What’s next from Canon?

[EricN]

I got the R8 as it is the lightest full-frame camera. Not because of the price.

How does the R8 compareto other cameras you've used?

 

[EricN]

I'm hoping for a light weight RF 70-300 mm. More or less like the EF version. Any others hoping for somthing like this?

Honestly, the 100-400mm is quite good even on a cloudy morning. Even if they could make it a constant f/4 with a lower weight, I don't think losing the 300 to 400mm range would be worth it for me.

 

[EricN]

I’m with you, my wish list:

• Same (or better) optical quality as the EF 180 mm
• 1:1 magnification
• Fast AF
• Compatible with RF extenders (for increased working distance with dragonflies, butterflies and other insects)
• Sufficient number of aperture blades for good bokeh
• Image stabilization
• Internal focusing (like the EF 180mm)
• Focus limiter (from closest focus to +/- 1 meter)
• Removable tripod collar
• Weight: equivalent to, or lighter than, the EF 180mm

Not on my wish list:

• Spherical Aberration Control
• Focus shift

What do you think if it could be one of the rumored autofocus tilt shift lenses? Would the additional cost in size, weight and money keep you from buying it?

Edit: I made an unfortunate typo omitting the "f" in "shift"

 

[Del Paso]

I'd prefer a bit more reach, even knowing there will be a weight/size increase. 70-200/2 would be ideal, 70-150 at a minimum (either could start at 80mm). Personally, I would not switch but rather bring the 28-70/2 and the longer f/2 zoom for low-light events, and the 24-105/2.8 and 100-300/2.8 (or 70-200/2.8) for better lit or outdoor events.


You can't really say the mount is closed anymore, since Sigma has announced 6 RF mount lenses. But we don't know when/if Canon will allow FF 3rd party lenses. Still, personally I'd take the 28-70/2 over the 28-45/1.8. The much broader focal range makes it far more useful than 1/3-stop of aperture, for me. The limited range of 28-45mm is functionally a prime lens, so if I needed that I'd just buy the 35/1.4 and take one step back or forward as needed.

"I'd just buy the 35/1.4 and take one step back or forward as needed"
It could work in some situations, but certainly not in the mountains. That is where I too would far prefer a 28-50mm zoom.

 

[Chig]

Any reason why the R6ii wouldn't appeal to sports / action/ birds?
I get that the R7 has greater pixel density, the R5 has more pixels for cropping and the R3 for ergonomics but I believe that the R6ii would definitely appeal to those use cases at that price level especially with its 40fps mode.

I love my R6ii especially the AF eye tracking and exceptional low light/high ISO performance and paired up with my RF200-800 it's a near perfect combo' for bird photography. My friend has a Sony A1 and the excellent Sony 200-600 but he's a bit jealous of my results.
I'm not interested in high MP sensors and if I had unlimited funds I'd buy an R1 and be perfectly content with it's 24MP.
I would like it if Canon chose to make an R6iii with a stacked sensor and I'd buy one for sure.

 

[P-visie]

What do you think if it could be one of the rumored autofocus tilt shit lenses? Would the additional cost in size, weight and money keep you from buying it?

Probably yes, the EF tilt shift lenses retailprices are between 2200 and 2600 € (incl. VAT). The magnification of the TS ”macrolenses” is only 0.5. My experiences with the (old) EF 90 mm TS lens are that the impact of tilting on depth of field when close to the subject is minimal.

A 200mm TS macrolens with 1:1 magnification, AF and f4 will probably be big, heavy (the EF 135mm f4 TS is the same weight as the EF 180mm macro) and very expensive. Adding IS and f2.8 would make that even more so.

 

[justaCanonuser]

As for Sigma...meh. It's somewhat a good news but I'm sure Canon is demanding a license fee so lenses will be more expensive. In the meantime, I only care about FF Art lenses from Sigma and the fact that all recent pretty great and serious lenses lack the RF edition and there's no sign of such additions in the foreseeable future is very worrisome.

I guess Sigma, Tamron and other 3rd party lens makers do not pay much licence for using Canon's lens mounts, otherwise they could not compete with substantially lower prices at least with most lenses they offer. They definitely avoid paying Canon for the use of the full AF system algorithms (if Canon would open up their system anyway, not sure). That's why they have to re-engineer the behavior of Canon's AF system with the drawback that the AF performance of their lenses fails to meet the reliabilty of Canon lenses (same with Nikon). So, if you do not need to shoot action, those 3rd party lenses are often a great alternative, but for action you will always have trouble. That's my own experience with Tamron tele + standard zooms, and from talks with other birders same e.g. with Sigma tele zooms.

So the need for good AF performance is the main criterium one should have in mind when deciding between purchasing a Canon lens or a 3rd party lens. That's why I recently traded in my Tamron 150-600mm G2, overall a really nice lens, for an RF 200-800mm for birding (as a 2nd lens besides a big white).

 

[koenkooi]

Probably yes, the EF tilt shift lenses retailprices are between 2200 and 2600 € (incl. VAT). The magnification of the TS ”macrolenses” is only 0.5. My experiences with the (old) EF 90 mm TS lens are that the impact of tilting on depth of field when close to the subject is minimal.

That mirrors my experience with it, I ended up selling it and getting a Sigma 150mm macro.

A 200mm TS macrolens with 1:1 magnification, AF and f4 will probably be big, heavy (the EF 135mm f4 TS is the same weight as the EF 180mm macro) and very expensive. Adding IS and f2.8 would make that even more so.

It would be an 'interesting' lens, that I'll probably admire digitally and maybe rent for a week.

 

[justaCanonuser]

I love my R6ii especially the AF eye tracking and paired up with my RF200-800 it's a near perfect combo' for bird photography. My friend has a Sony A1 and the excellent Sony 200-600 but he's a bit jealous of my results.
I'm not interested in high MP sensors and if I had unlimited funds I'd buy an R1 and be perfectly content with it's 24MP.
I would like it if Canon chose to make an R6iii with a stacked sensor and I'd buy one for sure.

Interesting to read, thx Chig. I bought recently an RF 200-800 for my R7, and overall I like that combo, but the R7 sometimes struggles to focus precisely on the eye of a bird. It really looks like it is a problem when there isn't much light available, because with my fast 500mm prime the R7 struggles less. That said, it is not real issue, because with 15 fps (mechanical 2nd curtain) or 30 fps (okay for big birds), I nearly always get a keeper.

But I am making my mind up that I may add an R6II to my cameras, maybe by trading in my 5D Mk IV. I always liked about my old 5D Mk III that it had 22 MP, about 24 MP is really a sweet spot for FF IMO, too. This resolution is sufficient for even bigger prints with fine detail rendering (my wife made great A3 prints with files from her 12 MP Nikon D700 and D300S), bigger pixels allow for higher DR and lower noise levels, stopping down to high f-stop numbers does not degrade out of the camera image quality by diffraction blur, and you don't have micro-movement sharpness losses on the pixel level with medium shutter speeds.

 

[koenkooi]

Interesting to read, thx Chig. I bought recently an RF 200-800 for my R7, and overall I like that combo, but the R7 sometimes struggles to focus precisely on the eye of a bird. It really looks like it is a problem when there isn't much light available, because with my fast 500mm prime the R7 struggles less. That said, it is not real issue, because with 15 fps (mechanical 2nd curtain) or 30 fps (okay for big birds), I nearly always get a keeper.

But I am making my mind up that I may add an R6II to my cameras, maybe by trading in my 5D Mk IV. I always liked about my old 5D Mk III that it had 22 MP, about 24 MP is really a sweet spot for FF IMO, too. This resolution is sufficient for even bigger prints with fine detail rendering (my wife made great A3 prints with files from her 12 MP Nikon D700 and D300S), bigger pixels allow for higher DR and lower noise levels, stopping down to high f-stop numbers does not degrade out of the camera image quality by diffraction blur, and you don't have micro-movement sharpness losses on the pixel level with medium shutter speeds.

When comparing the R7 and R8 side by side, swapping the 100-500L to focus on the same bird, the R8 will find the eye faster and keep a better lock on it than the R7. And the R7 will have said eye much more 'enlarged' on the sensor due to the crop factor and higher pixel density. So an R6II will very likely get you more keepers, but it has only a quarter of the resolution (82MP FF equiv vs 24MP).

Both camera struggle when the bird is close by, sparrows at 2 meters away are nearly impossible for the R7 and hard for the R8. Having the manual focus override available on the 100-500L is a big help, I wish the 100L allowed the same.

And as people have said here before, the pixels in the R6II are much better than the ones in the 5D4, you'll get much more detail out of it. Canon themselves have said that the R6II beats the 5D4 in practical resolution. That's marketing talk, so do your own tests

 

[EOS 4 Life]

Any reason why the R6ii wouldn't appeal to sports / action/ birds?
I get that the R7 has greater pixel density, the R5 has more pixels for cropping and the R3 for ergonomics but I believe that the R6ii would definitely appeal to those use cases at that price level especially with its 40fps mode.

Easy answer.
All the cameras that you mentioned appeal to those segments and all are used.

 

[EricN]

"I'd just buy the 35/1.4 and take one step back or forward as needed"
It could work in some situations, but certainly not in the mountains. That is where I too would far prefer a 28-50mm zoom.

We're really lucky to have so many choices because there are so many variables depending on what, when and how we want to shoot. Two people could be equally happy with a 35 f/1.4 or 28-50, but nether could touch the happiness Roby could have with a nonexistent RF 35mm f/1.2 L

 

[justaCanonuser]

When comparing the R7 and R8 side by side, swapping the 100-500L to focus on the same bird, the R8 will find the eye faster and keep a better lock on it than the R7. And the R7 will have said eye much more 'enlarged' on the sensor due to the crop factor and higher pixel density. So an R6II will very likely get you more keepers, but it has only a quarter of the resolution (82MP FF equiv vs 24MP).

Both camera struggle when the bird is close by, sparrows at 2 meters away are nearly impossible for the R7 and hard for the R8. Having the manual focus override available on the 100-500L is a big help, I wish the 100L allowed the same.

And as people have said here before, the pixels in the R6II are much better than the ones in the 5D4, you'll get much more detail out of it. Canon themselves have said that the R6II beats the 5D4 in practical resolution. That's marketing talk, so do your own tests

I can imagine. Even the old 5D3 was extremely sharp down to the pixel level, DxO had to admit that if I remember correctly.

It is really strange with the R7. Sometimes it struggles and I wonder why, and then suddenly it focuses surprisingly well in settings when I surely would have missed the shot with any of my older DSLRs (maybe with the very good 5D3 I had). Here is one example taken with my EF 500mm. This close-up of a red kite happened in sort of a split second:

 

[Chig]

Interesting to read, thx Chig. I bought recently an RF 200-800 for my R7, and overall I like that combo, but the R7 sometimes struggles to focus precisely on the eye of a bird. It really looks like it is a problem when there isn't much light available, because with my fast 500mm prime the R7 struggles less. That said, it is not real issue, because with 15 fps (mechanical 2nd curtain) or 30 fps (okay for big birds), I nearly always get a keeper.

But I am making my mind up that I may add an R6II to my cameras, maybe by trading in my 5D Mk IV. I always liked about my old 5D Mk III that it had 22 MP, about 24 MP is really a sweet spot for FF IMO, too. This resolution is sufficient for even bigger prints with fine detail rendering (my wife made great A3 prints with files from her 12 MP Nikon D700 and D300S), bigger pixels allow for higher DR and lower noise levels, stopping down to high f-stop numbers does not degrade out of the camera image quality by diffraction blur, and you don't have micro-movement sharpness losses on the pixel level with medium shutter speeds.

You won't be disappointed if you buy an R6ii, low light performance is much better than an R7 and with 800mm on full frame you should have plenty of magnification and if the bird's too small with this combo' you're too far away and the image quality will be disappointing
The R6ii is vastly superior to my 1DXii so should be be similar improvement over your 5D iv

 

[Loswr]

And wait . . . aren't you Mr. Nobody-needs-more-than-24MP? How do you know? Everything resolves great on 24MP!

I say...over and over...that no one here can speak for everyone (or even anyone) else. Yet here you go, accusing me of doing exactly that. So if you can't link to a post where I stated that no one needs more than 24 MP, have the decency to apologize for your false accusation. I won't hold my breath, experience suggests that few people are able to admit when they're wrong.

As expected, no response.

 

[riker]

Have you considered the RF 100-400? It gets panned because of the slow aperture, but really it's only 1/3-2/3 stop slower than the 100-500L through the overlapping range. If you need weather sealing, it's a non-starter but from an IQ standpoint the RF 100-400 punches well above its weight (helps that the price drops to $500 periodically). I was glad I had a lens longer than my 24-105/4 when hiking up Mt. Etna in Sicily, but also glad that I wasn't carrying my 100-500L. This was taken from near the summit of Mt. Etna, the island of Salina is ~90 km away as the crow flies.

Thanks for the idea but I'm afraid it's not for me. We could talk stops, it's hard to be satisfied and the thing is, it is 2/3 stops slower than something that is already 1/3-2/3 stops slower than you would wish. But more importantly it's the resolution/sharpness of the lens.

Canon RF 100-500mm F4.5-7.1 L IS USM Lens Image Quality

View the image quality delivered by the Canon RF 100-500mm F4.5-7.1 L IS USM Lens using ISO 12233 Resolution Chart lab test results. Compare the image quality of this lens with other lenses.

www.the-digital-picture.com

For me, my travel photos are the most important and I find it a waste of everything to bring high resolution camera but then attaching a low resolution lens. So at the end of the day I usually choose sweating. I really appreciate the 100-500 being better and lighter than the EF 100-400, for me it was the most important upgrade in the past 10y. I just hope something like that comes along again while I'm still active.

Sidenote, a 70-200/2.8 with 1.4X would make a 100-280/4. So I would guess it is potentially possible to make a 100-300/4 (or something close to it) at around 1000g.
Sidenote2, I was happy to see the new 200-800 from an innovation point of view, but at the same time I'm pretty disappointed as well. Somebody who is buying such an expensive super telephoto lens capable of 800mm is most probably going to be a wildlife photographer/birder and you can be sure the lens will mostly be used on the long end. It's absolutely unnecessary to sacrifice IQ (or anything) in order to produce such wide zoom range. A 400-800/8 would have been an instant buy even despite having the 100-500. Now couldn't care less.

 

[riker]

I guess Sigma, Tamron and other 3rd party lens makers do not pay much licence for using Canon's lens mounts, otherwise they could not compete with substantially lower prices at least with most lenses they offer. They definitely avoid paying Canon for the use of the full AF system algorithms (if Canon would open up their system anyway, not sure). That's why they have to re-engineer the behavior of Canon's AF system with the drawback that the AF performance of their lenses fails to meet the reliabilty of Canon lenses (same with Nikon). So, if you do not need to shoot action, those 3rd party lenses are often a great alternative, but for action you will always have trouble. That's my own experience with Tamron tele + standard zooms, and from talks with other birders same e.g. with Sigma tele zooms.

So the need for good AF performance is the main criterium one should have in mind when deciding between purchasing a Canon lens or a 3rd party lens. That's why I recently traded in my Tamron 150-600mm G2, overall a really nice lens, for an RF 200-800mm for birding (as a 2nd lens besides a big white).

Let's say a Canon lens costs 2.5k and the Sigma equivalent costs 1.5k. This doesn't mean anything. You will never know if it could have been 1.4k wo the license fee. But still, this is the smaller problem. Bigger problem is, all we got is Sigma announcement of RF option of older APS-C lenses. So it's still unclear what deal Sigma and Canon eventually made but the obvious inactivity on Sigma's part is anything but not good news for us.

Regarding the AF...well...yes...kinda....not sure. What you are saying reminds me of the early 2000s. Now practically Sigma is the only 3rd party lens maker I can take seriously and their lenses do great not just IQ wise but also AF. I'd like to avoid unreal statements, I don't have all the super-expensive latest and greatest canon fast lenses...but my experience with comparing RF 35/1.8, 50/1.8, 85/1.8 with ART 14/1.8 and 135/1.8 (with EF converter!) is that the Sigmas are absolutely superior, IQ and AF likewise. So I'm actually now considering buying the Sigma 24/1.4 instead of the RF 24/1.8 even though it would mean needing the EF converter which I'm not a fan of. Of course it'd be interesting to make a more scientific comparison between say RF 24-70/2.8 and Sigma 24-70/2.8 II (which is not available with RF mount )

Speaking of great Canon AF, I'd also like to note, I'm pretty disappointed by R7 AF performance. I switched from 5D4. There are scenarios where the R7 is better and there are scenarios when it's worse. Low-light perf is not good at all and fail count where _nothing_ is sharp despite releasing the shutter is surprisingly high. My friend having an R5 (also switching from 5D4) is also complaining. We both ended up not trusting our camera and always shooting several shots of the same subject, always refocusing just to make sure we end up having a sharp shot. This is actually very bad.

 

[Chig]

Thanks for the idea but I'm afraid it's not for me. We could talk stops, it's hard to be satisfied and the thing is, it is 2/3 stops slower than something that is already 1/3-2/3 stops slower than you would wish. But more importantly it's the resolution/sharpness of the lens.

Canon RF 100-500mm F4.5-7.1 L IS USM Lens Image Quality

View the image quality delivered by the Canon RF 100-500mm F4.5-7.1 L IS USM Lens using ISO 12233 Resolution Chart lab test results. Compare the image quality of this lens with other lenses.

www.the-digital-picture.com

For me, my travel photos are the most important and I find it a waste of everything to bring high resolution camera but then attaching a low resolution lens. So at the end of the day I usually choose sweating. I really appreciate the 100-500 being better and lighter than the EF 100-400, for me it was the most important upgrade in the past 10y. I just hope something like that comes along again while I'm still active.

Sidenote, a 70-200/2.8 with 1.4X would make a 100-280/4. So I would guess it is potentially possible to make a 100-300/4 (or something close to it) at around 1000g.
Sidenote2, I was happy to see the new 200-800 from an innovation point of view, but at the same time I'm pretty disappointed as well. Somebody who is buying such an expensive super telephoto lens capable of 800mm is most probably going to be a wildlife photographer/birder and you can be sure the lens will mostly be used on the long end. It's absolutely unnecessary to sacrifice IQ (or anything) in order to produce such wide zoom range. A 400-800/8 would have been an instant buy even despite having the 100-500. Now couldn't care less.

You should try the 200-800 the image quality is excellent and paired with my R6ii and it's amazing low light/high iso performance it's a great choice for bird photography
Also the ability to zoom out to 200mm and the minimum focal distance of 80cm (at 200mm) is very handy

 

[amorse]

Thanks for the idea but I'm afraid it's not for me. We could talk stops, it's hard to be satisfied and the thing is, it is 2/3 stops slower than something that is already 1/3-2/3 stops slower than you would wish. But more importantly it's the resolution/sharpness of the lens.

Canon RF 100-500mm F4.5-7.1 L IS USM Lens Image Quality

View the image quality delivered by the Canon RF 100-500mm F4.5-7.1 L IS USM Lens using ISO 12233 Resolution Chart lab test results. Compare the image quality of this lens with other lenses.

www.the-digital-picture.com

For me, my travel photos are the most important and I find it a waste of everything to bring high resolution camera but then attaching a low resolution lens. So at the end of the day I usually choose sweating. I really appreciate the 100-500 being better and lighter than the EF 100-400, for me it was the most important upgrade in the past 10y. I just hope something like that comes along again while I'm still active.

Sidenote, a 70-200/2.8 with 1.4X would make a 100-280/4. So I would guess it is potentially possible to make a 100-300/4 (or something close to it) at around 1000g.
Sidenote2, I was happy to see the new 200-800 from an innovation point of view, but at the same time I'm pretty disappointed as well. Somebody who is buying such an expensive super telephoto lens capable of 800mm is most probably going to be a wildlife photographer/birder and you can be sure the lens will mostly be used on the long end. It's absolutely unnecessary to sacrifice IQ (or anything) in order to produce such wide zoom range. A 400-800/8 would have been an instant buy even despite having the 100-500. Now couldn't care less.

I'm assuming you've got the tripod collar off on the 100-500 for hiking? I had to do some searching for a reasonable option as well, and I ended up landing on the EF Sigma 100-400. About 200g lighter than the 100-500 without the tripod collar on either lens, but somewhat sharper and faster than the RF 100-400 (and a touch heavier to be fair). You'd obviously lose some more weight savings from the EF-RF converter as well. Wasn't a huge deal for me since I was using an EF body anyway, but it might be a reasonable middle ground, and it's pretty cheap all things considered - much less painful to lose than lens than a 100-500. I'd planned on picking up a 100-500 when I move to RF, and the Sigma was a nice stopgap at a reasonable price.

 

[justaCanonuser]

Regarding the AF...well...yes...kinda....not sure. What you are saying reminds me of the early 2000s. Now practically Sigma is the only 3rd party lens maker I can take seriously and their lenses do great not just IQ wise but also AF. I'd like to avoid unreal statements, I don't have all the super-expensive latest and greatest canon fast lenses...but my experience with comparing RF 35/1.8, 50/1.8, 85/1.8 with ART 14/1.8 and 135/1.8 (with EF converter!) is that the Sigmas are absolutely superior, IQ and AF likewise. So I'm actually now considering buying the Sigma 24/1.4 instead of the RF 24/1.8 even though it would mean needing the EF converter which I'm not a fan of. Of course it'd be interesting to make a more scientific comparison between say RF 24-70/2.8 and Sigma 24-70/2.8 II (which is not available with RF mount )

I am mostly referring to the supertele side of life, with very high demands on AF performance (e.g. birds in flight). There I can wrap up the following experiences:
- SIGMA 500mm F4,5 EX DG / HSM for Nikon F mount: we have one, optically and mechanically a very good lens, but AF performance on all Nikon DSLR's from 2010-16 not very reliable compared with my Canon gear with an original Canon EF 500mm lens;
- Tamron SP 150-600mm f5-6.3 Di VC USD G2 for Canon EF: mechanically very good and optically nice lens, beats Sigma's comparable lenses by providing f=5.6 up to 400mm, AF performance not reliable;
- Sigma's 150-600mm zooms both for Canon and Nikon mounts: had a lot of conversations with users of those lenses when waiting for birds - all experienced the same AF troubles when it gets to action that I had with my Tammy;

Standard zooms:
- Tamron SP 24-70mm F/2.8 Di VC USD for EF mount: I have one, nice optics, good IS, quite cheap mechanical quality compared with Canon's comparable lens, AF not reliable with all my older and newer Canon DLSRs, also with my R7.

Speaking of great Canon AF, I'd also like to note, I'm pretty disappointed by R7 AF performance. I switched from 5D4. There are scenarios where the R7 is better and there are scenarios when it's worse. Low-light perf is not good at all and fail count where _nothing_ is sharp despite releasing the shutter is surprisingly high. My friend having an R5 (also switching from 5D4) is also complaining. We both ended up not trusting our camera and always shooting several shots of the same subject, always refocusing just to make sure we end up having a sharp shot. This is actually very bad.

I have both the 5D4 and the R7, and I share your experience, in particular the R7 struggles often when I try to shoot a flying bird against overcast skies. That said, compared to the old 7D and 7D2, the R7 performs much better AF wise - it also depends on settings, the R7's AF is much more complex. For e.g. birds in flight I learned to better switch off eye detection, because otherwise the R7 tends to pump. I do not agree with your critics on image quality. We have to be fair and stay in the APS-C "world": compared to the 7D2, the R7 provides a very visible leap in IQ, even in high ISO noise, despite its much smaller pixels. Canon did a great job with its conventional sensor and electronics.

Those small pixels also may cause some sharpness "issues" for pixel peepers: amended to FF an R7 sensor would make a whopping 80 MP camera! Accordingly, it requires much higher shutter speeds to really freeze a moving object on the pixel level. I remember when Nikon came out with the original D800, with amazing 36 MP back then, many Nikon photographers coming from the Nikon's 12 MP cameras were complaining about sharpness issues in the beginning. They just were using their old shutter speed settings and where surprised that the new camera lacked sharpness on the pixel level - they didn't have in mind that they now had to choose a 3x faster shutter speed to get the best results a D800 was capable of.