A new super telephoto lens will be announced soon
- Thread starter Canon Rumors Guy
- Start date
Others can reply in more detail, but the RF 100-500 compares very well with all but the best (ie generally most expensive) primes at most distances, and a number of actual users (yes, people who buy and use rather than just comment on forums about) of the lens consider it to be an alternative to a bag of primes.
Upvote
0
I would say that Sony has made a big dint in the Sydney land/seascapers niche after aggressive marketing/ambassadors and sponsorship. Plus there was a lot of early adopters based on their sensor's DR etc despite adaptor struggles and they ended up being ambassadors.
That said, I believe that there are any photographers with Canon DLSR gear that are yet to migrate to a MILC ecosystem. Canon hopes that they will move to R mount and leverage their EF lenses (for the moment) whilst having GAS for the higher end RF lenses. That will be a lot of new sales compared to Sony's upgrade scenario. Sony also has to compete with 3rd party lenses for sales.
We will see how that pans out over the next couple of years but data suggests that Canon will still be the market leader.
Upvote
0
Big whites are a cut above the EF 100-400 and the RF 100-500, but mid-range primes, not so much. I have the EF 100-400 II and the EF 300 f/4L and frankly, there is very little difference in IQ. https://www.the-digital-picture.com...meraComp=979&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=3&APIComp=1 . You gain 2/3rds of stop with the prime, but you have to stop it down to f/5.6 to match the sharpness of the zoom wide open. The 400 f/5.6 L is a tad sharper than the zoom at 400, but no IS (of course that is age related). The EF 135 and 200 have the obvious advantage of speed, but with mirrorless, that has more to do with the image "look" than being able to actually take the shot, at least in most cases. Don't get me wrong, I am not dissing midrange primes, but for the majority of uses, they do not produce noticeably better images than the high-end zooms. The zooms also have the advantages of convenience and close focus, which, so far at least, doesn't seem to be possible with primes. Lastly, with tools like PhotoLab and Topaz Sharpen, you can improve the results from just about any lens by a fair bit and that again narrows the gap because with the best lenses, the camera becomes the limit. Will Canon release midrange primes? The very innovative 600 and 800 f/11 suggests that they will, but all in good time. I suspect they are migrating assembly lines from EF to RF lenses and they just discontinued a bunch of EF and EF-s lenses, so that may well result in quite a few new lenses over the next year or two. Setting up additional lines in a diminished market would not make business sense.
Upvote
0
Seriously, when you make blatantly false statements it wrecks your credibility, not to mention being, to use your words, pretty stupid.
For the record, Nikon’s share of the digital camera market:
- 2017 - 21.8%
- 2018 - 19.1%
- 2019 - 18.6%
- 2020 - 13.7%
- 2021 - 11.3%
I’m officially retracting my welcome. You should have kept lurking, you add zero value to the site.
Upvote
0
Welcome to the forum (even if Neuro has retracted his
)!Joining and commenting also means having feedback but one thing that has been clear for a long time in the forum that there is a difference between expressing a personal opinion based on limited anecdotes and seeing the bigger financial/market share picture. Saying "I wish they made xyz" isn't challenged. Saying "Canon must make abc because Sony/Nikon does" inevitably triggers "why should they?".
"sold like crazy", "how amazing", "delusional", "very obvious", "too affordable", "so many people", "hasn't even bothered", "reason is very clear" are indicative of subjective views and it would be great if you can give some logic/insight/data to support your claims.
What is your overall point? Is it that Canon is stupid and/or refuses to make/sell stuff that you think it should or that it must directly compete for every segment that Sony/Nikon does or ?
The best way to give feedback directly to Canon is to send them your comments via their support pages rather than argue with someone in a forum
Last edited:
Upvote
0
This is what opticallimits writes after properly testing the 100-500. https://www.opticallimits.com/canon_eos_ff/1102-canonrf100500f4571?start=1
MTF (resolution)
The Canon RF 100-500mm f/4.5-7.1 USM L IS is impressively sharp throughout the range. At 100mm and 200mm the quality is on prime lens level with an excellent center and a very good to excellent outer image field. At 350mm there's a slight decrease in quality but the quality is still very high. As you may have guessed, diffraction is limiting the performance at 500mm. A max aperture of f/7.1 is beyond the optimum aperture on full format cameras. The quality is easily very good on a 30-megapixel sensor (used for testing). On an EOS R5, it'll be a bit more obvious in lab conditions - less so in real life.May I suggest that your comment is somewhat overstated? Or should I echo @neuroanatomist ’s rather stronger comments?
Upvote
0
It does matter. Of course I want good cheap lenses, but I also more importantly want a company that will be around in 20 years to service and support the gear I have. If they are losing cash hand over fist will they be around? If you look at the actual figures Nikon is not grow, but rather contracting. This in in spite of all of the goodies they are offering.
Upvote
0
And even if the number of folks looking for lenses at a mid-range price point is large, Canon is undoubtedly smart enough to know that those consumers ares buying EF L lenses used. So it is highly unlikely that mid-price consumer lenses will sell well when mid-price Pro level L lenses can be bought at similar and often lower prices.
Over and over on this forum, people make the same criticism that there is a lack of affordable lenses for the RF mount, but there are absolutely TONS of affordable quality pro and consumer lenses available. They are called EF mount lenses. Why are forum dwellers - who seemingly pride themselves on being photography savvy - so confused when it comes to the lens issue?
It's almost funny in a way. Folks on the various Canon facebook groups - many who are relative beginners - seem to understand that the number of lenses available for their new R series cameras - especially affordable lenses - is huge, because it includes both RF, RF-S , EF and EF-S lenses.
Upvote
0
Your comments are excellent fodder for a "bollocking"!
Canon can be justly criticised for being late to release a mirrorless body and associated lenses. The R was really a stop gap model despite being better than the 5Div in many ways. The reuse of the 6Dii parts bin in the RP was a good decision and critically is at an excellent price point.
That said, the R5/R6 stopped the competition in their tracks. Canon caught up and surpassed the others and their own DLSRs in a big way.
Canon have made it clear that they have capacity and supply chain constraints that have limited the release of more bodies/lenses but that they have sold more than they expected of the current models.
So what is the current situation?
Sony had to open their mount and adapt Canon lenses to get any market share for their bodies from the beginning but now have to compete with them.
Sony have a wide (better??) native lens choice which are generally cheaper than RF lenses and 3rd party options.
Sony have respectable market share in mirrorless and full frame mirrorless segments but are still less than Canon.
Nikon are losing market share despite good/new gear.
Canon have 7 R bodies (RP, R10, R7, R, R6, R5, R3) and have an extensive range of lens options from EF/EF-S (Canon and 3rd parties) and native RF/RF-S (plus some minor 3rd party manual focus RF lenses) that can be used on all of them.
Competition is good for all consumers. There will always be switchers based on personal needs or multiple systems for those with deeper pockets and specific niches.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
I was talking about fog that causes issues with IQ, I have used EF 100-400mm for lizards and snakes before but only at times when there was no fog in air. In that respect even 180mm macros cause a massive dip in IQ as soon as fog starts rolling in and going shorter with 90/100/105mm Macros is the best option.
Upvote
0
Well, basically you’re saying, “I made bullsh!t claims, and when called upon to provide data to support them, I can’t so I’m just going to ignore the issue.” Oh, ok.
Canon does not release affordable gear? LOL. What other brand offers a three lens FF kit spanning 15-400mm that costs under US$1500?
I suspect what you really mean is that Canon is not offering the gear you personally want at the prices you personally can afford. That’s your problem, not Canon’s.
If someone else offers what you want at a price you can afford, stop complaining, get off your butt and go buy it. If no one offers what you want or you simply can’t afford it, I guess all you can do is complain and at least that’s free. Don’t expect universal support for your bitching, though, when you fabricate facts to support your position.
As for what I’m saying, it’s that Canon has done an excellent job of offering cameras and lenses that buyers want, which is why they’ve led the ILC market for two decades and dominate it today. Those facts suggest that Canon knows better what the market as a whole wants than you or me. The difference is that I’m not claiming I know better than Canon what products they should release. I leave such asinine claims to people like you.
Upvote
0
It will be interesting to see what new super tele RF-designed lens they will come out with.
I've been so happy with the R5 & RF 100-500L f4.5-7.1 that I wonder what they could come out with to make me want to buy something more in this range (as I'm a non-pro who probably wouldn't spend above ~$5K on a lens)?
I've been so happy with the R5 & RF 100-500L f4.5-7.1 that I wonder what they could come out with to make me want to buy something more in this range (as I'm a non-pro who probably wouldn't spend above ~$5K on a lens)?
Upvote
0
D
Deleted member 387325
Guest
Honestly reading this thread gives me bad vibes for the Canon community, in general. You guys really suck sometimes. Ganging up on someone for expressing their frustrations, then demanding data from him that nobody could ever provide, then continuing to bash him. Get over yourselves. Most of the opinions and comments here are just that—opinions. This is a forum for cameras, folks. We all have opinions and that’s why the forum exists. Yours isn’t better than somebody else’s because you give a few examples here and there yet hesitate to offer any other value or take a risk without the data. No reason to gang up on someone just because his or her opinion is different from yours. I happen to agree with a lot of what the poster said, but not everything—I’m not on here piling on and making him look like an idiot with my all-knowing superiority because I know everything about Canon and have nothing better to do with my time than study their history or financial statements. Again, get over yourselves and the superiority complex.
Upvote
0
unfocused
Photos/Photo Book Reviews: www.thecuriouseye.com
Glad to have a new rumor, even if It is for a lens that I am unlikely to ever own (whatever it may be).
This site was overdue for some fresh rumor meat to chew on.
I see that in the first four pages, we've gone through about a half-dozen or so totally unrealistic unicorn wishes with a healthy dose of "Nikon/Sony are kicking Canon's rear" thrown in for good measure, followed by the usual string of insults and trotting out of limited sales data.
Putting in my two cents:
Canon is a conservative company. I am just guessing but I expect the next Big White will be an RF version of an existing EF lens (300mm 2.8; 400mm F4 DO; 200-400 F4 w/1.4; 500mm f4) are likely suspects. If they do decide to switch it up, my guess would be a 500mm f5.6 DO instead of the 400mm.
However, getting back to reality, it is probably more likely that they will just release an RF version of an existing EF lens.
This site was overdue for some fresh rumor meat to chew on.
I see that in the first four pages, we've gone through about a half-dozen or so totally unrealistic unicorn wishes with a healthy dose of "Nikon/Sony are kicking Canon's rear" thrown in for good measure, followed by the usual string of insults and trotting out of limited sales data.
Putting in my two cents:
Canon is a conservative company. I am just guessing but I expect the next Big White will be an RF version of an existing EF lens (300mm 2.8; 400mm F4 DO; 200-400 F4 w/1.4; 500mm f4) are likely suspects. If they do decide to switch it up, my guess would be a 500mm f5.6 DO instead of the 400mm.
However, getting back to reality, it is probably more likely that they will just release an RF version of an existing EF lens.
Upvote
0
unfocused
Photos/Photo Book Reviews: www.thecuriouseye.com
I don't entirely disagree with this sentiment. But, when someone says they have followed this forum for seven years, I think it is safe to assume they have some idea of how people on this forum think. What gets people riled up is not someone expressing an opinion so much as when they state that opinion as fact, without having anything but their opinion to back it up.
I do think Nikon is doing a lot of interesting things and I do wish Canon would offer some similar options. I don't buy all the doom and gloom about Nikon. They have been around for as long as Canon and they know the market as well as Canon does. Market share isn't everything and what really matters to companies is that they are turning a profit and offering value to shareholders.
Canon prides itself on being the biggest, but when I first bought Canon they were considered by professionals to be a distant second to Nikon. I bought Canon because at the time (1970s) I could get two bodies, and four lenses for the same price as two bodies and three lenses from Nikon. I've never purchased a Canon camera because of their market share and never will. I buy Canon because I like the brand and I think they offer good value for the money.
I have no problem with people stating what they want. However, some of the other posters on this thread (not @MoodyCat) are compiling wish lists that are downright silly from the perspective of what is realistic from a demand/price point. We can all type in wish lists that are clearly nothing more than magic flying unicorns, but what does that do to further the discussion?
Upvote
0
This is a public forum - if people want to vent their frustrations, or put an unusual opinion, so be it - but if they want to misrepresent the facts, or make outrageous statements, then they will attract attention. In at least some cases, I'm sure that's their main intention.
If someone wants to say that Nikon has been growing over the last 4 years, because they 'listen to their customers' (AOT Canon), then I don't see the problem with someone quoting actual data to show that the opposite has been happening. If someone falls into the trap of extrapolating their own view into some variant of 'everyone wants X, why oh why won't Canon listen to us', then they will likely receive a reality check on the universality of their opinions.
Or to sum up: if you say ridiculous things, you open yourself to ridicule.
Upvote
0
D
Deleted member 387325
Guest
There’s no reason to be a jerk on here to anyone. Really, it is that simple. If someone was a jerk to you, then call them out for it. If someone says they like brand X for whatever reason, there’s no need for “ridicule” and public shaming. We get it—if you’re here, you have an interest in Canon. We all say stuff we can’t “back up” with private data from these companies. You’re not special somehow and fall into that trap just like everyone else. The man is frustrated with Canon for whatever reason and wishes they made certain lenses. No need to beat the man down and have your buddies join in to send the message home. The world is ugly enough right now; maybe let’s all sit back and enjoy the hobby and conversation rather than try to make others feel like sh*t.
Upvote
0
D
Deleted member 387325
Guest
I do agree with you. Market share is not everything. Canon finds a way to lead but ruffles a lot of feathers along the way. I know more pros that refuse to ever buy a product from Canon again than pros that still shoot with them. But that’s just my experience and everyone’s differs. Canon makes fantastic products but they are definitely profit focused above all else. They’re certainly not known for their generosity with their customers, I’ll say that. They do what they need to survive and stay on top, and that’s obviously their measure of success. Other companies find ways to lead and treat their customers differently. We all make our choices on what to support and use.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
