There will be lens announcements in November

#101
David - Sydney said:
Still a reasonable list I'm afraid....
RF50/1.4
3rd party FF lenses
Wide/fast primes and fisheye zoom
Good quality RF-S wide prime/zoom options
TS-R replacements including 14mm
Long macro
2+x macro
R7ii (high pixel density with grip)
R6iii
R100ii (touchscreen, no EVF)
RPii (sub-USD1k)?
R1C
R5Cii
R5s (or R1s)
I'm sure that I have missed a few :)
Click to expand...
AF POINT-LINKED SPOT METERING (yes, I'm shouting on purpose). What do we need to do, Canon...just stick with 1-series DSLRs and buy used EF lenses? ;)
 
  • Haha
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0
#103
David - Sydney said:
Seems like a simple ask but somehow we have managed to get some great shots without it in the past.
Click to expand...
Sure, but we (some of us, at any rate) also managed to get great shots without AF and with frame rates dependent on thumb speed. And we managed to cross oceans on sailing ships, and read 'books' chiseled on stone tablets. But I like e-books, and flying across the Atlantic in 5 hours. And I like AF point-linked spot metering.
 
  • Like
  • Haha
  • Love
Reactions: 3 users
Upvote 0
#104
ruzun said:
Yea, I always hope for a miracle but a massive breakthrough on weight seems unlikely. I think Nikon has found a better balance with its under $10k lenses that are not of the same quality as the $15k big white lenses, but are not as slow as the f/7.1 and f/9 lenses canon is putting out. Lenses in the under 10k range that offer f/6.3 etc. Like the 800mm and the various 600mm options from Nikon. For me, and many like me, under 5lbs is a BIG plus, and under 10k-12k is a BIG plus. I think a 4.5 lb (2kg), $10k, 600mm f/5.6 would be very well received for example. Whether it was prime or some sort of zoom.
Click to expand...
The rumored price (from August 2023) for the RF 200-500mm f4 is $ 15.999.

See: https://www.canonrumors.com/canon-rf-200-500mm-f-4l-is-usm-update-cr2/
 
Upvote 0
#107
Billybob said:
the (lack of wildlife) lens offerings.
Click to expand...
Nothing wrong with hoping for more options, but I have to say I find this attitude a little strange; as I've said on other threads in the recent past, there are more supertelephoto options now than ever during the EF era. Sure there is a gap in the midrange, but there always was*, and at least there are lenses like the 200-800 that go partway to plugging it. Obviously eg a 500 f/5.6 or 600 f/6.3 would be welcome, and maybe they will come, but I feel like people are being more negative than the current lineup deserves.

*When I got into bird photography in ~2012 you had native Canon sub-£2k lenses up to 400mm and then a chasm with the "big white" primes costing 5-10x as much. Now you can go to 800mm a couple of ways without spending more than £3k, which is about the same threshold adjusting for inflation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
#108
scyrene said:
Nothing wrong with hoping for more options, but I have to say I find this attitude a little strange; as I've said on other threads in the recent past, there are more supertelephoto options now than ever during the EF era. Sure there is a gap in the midrange, but there always was*, and at least there are lenses like the 200-800 that go partway to plugging it. Obviously eg a 500 f/5.6 or 600 f/6.3 would be welcome, and maybe they will come, but I feel like people are being more negative than the current lineup deserves.

*When I got into bird photography in ~2012 you had native Canon sub-£2k lenses up to 400mm and then a chasm with the "big white" primes costing 5-10x as much. Now you can go to 800mm a couple of ways without spending more than £3k, which is about the same threshold adjusting for inflation.
Click to expand...
I shoot with the 100-500mm and the 200-800mm all the time pretty much. Both are really good options. I don't mean to disparage Canons offerings but I really wish there were options in the $5-$10k range that served these needs but were faster. It's not that the canon lenses are bad, they are really really good. It's just that Nikon, right now at this moment, seems to be offering more mid-range sort of choices. Lenses that are f/6.3 and maybe cost a bit more. With canon it's either super heavy fast prime telephotos, or the lower priced slow aperture options. On the plus side the low cost, slow aperture lenses are really compact for the amount of reach they provide so it's not like they are terrible.

I think right now Canon is offering the best wildlife lens options they ever have, but there is for me at least, a gap in the lineup in this regard.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
Upvote 0
#109
scyrene said:
*When I got into bird photography in ~2012 you had native Canon sub-£2k lenses up to 400mm and then a chasm with the "big white" primes costing 5-10x as much. Now you can go to 800mm a couple of ways without spending more than £3k, which is about the same threshold adjusting for inflation.
Click to expand...
Assuming you restricted yourself to buying a lens from Canon. At the time, there were a variety of 150-600mm third-party options. Obviously those options can still be used with an adapter, but there are no mount third-party lenses to fill the gap today.

I suspect that is the main reason we have the 200-800mm non-L (though granted, not everyone who wants one has it yet).
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
#111
ruzun said:
I don't mean to disparage Canons offerings but I really wish there were options in the $5-$10k range that served these needs but were faster.
Click to expand...
Have you considered a used Canon EF lens with the adapter? I certainly would understand being reluctant to spend that much on a used lens without a native amount, but it would meet the need and those lenses perform great on R bodies.

Unless the need is a substantially lighter lens, in which case I would think hard about getting one of the Nikon ones with a body to accompany it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
#112
neuroanatomist said:
Have you considered a used Canon EF lens with the adapter? I certainly would understand being reluctant to spend that much on a used lens without a native amount, but it would meet the need and those lenses perform great on R bodies.

Unless the need is a substantially lighter lens, in which case I would think hard about getting one of the Nikon ones with a body to accompany it.
Click to expand...
Weight and focus speed are primary for me so I would not consider an EF adapted old lens.
 
Upvote 0
#113
I find it hard to believe Canon would release a 200-500mm f/4 lens that is approx the same size and weight as the existing 600mm f/4 prime, and cost approximately the same as the current 600mm f/4 prime. That would serve such a small niche market and reflect poorly on their R&D. In a time when you really want to "Wow" the public with your offerings, that would make zero sense. It's either very small and light for it's size and aperture, or its priced very aggressively. There is no way they would release such a "meh" offering as a fast, expensive, heavy 500mm zoom.
 
Upvote 0
#114
scyrene said:
Nothing wrong with hoping for more options, but I have to say I find this attitude a little strange; as I've said on other threads in the recent past, there are more supertelephoto options now than ever during the EF era. Sure there is a gap in the midrange, but there always was*, and at least there are lenses like the 200-800 that go partway to plugging it. Obviously eg a 500 f/5.6 or 600 f/6.3 would be welcome, and maybe they will come, but I feel like people are being more negative than the current lineup deserves.

*When I got into bird photography in ~2012 you had native Canon sub-£2k lenses up to 400mm and then a chasm with the "big white" primes costing 5-10x as much. Now you can go to 800mm a couple of ways without spending more than £3k, which is about the same threshold adjusting for inflation.
Click to expand...

I hope you don't find this response "snarky" ;) but it encapsulates my perspective very well

neuroanatomist said:
Sure, but we (some of us, at any rate) also managed to get great shots without AF and with frame rates dependent on thumb speed. And we managed to cross oceans on sailing ships, and read 'books' chiseled on stone tablets. But I like e-books, and flying across the Atlantic in 5 hours. And I like AF point-linked spot metering.
Click to expand...

Yes, we made do with a lot of things back in 2012. I recall getting a Tamron 150-600mm around that time (maybe 2013), and I was in heaven. But, by today's standards, the IQ was average (charitably speaking) at the long end and AF was abysmal. Today's 200-600mm, 180-600mm, and 200-800mm lenses are nice mid-tier lenses that are in the same class as the earlier Tamron and Sigma lenses. But, being zooms and targeting a lower market segment, they are all out-classed by dedicated long primes.

Back in 2012-2013, if you wanted better quality, you were forced to step up to the big whites, which were ultra-heavy and ultra expensive. Today, Nikon has disrupted the wildlife photography market with its range of moderately priced ($3000-$8000) "light-weight" primes (I'm including Nikon's 400mm f/4.5 which amazingly is compact without relying on pf technology) with max apertures between the zooms and the expensive exotics. To paraphrase neuroanatomist, sure we can make do with 7.1 and 9.0 zooms, but I like the moderately priced 4.5-6.3 primes that Nikon offers. I just wish Canon offered comparable products as well (Canon has the DO technology, so we know Canon can do it).

I think ruzun puts it very well in stating
ruzun said:
Yea, I always hope for a miracle but a massive breakthrough on weight seems unlikely. I think Nikon has found a better balance with its under $10k lenses that are not of the same quality as the $15k big white lenses, but are not as slow as the f/7.1 and f/9 lenses canon is putting out. Lenses in the under 10k range that offer f/6.3 etc. Like the 800mm and the various 600mm options from Nikon. For me, and many like me, under 5lbs is a BIG plus, and under 10k-12k is a BIG plus. I think a 4.5 lb (2kg), $10k, 600mm f/5.6 would be very well received for example. Whether it was prime or some sort of zoom.
Click to expand...
My only disagreement with ruzun is that I'd rather that 600mm f/5.6 (or f/6.3) be a prime and not a zoom.
 
Upvote 0
#115
ruzun said:
Weight and focus speed are primary for me so I would not consider an EF adapted old lens.
Click to expand...
Weight makes sense. My EF 600/4 II focuses plenty fast on my R3, even with the 1.4xIII behind it (which is most of the time for me). I can handhold it, so I saw no point is getting the MkIII or the RF versions. I’d have considered the RF 800/5.6 if Canon had redesigned it instead of putting a 2x TC in the barrel of the 400/2.8.
 
Upvote 0
#116
ruzun said:
I shoot with the 100-500mm and the 200-800mm all the time pretty much. Both are really good options. I don't mean to disparage Canons offerings but I really wish there were options in the $5-$10k range that served these needs but were faster. It's not that the canon lenses are bad, they are really really good. It's just that Nikon, right now at this moment, seems to be offering more mid-range sort of choices. Lenses that are f/6.3 and maybe cost a bit more. With canon it's either super heavy fast prime telephotos, or the lower priced slow aperture options. On the plus side the low cost, slow aperture lenses are really compact for the amount of reach they provide so it's not like they are terrible.

I think right now Canon is offering the best wildlife lens options they ever have, but there is for me at least, a gap in the lineup in this regard.
Click to expand...
I fully understand where you're coming from but my take is a little different - I don't think $5-10k can be considered mid range; and I think the slowness of the Canon apertures is exaggerated - 800 f/11 is the same as 400 f/5.6, and 800 f/9 is 400 f/4.5, the latter would never have been called unusably slow as the former have been.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Upvote 0
#117
ruzun said:
I find it hard to believe Canon would release a 200-500mm f/4 lens that is approx the same size and weight as the existing 600mm f/4 prime, and cost approximately the same as the current 600mm f/4 prime. That would serve such a small niche market and reflect poorly on their R&D. In a time when you really want to "Wow" the public with your offerings, that would make zero sense. It's either very small and light for it's size and aperture, or its priced very aggressively. There is no way they would release such a "meh" offering as a fast, expensive, heavy 500mm zoom.
Click to expand...
Surely the comparison is with the EF 200-400 1.4x? The rumoured RF zoom essentially replaces that.
 
Upvote 0
#118
neuroanatomist said:
Assuming you restricted yourself to buying a lens from Canon. At the time, there were a variety of 150-600mm third-party options. Obviously those options can still be used with an adapter, but there are no mount third-party lenses to fill the gap today.
Click to expand...
Naturally I exclude third party lenses in this analysis - but in any case I think the RF zooms plug that gap well enough that the old third party ~X-600 f/6.3 zooms offer very little now, even if there were native RF versions.
neuroanatomist said:
I suspect that is the main reason we have the 200-800mm non-L (though granted, not everyone who wants one has it yet).
Click to expand...
 
Upvote 0
#119
Billybob said:
I hope you don't find this response "snarky" ;) but it encapsulates my perspective very well
Click to expand...
Not at all! :)
Billybob said:
Nikon has disrupted the wildlife photography market with its range of moderately priced ($3000-$8000) "light-weight" primes (I'm including Nikon's 400mm f/4.5 which amazingly is compact without relying on pf technology) with max apertures between the zooms and the expensive exotics. To paraphrase neuroanatomist, sure we can make do with 7.1 and 9.0 zooms, but I like the moderately priced 4.5-6.3 primes that Nikon offers. I just wish Canon offered comparable products as well (Canon has the DO technology, so we know Canon can do it).
Click to expand...
I refer you to my answer above re "moderately priced" and the narrowness of apertures.
 
Upvote 0
#120
scyrene said:
Surely the comparison is with the EF 200-400 1.4x? The rumoured RF zoom essentially replaces that.
Click to expand...
It's not 2013. By today's standards a 200-400mm f/4 lens would be expected to have a longer reach, like 500mm, and weigh a LOT less, like under 4.5 lbs. In 2013 something with the old EF's weight and reach was reasonable, that is NOT the case in 2024. A 2024 replacement for the 200-400 f/4 would weigh under 4.5 lbs and have at least 500mm of reach. Which makes me think this new lens is just that, under 4.5 lbs, or it's MUCH cheaper than the 200-400 f/4 was when it was released and it competes via price.
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Canon Rumors
Happy Hallowe’en! Canon to announce 3 lenses on October 31, 2024
Replies
177
Views
10K
becceric
B
Canon Rumors
Canon EOS R1 ship date moved to November 14, 2024 in the USA
Replies
10
Views
1K
Chig
Chig
Canon Rumors
Canon RF 200-500mm f/4L IS USM to get that desired 1.4x built-in teleconverter?
Replies
51
Views
6K
GMCPhotographics
GMCPhotographics
Canon Rumors
Sony to have flagship camera and lens announcement on November 19
Replies
31
Views
2K
0x2102
0x2102
Canon Rumors
The Canon EOS R1 & Canon RF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM Z begin shipping this week
Replies
81
Views
5K
patal05
P
Top Bottom
Back
Home
Forums
Media
Menu