Two Never Before Seen Lenses Coming from Canon This Year

[JensR]

Interesting, maybe 200 - 500 f4 or 5.6? Oh heck I kinda wish the new 400 and 600 would be released.

If it is in the pricerange between 100-500 5-7.1 and 100-300 2.8 i am quite sure it will not be 500 f4 or 600 f4. That is top shelf, like 300 and 400 f2.8
I could see a 200-500 f5.6 or 300 to 600 f6.3 in that price bracket. I know, even the 600 f6.3 is very close to the 100-300 in diameter, but Canon made the 200-800 and the 800 f11, so 6-7k for a really good lens is doable for Canon. Not sure if they make it, though.

 

[JensR]

I think the Canon APS-C RF bodies are much better than the EF-S equivalents. No more unreliable and slow AF with 9 focus points, proper video specs (uncropped 4K), etc. But they are still somewhat boring. But Canon is barely doing the essential in the lenses department. Lucky we have Sigma with some really cool lenses.

There were a lot of EF-s bodies with better AF, the 7D, 7D II, 70D, 750D, 760D, 80D, 77D, 800D, 90D, and most of them had Dual Pixel AF in live-view

 

[Del Paso]

If Canon brings something like Sony's 4,5/100-400 GM at same price I would go for it right away

I wouldn't!
Extremely happy with my 100-500.

 

[Surab]

I also wish they kept the 24MP sensor and update other things, like: better EVF, bigger battery, joystick, control wheel, etc. Sensor resolution is a good differentiator.

I agree, particularly the battery and EVF could go with substantial upgrades.

 

[blackcoffee17]

There were a lot of EF-s bodies with better AF, the 7D, 7D II, 70D, 750D, 760D, 80D, 77D, 800D, 90D, and most of them had Dual Pixel AF in live-view

I don't think any of those cameras came close to what the modern mirrorless cameras can do and how accurate they are. I used to own a 7D II and now i have an R8. It's night and day in accuracy, the R8 is so much better.

 

[Exploreshootshare]

I wouldn't!
Extremely happy with my 100-500.

I agree. I wouldn’t give up 100mm of range and the compact size due to the collapsable design and spent more money btw…

 

[Aldherrian]

Yes, this 14-24 TS-E zoom would be a sensation!
Gimme! Gimme! Gimme quick!

As someone growing very curious with TS-E lenses but unsure about which focal length to choose between 17 and 24, a zoom would certainly be prohibitive but a simpler decision

 

[neuroanatomist]

As someone growing very curious with TS-E lenses but unsure about which focal length to choose between 17 and 24, a zoom would certainly be prohibitive but a simpler decision

If you happen to have an EF 1.4x TC, you can mount that behind the TS-E 17mm f/4 and have a very nice TS-E 24mm f/5.6. Even if you don't have an EF 1.4x TC, buying one along with the TS-E 17 is cheaper than buying both of the TS-E lenses.

I have both the TS-E 17 and 24 II, but when I want to travel lighter I will bring the 1.4x TC instead of the TS-E 24.

 

[AlanF]

There were a lot of EF-s bodies with better AF, the 7D, 7D II, 70D, 750D, 760D, 80D, 77D, 800D, 90D, and most of them had Dual Pixel AF in live-view

Did you ever use rear screen live view AF while hand holding one of those with a telephoto lens for action shots?

 

[JensR]

Did you ever use rear screen live view AF while hand holding one of those with a telephoto lens for action shots?

In fact I tried that with a 5DsR and a Sigma 60-600 lens, but the results were less than stellar to say the least. That entry level DSLR had no flippy screen either... ;-)

I wrote the above as answer to the comment of "No more unreliable and slow AF with 9 focus points in EFs APS-C cameras". The dual pixel AF part was meant to the other part of the comment about video features in the old cameras (which were not spectacular, true, but more than enough for me.)

I just resent the idea that old cameras are garbage as soon as newer ones turn up. People made great photos 100, 50, 20 10 years ago, with whatever cameras they had.

I do realise that newer cameras have superior AF and fps capabilities, but i have seen good wildlife photos taken with those "EFs APS-C Kameras", so they were not entirely bad.

But let's be entirely honest here:

Nobody needs an R8 Mark II because he/she can not get the "shot" with the R8 Mark I.
Same for R6 III, R6 II and R6. Yes there are differences. But all those cameras are capable.


I have an R, R10, R7 and R6 II, but i still sometimes use my 5DsR or 80D just for fun when out in Nature.

And sometimes, when i am all alone and noone is watching, i even get out my old and (t)rusty 5D Mark II and shoot a few portraits or fashion / cosplay shots in my small studio. And yes, i often only use one of those nine AF points...

 

[ShawnMoore]

I sure would love it if that “retro” that they’re talking about would be some sort RF rangefinder.

 

[AlanF]

In fact I tried that with a 5DsR and a Sigma 60-600 lens, but the results were less than stellar to say the least. That entry level DSLR had no flippy screen either... ;-)

I wrote the above as answer to the comment of "No more unreliable and slow AF with 9 focus points in EFs APS-C cameras". The dual pixel AF part was meant to the other part of the comment about video features in the old cameras (which were not spectacular, true, but more than enough for me.)

I just resent the idea that old cameras are garbage as soon as newer ones turn up. People made great photos 100, 50, 20 10 years ago, with whatever cameras they had.

I do realise that newer cameras have superior AF and fps capabilities, but i have seen good wildlife photos taken with those "EFs APS-C Kameras", so they were not entirely bad.

But let's be entirely honest here:

Nobody needs an R8 Mark II because he/she can not get the "shot" with the R8 Mark I.
Same for R6 III, R6 II and R6. Yes there are differences. But all those cameras are capable.


I have an R, R10, R7 and R6 II, but i still sometimes use my 5DsR or 80D just for fun when out in Nature.

And sometimes, when i am all alone and noone is watching, i even get out my old and (t)rusty 5D Mark II and shoot a few portraits or fashion / cosplay shots in my small studio. And yes, i often only use one of those nine AF points...

The 5DSR was not an entry level DSLR but an expensive 5 series, and an excellent one at that. It had pretty good AF through the viewfinder.

 

[Czardoom]

It sure would be nice if Canon would update the RF 100-500 f/4.5-7.1 being that it came out in September 2020. And big disappointment about the R7 Mark II, but the good news is I'm not out $2000-ish bucks!! If it has the same setbacks at the 7D MII, then it won't be released until the end of 2027.

There is no reason to update a 6 year old lens. it is, for all intents and purposes, a new lens. 10 years from now it will still be totally fine, with no reason to upgrade. Don't confuse camera tech, which is still improving (though very slowly now, and is quite mature), with lens tech, which has been mature for decades.

 

[Rceres]

…

I just resent the idea that old cameras are garbage as soon as newer ones turn up. People made great photos 100, 50, 20 10 years ago, with whatever cameras they had.

I do realise that newer cameras have superior AF and fps capabilities, but i have seen good wildlife photos taken with those "EFs APS-C Kameras", so they were not entirely bad.

But let's be entirely honest here:

Nobody needs an R8 Mark II because he/she can not get the "shot" with the R8 Mark I.
Same for R6 III, R6 II and R6. Yes there are differences. But all those cameras are capable.
…

Love this post.

Arguably one of the greatest portrait photographs ever made, Afghan Girl by Steve McCurry, was shot on Kodachrome 64 using a Nikon FM2 and a 105mm f/2.5 prime. My own favorite photographs were taken either on a Canon A-1 with FD primes or later on a 5D classic with the EF 50mm f/1.4 and 100mm f/2. Today I shoot an R5 II with a mix of EF and RF glass, including the RF 50mm f/1.2 and 135mm f/1.8.

The modern gear is objectively amazing. But nobody needs these cameras or lenses to make amazing photographs.

Camera equipment, especially at the enthusiast and professional level, is an aspirational and emotional investment. The best cameras and lenses don’t create the art, they inspire us, help us see differently, and make it easier to reliably translate what we see and feel into a final image.

That’s why Canon’s halo products matter so much. Lenses like the EF 200mm f/1.8L, cameras like the R1, or hypothetical future products like a true high-resolution RF body are important not because most photographers “need” them, but because they communicate a vision of what photography can be.

Those products shape aspiration. And aspiration is a huge part of why people invest in systems in the first place.

Just my two cents.

 

[JensR]

The 5DSR was not an entry level DSLR but an expensive 5 series, and an excellent one at that. It had pretty good AF through the viewfinder.

It was expensive, and it still has the same good AF. You probably missed my ;-) (winking face smily).

 

[Eric84]

20-70 just after the 20-50? That's the least likely.

But that 20-50 is a F4-lens.
The 20-70 has been rumored to have a VCM-motor, and not more than F2.8. Maybe even F2.
So it will be a "completely" different lens in my opinion

 

[Canon Rumors]

Unrelated, but I've been slacking with the site a bit. I'm in the process of moving countries again at the end of June. The moving process is still awful, even with experience.

 

[riker]

When I sold my R7 years ago, I was already fearing it will be hard sell due to Mark II rumors

That being said, from a theoretical/philosophical pov I believe the R8 is more important line.
Imho evolution of photo tech these years should include the transition from crop sensor more towards to full frame. Crop sensor used to be a necessity with it's disadvantages.
Canon STILL not having a proper crop-lens lineup is just +1.
....although not having ff compact body at the very same time is veeery puzzling. (No, we do not count the R6V for multiple reasons.)

 

[AlanF]

I just resent the idea that old cameras are garbage as soon as newer ones turn up. People made great photos 100, 50, 20 10 years ago, with whatever cameras they had.

I think most appreciate that. I have enjoyed every camera I have had and took what were for me many great photos with all of them. For static photos of birds, my 5DSR with EF lenses was as good in practice as my subsequent R5 and R5ii. And I also got many of my favourite birds in flight shots when I could use the central 9 points for panning and manage the slow fps and small buffer. What the new models do is to expand the range of what I can do easily - like latching on to very rapidly and tracking small birds from the edge to the centre of the image. Nailing dragonflies in flight was much more difficult. Nevertheless I could get shots like these with the 5DSR.


I

 

[Peter Ebel]

Since the 45mm has so poor IQ, at least without correction (and the corners even if corrected) - I really hope for a jump in price for better optical performance Saw Photo Feaver comparison on the 45mm vs 50 f1.8 about a week ago - and there was no competition. The RF 50 f1.8 had way better performance https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98OlSjp7Lbg

The world runs on emotions, not performance. I own both: The 50 1.8 is close to zero emotions but worth being used. the 45 1.2 is nothing but emotions and the very most relevant argument: This little girl has married my camera's bayonet.
If you are scared about the extreme corners - crop them out and you will end with the very same effective field of view given by the nifty fifty.

BTW: The 45 is well prepared for filter use (non extending), not so the nifty fifty.