 replacement with an AF drive would be very attractive. I was thinking about purchasing such a lens for decades now, but my approach to macro photography (mostly freehand - spiders, insects in the wilderness) requires a good AF system. That's why I still stick with my old, trusted EF 100mm f/2.8 L IS USM lens, it works so well with the R7 and R5 II.

The MP-E 65mm has no focus system whatsoever. For any given magnification, there is only a single focus distance: MFD is THE focus distance. Period.

Subject is brought into focus by moving the entire camera and lens towards or away from the subject, or by changing the magnification.

 

[justaCanonuser]

The MP-E 65mm has no focus system whatsoever. For any given magnification, there is only a single focus distance: MFD is THE focus distance. Period.

Subject is brought into focus by moving the entire camera and lens towards or away from the subject, or by changing the magnification.

Ah, thank you, I always thought it had manual focusing. Maybe this was because during my studies many years ago I used plenty of optical microscopes - so the focusing screw (which is in fact a distances screw) of such microscopes is replaced by the body movement of the photographer shift of the tripod. I guess the fast fps cameras of today bring new life into handheld shooting with such a lens.

 

[scyrene]

Ah, thank you, I always thought it had manual focusing. Maybe this was because during my studies many years ago I used plenty of optical microscopes - so the focusing screw (which is in fact a distances screw) of such microscopes is replaced by the body movement of the photographer shift of the tripod. I guess the fast fps cameras of today bring new life into handheld shooting with such a lens.

To be fair, you can use the MP-E as if it had manual focus, if you change the magnification without movivg the camera the focal plane will move, and eg focus stacks can be obtained that way (but it has its drawbacks around the edges of the frame).

 

[Michael Clark]

To be fair, you can use the MP-E as if it had manual focus, if you change the magnification without movivg the camera the focal plane will move, and eg focus stacks can be obtained that way (but it has its drawbacks around the edges of the frame).

Changing the magnification affects the corners and edges the most, but it affects every point in the frame except the exact center to one degree or another. So does moving the entire camera and lens towards/away from the subject.