Canon at Salon de la Photo 2025: Insights into Market and Products

[Bob Howland]

Ever since Sigma has been allowed to make APS-C lenses for RF, that's what I've been buying. I use my R7 more than my R6-2 now.

 

[David - Sydney]

I think that's the best approach, since Canon's EF-RF adapters work extremely well. I'll keep some of my EF lenses for a while, including a few 3rd party lenses.

Laowa's 200/2 with AF for EF is an a very interesting option. It may not have fantastic focusing speed compared to Sigma's version but it isn't available for EF/RF anyway.

Now that's a wide angle - with such an ultra-wide lens you don't need AF, even wide open
Btw not only Chinese makers of manual focusing lenses (may) produce lenses for Canon's RF mount: Zeiss offer their Otus 50mm and 85mm f/1.4's for Canon's RF mount, too.

It sees behind the lens with 220 degree coverage. tripods, feet and fingers will be the challenge except if I shoot directly vertically for night sky/milky way.

I will be focusing at infinity and will need to tape the focus ring to stop it from moving but it is possible to focus up close with MFD ~8cm ie almost touching the front element.

 

[David - Sydney]

People who compare the RF lens line up with Canon’s EF lens line up also tend to overlook the fact that the camera market has shrunk dramatically since the heydays of the EF mount. It is unrealistic to expect that Canon will produce an RF replacement for very EF lens.

Maybe unrealistic but it hasn't stopped Canon from producing some innovative RF lenses.
My point was that if Canon isn't willing to compete in certain market segments then they should license a 3rd party if they are interested.
Win-win-win for Canon, 3rd party and users.

 

[David - Sydney]

Replacing some EF lenses wouldn't make sense these days, like the EF 200mm 2.8 or the 400 5.6 or maybe even the 500 F4. Also, many RF lenses never had an equivalent in EF, like the 16mm 2.8, 24-240 or 28-70 2.8 and F2.

I agree that some RF lenses have made some EF lenses not relevant anymore. Not releasing a 300/2.8 (or f4) due to 100-300/2.8 is one area but adds cost and weight.
No 500mm or 200-400/4 replacement makes sense if a 200-500/4 is ever released but until then...
Not having mid-priced teles besides RF100-500 is a gap that has let Nikon/Sony bodies and lenses in. How much of a loss is unknowable.
The cheaper end with rf200-800, 600/11, 800/11 is well covered as well as the pointy end of the market.
The Chinese lens makers may be the solution for Canon's reticence and for niche lenses... we shall see.

 

[P-visie]

I agree that some RF lenses have made some EF lenses not relevant anymore. Not releasing a 300/2.8 (or f4) due to 100-300/2.8 is one area but adds cost and weight.
No 500mm or 200-400/4 replacement makes sense if a 200-500/4 is ever released but until then...
Not having mid-priced teles besides RF100-500 is a gap that has let Nikon/Sony bodies and lenses in. How much of a loss is unknowable.
The cheaper end with rf200-800, 600/11, 800/11 is well covered as well as the pointy end of the market.
The Chinese lens makers may be the solution for Canon's reticence and for niche lenses... we shall see.

The (rumored) RF 300-600mm lens will be Canon’s answer to the “cheap” Nikon PF telelenses. This lens will also replace the EF 200-400mm f4 +1.4 extender. If the rumors are correct, we’ll known in a few weeks.

 

[justaCanonuser]

Laowa's 200/2 with AF for EF is an a very interesting option. It may not have fantastic focusing speed compared to Sigma's version but it isn't available for EF/RF anyway.

One of my fav lenses is Canon's EF 85mm f/1.2 II, which isn't a fast focusing lens, too. But I used it even for street already.

It sees behind the lens with 220 degree coverage. tripods, feet and fingers will be the challenge except if I shoot directly vertically for night sky/milky way.

Classical crazy fisheye, good for stunning effects. Personally, not my cup of tea, since I prefer more the tele sort of looking into this world (even landscape), but I am fascinated by such crazy lenses, too, for sort of arts photography. I should take out my lensbaby lens again, after many years I didn't touch it...

I will be focusing at infinity and will need to tape the focus ring to stop it from moving but it is possible to focus up close with MFD ~8cm ie almost touching the front element.

I'd love to see your images. On youtube a German guy who introduced to this lens explains that when he shoots free-hand he has to hold the camera with the hands more on its back side so they don't protrude into the image. I'd use a tripod instead of shooting free-hand.

 

[justaCanonuser]

I'm surprised to hear the R6 II is the best selling camera, I thought the best seller would have been the R50, interesting!

I am not surprised, the R6 II is an attractive FF powerhouse given its price. I was really hesitant for a while whether I should go for an R6 II/III or an R5 II. Finally I decided for the latter to have more resolution for tele shooting available, but for many purposes I still think 20-24 MP is a sweet spot for FF. Also if one compares the R6 II e.g. to Nikon's Z5 II - my wife has one - Canon's offering is much more attractive in many respects. One of Canon's big advantages for wildlife/action shooting is the option to switch actively on/off eye recognition when animal subject recognition is active. In some quite frequent settings, e.g. a bird in water with a lot of reflecting waves, eye recognition is easily distracted. In the Nikon system, you can't switch it off, so it doesn't work properly in such settings.

 

[David - Sydney]

Classical crazy fisheye, good for stunning effects. Personally, not my cup of tea, since I prefer more the tele sort of looking into this world (even landscape), but I am fascinated by such crazy lenses, too, for sort of arts photography. I should take out my lensbaby lens again, after many years I didn't touch it...
I'd love to see your images. On youtube a German guy who introduced to this lens explains that when he shoots free-hand he has to hold the camera with the hands more on its back side so they don't protrude into the image. I'd use a tripod instead of shooting free-hand.

My "normal" shots are on my flickr page (see signature). You can see a few where I have used my EF8-15/4.
The youtube clips I have seen show crazy stuff with video slightly clipped top/bottom (16:9 vs 3:2) so getting used to it will be fun (and painful). Slight movements will drastically change the composition.
You can't have you fingers around the grip for handheld.
Similarly, I think that I will need to use a horizontal extension to avoid tripod feet being in frame unless shooting vertically.

 

[DhlcadR6]

3rd Party lenses is just matter of time, RF patent will run out eventually. And to be honest current RF is lacking the Tamron Sigma exotics, other things Canon got it covered.

 

[David - Sydney]

3rd Party lenses is just matter of time, RF patent will run out eventually. And to be honest current RF is lacking the Tamron Sigma exotics, other things Canon got it covered.

The physical RF mount hasn't been an impediment for new lenses for either manual or EF auto focus protocols. 3rd party EF lenses still had some issues with compatibility over time.

The RF protocols are a different issue. They may be under patent but the implementation won't be disclosed.
It is simple to encrypt the protocols so reverse engineering can't be done. Combining lens IS and IBIS is not a simple implementation.
Sigma and Tamron are playing a long game and will license with Canon's permission. There is no indication that this strategy will change.
The Chinese lens manufacturers are a different story.

 

[P-visie]

The RF protocols are a different issue. They may be under patent but the implementation won't be disclosed.
It is simple to encrypt the protocols so reverse engineering can't be done. Combining lens IS and IBIS is not a simple implementation.

And all the other functions that need information about the lens characteristics, e.g. lens aberration corrections and corrections for lens breathing for video.

 

[Bob Howland]

The physical RF mount hasn't been an impediment for new lenses for either manual or EF auto focus protocols. 3rd party EF lenses still had some issues with compatibility over time.

The RF protocols are a different issue. They may be under patent but the implementation won't be disclosed.
It is simple to encrypt the protocols so reverse engineering can't be done. Combining lens IS and IBIS is not a simple implementation.
Sigma and Tamron are playing a long game and will license with Canon's permission. There is no indication that this strategy will change.
The Chinese lens manufacturers are a different story.

Wouldn't Canon have to disclose the RF implementation to Sigma for Sigma to make fully compatible APS-C lenses?

 

[David - Sydney]

Wouldn't Canon have to disclose the RF implementation to Sigma for Sigma to make fully compatible APS-C lenses?

To some extent for sure. Canon may just take Sigma's existing lens and then provide back to them a profile correction and firmware.
Alternatively, Canon may license access to SW for them to test with draconian damages claims if they expose/leak or implement into non-agreed lenses.
Canon may also provide an encryption key per lens to be able to work with Canon bodies unless used with manual AF etc.
I imagine that they could be quite innovative to protect their protocols and others on the forum could better thoughts on options.

 

[justaCanonuser]

My "normal" shots are on my flickr page (see signature). You can see a few where I have used my EF8-15/4.
The youtube clips I have seen show crazy stuff with video slightly clipped top/bottom (16:9 vs 3:2) so getting used to it will be fun (and painful). Slight movements will drastically change the composition.
You can't have you fingers around the grip for handheld.
Similarly, I think that I will need to use a horizontal extension to avoid tripod feet being in frame unless shooting vertically.

Sorry for the delay, I was on a photo trip. Great images, David! I love in particular your humpback whale image, beautiful.