Two Never Before Seen Lenses Coming from Canon This Year

[rombe3jr]

I would be surprised if the R8 II actually switches over to the "retro" camera body being rumored. It seems like the R8 has a lot of potential to be a successful size going forward and to "go retro" probably means losing the traditional Canon ergonomics. Why not just create a new retro model? They can still use the same R6 III / C50 / R6V sensor. But an R8 II with a similar, small body design, but the R6 III sensor and keep it in that $1,500 USD price range would be fantastic.

 

[Surab]

The thing is, if you give the R8II the same sensor as the R6III, the same battery, same EVF and then add a AF joystick…you basically have a slightly smaller R6iii. With a similar price point.
The whole point of the R8 was a budget conscious (and more portable) R6ii.

Well I don't want the same sensor. It has no significant benefits in terms of rolling shutter which is what the R8 line really needs.

I would honestly be fine if they just gave it a third wheel and the bigger battery, maybe just the bigger battery. The R8 is already such a wonderful little package.

 

[Copland]

No new 400/2,8+TC
No new lighter 28-70/2
No new 50-150/2
...this year?

That would be annoying!

 

[riker]

To me, Canon is more photography's Toyota - not always fashionable but very reliable As I posted multiple times here, my wife as a Nikonian has an extended gear that she caresses much more than I my Canon gear. But we had to send Nikon cameras and lenses so frequently to repair service (broken mirror box, dead buttons from a few drops of rain, several dead AF drives) that I learned: if you can compare in real life, you know why it is wise to stick with Canon. At least this applies if you need a really rugged gear for wildlife that simply works in harder environments. In the past 15-20 years I only had one repair with my original 7D (dead thumb wheel), that's it.

Well...no arguing just sharing my experinece.
I've always been using Canon. Since 2000, before that, my father's AE-1. 30V-D60-10D-20D-30D-40D-5D2-5D3-5D4-R7-R52. The only issue I had was with exposure button of....I don't remember, maybe 40D. I do remember it was a typical issue, others had it too. Does it mean Canon being very reliable? Maybe. At the same time what I see, is that camera users can take less than their camera. In hard conditions, ppl just have enough and go to shelter, sit in the airconditioned car or whatever. Most ppl are not Clint Eastwood enough to shoot in rain, cold wind, etc. They give up way sooner than their camera.

As for Nikon or any brand being less reliable, I don't know. I have a friend who live of photography and shoots Nikon every day, never complained. I know a nature photographer, who shoots in jungle and desert and whatever all year long, he used to use Nikon, now uses Sony.

 

[EricN]

As for Nikon or any brand being more unreliable, I don't know. I have a friend who live of photography and shoots Nikon every day, never complained. I know a nature photographer, who shoots in jungle and desert and whatever all year long, he used to use Nikon, now uses Sony.

STAY AWAY FROM THOSE HERETICS!!!

 

[Aldherrian]

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.

Efficient and practical indeed !
Thanks for the idea

 

[justaCanonuser]

Well...no arguing just sharing my experinece.
I've always been using Canon. Since 2000, before that, my father's AE-1. 30V-D60-10D-20D-30D-40D-5D2-5D3-5D4-R7-R52. The only issue I had was with exposure button of....I don't remember, maybe 40D. I do remember it was a typical issue, others had it too. Does it mean Canon being very reliable? Maybe.

No arguing, I am with you. Depends on how much you caress your gear, but sounds really good. I wouldn't complain.

As for Nikon or any brand being more unreliable, I don't know. I have a friend who live of photography and shoots Nikon every day, never complained. I know a nature photographer, who shoots in jungle and desert and whatever all year long, he used to use Nikon, now uses Sony.

Well, I just wrapped up our catastrophic experience with Nikon gear in my earlier post, but of course it depends on what you do with it. We shoot wildlife, and that's definitely sometimes harder for the gear than even most open air sports photography events (except shooting extremes such as the Paris-Dakar rally in the Sahara). We are no Eastwoods, we simply do what birders do, if they are a bit serious. But the number of failures we experienced with Nikon over two decades of digital photography can't be just bad luck, in particular because my wife is much more cautious with her gear than me.

Here's the lens I used most frequently in the past 15 years, an EF 500mm f/4.5 L USM made in 1995 (bought it used in 2011 for a good price). It crashed several times on the ground, against rocks, survived sand & salt water storms on shores (shooting seabirds), and it still works, more than 30 years old now (btw it performs quite well on e.g. my R7, even with a 2x TC III on it focuses surprisingly reliable and not too slowly). Only its mount is now so worn off that it has too much play, so I upgraded to an EF 600mm f/4.0 III past year. This I call quality

 

[justaCanonuser]

If they are new lenses, they have never been seen before. Just saying.

As long as they aren't never-see-anything-through lenses, I won't complain.

 

[justaCanonuser]

I agree, or even 150-600 f4.5-8 if the weight would be the same.

Did you notice that you are slowly approaching the specs of the RF 200-800mm f/6.3-9.0? Just add a little bit of focal length and accept a bit of slowness, and there you are

 

[john1970]

Did you notice that you are slowly approaching the specs of the RF 200-800mm f/6.3-9.0? Just add a little bit of focal length and accept a bit of slowness, and there you are

A lens that would be a bit more differentiated could be a 150-600 mm f4.5 to f6.3. Could take a 95 mm filter on the front and be internal zoom with L grade quality.

 

[riker]

Well, I just wrapped up our catastrophic experience with Nikon gear in my earlier post, but of course it depends on what you do with it. We shoot wildlife, and that's definitely sometimes harder for the gear than even most open air sports photography events (except shooting extremes such as the Paris-Dakar rally in the Sahara). We are no Eastwoods, we simply do what birders do, if they are a bit serious. But the number of failures we experienced with Nikon over two decades of digital photography can't be just bad luck, in particular because my wife is much more cautious with her gear than me.

Here's the lens I used most frequently in the past 15 years, an EF 500mm f/4.5 L USM made in 1995 (bought it used in 2011 for a good price). It crashed several times on the ground, against rocks, survived sand & salt water storms on shores (shooting seabirds), and it still works, more than 30 years old now (btw it performs quite well on e.g. my R7, even with a 2x TC III on it focuses surprisingly reliable and not too slowly). Only its mount is now so worn off that it has too much play, so I upgraded to an EF 600mm f/4.0 III past year. This I call quality

Yep, sounds valid.

Looking at this lens, I'm definitely not lending you gear!

I've been eyeing with the 600/4 III for some time, but now I'm just waiting for the rumored 300-600/5.6.

 

[roby17269]

For me, one of the biggest advantages of the 100-500, apart from quality, weight and AF speed, is the 100mm wide end. That makes it a very versatile lens.
I would love for it to reach 600mm and to take extenders without the 300mm limitation, but not if that means losing the 100mm wide end and / or a significant weight increase