Maybe even more intriguing
Could Canon maybe reuse the lens housing of the 15-30mm F4.5-6.3 or something similar? Or won't that work because of the constant aperture?
Upvote
0
What We Expect Canon to Announce in the Coming Months
- Thread starter Canon Rumors
- Start date
Could Canon maybe reuse the lens housing of the 15-30mm F4.5-6.3 or something similar? Or won't that work because of the constant aperture?
I am desperately waiting for a new macro lens, something to replace the beloved MPE-65 or at least a longer (200mm ?) macro lens... It seems that macro people have been forgotten in Canon strategy...
Upvote
0
Yes, that's crazy, just like Canon pricing in UK in general. For example the Nikon 24-120 F4 is £1049 vs £1389 for the Canon 24-105 F4.
Upvote
0
That the problem if you look overall Numbers. If you look deeper:
2025 Mirrorless Camera Shares: Sony still Nr. 1 with around 30%, Canon catch up mode 27,5% followed by Nikon 15%. Compared to 2024 Sony continue to loose market share and both Canon and Nikon are catching up. But here as well, It would be great to have an even more detailed view on high end models - Alpha1 vs R5II/R1 vs Z9/Z8. From my point of view Canon is currently leading here but 2026 will bring updates from Nikon and Sony, I fear not so much from Canon. As I said, I really love to see this competition which benefits us consumers. More options, better technology to a still OK price
.
Upvote
0
From the recent rf14 and rf7-15, they hit 2 niches pretty squarely at one time. Lower volume sellers especially after the initial orders.
Long macro and ts-r are still missing but also low volume so maybe the next niche to release. As the OP writes, gen 2 of the more popular rf lenses are more likely though
Upvote
0
I want those too, but we should remember that besides the excellent 100mm, they also the three (24, 35 and 85) stm lenses. So, don't think they forgot macros in their strategy, the order the lenses are developed and put on market hasn't come again yet. Some people have already offered their firstborn in exchange for a 35mm f1.2...
Upvote
0
Still (bitterly missing!) 28mm f/1,4, 35mm f/1,2, TS-E 14mm, 180mm macro, 24-70 L II , 50mm macro.
This is my personal "wanted toys" list!
Slowly but surely, Canon are completing their lens range. It would be silly to expect everything at once...
This is my personal "wanted toys" list!
Slowly but surely, Canon are completing their lens range. It would be silly to expect everything at once...
Upvote
0
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, otherwise I'll just stick with the EF 24-70 f/2.8L II when the situation doesn't call for the 28-70....
Get the weight down, and I might be tempted.
The 28-70 f/2L is what I see a lot of serious shooters using, and my three complaints with that lens are weight (c'mon, Sony are crushing it with their 28-70 GM weight which is around 500g lighter than the Canon), flare/glare when shot at wider apertures, and that 28mm just isn't wide enough. Knowing Canon, if they cheat and use digital correction, then I'm out, though.
I love the VCM primes, if not for the optical correction required in post, which messes with high ISO shots and noise profiles (and LR's profiles for the 35 VCM are still giving me more barrel distortion than the 35L II lens without any correction at all). I don't have any issues with VCM motors. My AF hit rate on the 35 VCM has been as high as I'd expect it to be, and the issues I've had with serviced USM motors being noisy would hopefully largely be moot with the VCM stuff moving forward.
Is anyone finding the AF on the RF 400 2.8L IS a problem? I spent a solid week with one and it was from another world compared to my older EF IS mark 1 version and had no complaints, although I'll take any improvement to weight saving if it's there. The most exciting thing for me, for a revised 400, would be the cheaper deals I could get on the mark 1 RF (or the EF III). I'd be keen on a lighter 300 2.8, but given the choice, I'd probably spring for the 120-300 2.8 and cop the weight penalty for a far more useful lens. Canon know what they are doing here.
Get the weight down, and I might be tempted.
The 28-70 f/2L is what I see a lot of serious shooters using, and my three complaints with that lens are weight (c'mon, Sony are crushing it with their 28-70 GM weight which is around 500g lighter than the Canon), flare/glare when shot at wider apertures, and that 28mm just isn't wide enough. Knowing Canon, if they cheat and use digital correction, then I'm out, though.
I love the VCM primes, if not for the optical correction required in post, which messes with high ISO shots and noise profiles (and LR's profiles for the 35 VCM are still giving me more barrel distortion than the 35L II lens without any correction at all). I don't have any issues with VCM motors. My AF hit rate on the 35 VCM has been as high as I'd expect it to be, and the issues I've had with serviced USM motors being noisy would hopefully largely be moot with the VCM stuff moving forward.
Is anyone finding the AF on the RF 400 2.8L IS a problem? I spent a solid week with one and it was from another world compared to my older EF IS mark 1 version and had no complaints, although I'll take any improvement to weight saving if it's there. The most exciting thing for me, for a revised 400, would be the cheaper deals I could get on the mark 1 RF (or the EF III). I'd be keen on a lighter 300 2.8, but given the choice, I'd probably spring for the 120-300 2.8 and cop the weight penalty for a far more useful lens. Canon know what they are doing here.
Upvote
0
Yes, here are the data. I’ve even drawn some conclusions from them!
- I only care about wildlife photography
- I don’t like Canon’s lens offerings for that use case
- I like Nikon’s lens offerings for that use case
- I’m smart and I agree with myself, so everyone out there agrees with me
- I’m thinking of switching to Nikon so everyone else is, too
- Oh boy, Canon is in trouble now
- If you don’t believe me, remember Kodak
Upvote
0
Please stop. You’re embarrassing yourself. The problem is you made asinine claims, then tried backpedaling on them saying you meant just a niche of the market, then when asked for data you went back to the broader market and proved you don’t understand what you read. I have an adage based on an older one: You can lead a person to data, but you can’t make him think.
Go back to your source for those numbers, read it again. Carefully. You’ll find that those numbers are for Japan. Only Japan. About 7% of the MILC market, and one that’s not very representative of the global market.
Case in point, Canon took the lead of the global mirrorless market away from Sony in 2022, and as of 2024 maintains a solid lead (37.5% to 30%, with Nikon well behind at 14%). Global numbers come out around November, so we’ll see what 2025 looked like at that point.
Upvote
0
So it’s your opinion that Canon’s bread-and-butter customers are APS-C users who want longer, fast-aperture lenses? Your implication here is that you understand the camera market better than the company that has led that market for over two decades and continues to dominate it today.
Canon is not interested in meeting your personal wants. At all.
Upvote
0
I'm curious which bread-and-butter customers were using APS-C/EF-S bodies. The industry has moved on, with low cost full frame, enabling much better low light capabilities - and we've had some good options from Canon for these full frame systems, eg, the 28-70 2.8 which will run you at approx the same as a Sony 16-55 2.8 G APS-C lens would cost you. Canon has been serious about getting full frame out there since day one, at every market tier where possible. Granted, Sony seem to be kicking ass with lighter versions of the same full-frame lenses eg 24-70 GM II, 28-70, 16-35 GM II so I think that's going to be where Canon will focus their R&D - at least I hope, if they can do so without impacting the serviceability.
Most of the serious shooters I know out there on Sony are using the A7 series; I RARELY see the A6xxx series out there outside of vlogging use. I can't remember the last time I saw a Nikon Z DX body out there.
If you want super light, OM SYSTEM has some honestly pretty good options. It's not my cup of tea, but what I can achieve with the reduction of size/weight/heft etc is worth a look-in if you want some premium small sensor stuff.
That said, we haven't seen the R7 II yet, and we don't know if we'll get any interesting options there; hopefully we see some Sigma options (the 18-35 Sigma EF is practically mated to my Super35-equipped C200). Whilst there is an incredible library of third party fast lenses for APS-C/Super35 like some of the cine primes (which are typically MF so getting RF manual versions aren't a big problem), what options do you have for fast APS-C glass from first party manufacturers for their mirrorless mounts?
There is one hole - standard zooms, such as Nikon's 16-50 Z 2.8 DX VR and Sony's 16-55 2.8 G; Canon had the EF 17-55 2.8 IS (and Nikon had similar for their DX crop) so I would hope that Canon consider the same for their R7 II when it ships. An RF-S 17-55 or 16-55 would go down a treat I'm sure, but I wouldn't expect to see anything else like that from Canon.
Upvote
0
The data show that ~63% of ILCs shipped last year were APS-C or m4/3. FF continues to increase, but it’s premature to say ‘the industry has moved on’ when the majority of cameras sold have crop sensors.
Upvote
0
I think the macro strategy across the three major brands is to ship a 100mm and call it a day. I suspect Canon's weird-and-wonderful lens category will be tilt-shift innovations, for the real-estate photography market.
I am genuinely wondering how your MP-E 65 works at the higher 4-5x magnification range; I have struggled to get sharp results that aren't loaded with CA and softness at these focal lengths, when tripodded, using lights and high shutter speeds. I even had Canon check it and they said everything was optically fine. It was a cool party trick some 15+ years ago on the 40D, though, and has become useful for scientific/technical reasons, eg, inspecting vinyl record cartridge stylus tips.
I get great results out of the 180 3.5 still, in fact so much so that I had to send my EF 100L macro in to CPS for the second time (since the AF motor failed and was replaced, things have never been quite the same). The IBIS combined with the 180 3.5 even on my R5 works better than some EF optical IS lenses when I did some side by side comparisons - it's a very underrated piece of glass!
The 100 2.8 RF will do 1.4x which is a handy compromise (I don't yet have one though) but honestly my biggest disappointment was that Canon didn't build compatibility with their RF extenders unlike the leading competitor's option where you can slap on a 2x extender for a cool 2.8x magnification, albeit at 200mm.
If you want to see real macro innovation, check out the Laowa probe lenses. A wide angle FOV for 1:1 macro work is a super cool perspective.
Upvote
0
Apologies if I've missed the data source in the thread somewhere - I've had a look at the CIPA figures which indeed confirms this - thanks for the correction.
It could be regional - and it could be that I tend to pay attention to photographers in more professional settings. For video and creators, I'm still seeing a decent amount of APS-C Sony on their vlogging rigs at events, and the occasional R10, and that's probably where some of those numbers are coming from.
It would make sense from Canon's perspective, however, to invest in FF lenses if FF is growing, and if APS-C sensor users are more likely to stick to their supplied kit lenses.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
