5 Canon Lenses Pros Will Love?

[@BrianKSmith-ds2sh]

Happy New Year Simon!

[@OrdinaryFilmmaker]

Happy New Year to you too Brian!

[@michaelh7506]

Good to see new lenses, I love to window shop HAPPY NEW YEAR SIMON.

[@OrdinaryFilmmaker]

Happy New Year mate!

[@johnherzel718]

I have simple desires….(lol) I dream of a 70-300 f4.0, I would be fine with an f4.5 constant aperture or a slightly shorter range of 100-300. Weather sealed of course. Telescoping design is fine! That would be a great take around lens. I would also love an RF version of the EF 17-40 f 4.

[@OrdinaryFilmmaker]

Sigma full frame will bring a lot of options. I'm curious to see what a Canon 150-600 would look like.

[@johnherzel718]

@OrdinaryFilmmaker I have the Sigma EF 150-600. It's preventing me from buying the 200-800. I love that lens. But I would probably buy it again in RF mount. (After selling the appropriate body parts)

[@JGZphotography]

Filing patents are simply dreams locked away for safekeeping, but they make for great discussions at the table.

[@giovannispinosa182]

Canon seems to be nicely filling out their stable of RF lenses

[@BattleCow]

I want the F5.6 days to come back.

[@aruraru6644]

I like f/5.6 aperture for a balance between natural and artistic depth of sharpness and I hope such zoom lenses could have wider zoom range, so it would be usefull.

[@dr_squirrel]

Same here

[@OrdinaryFilmmaker]

It's why I keep trolling over the 800 f5.6. It's as practical as a Ferrari. I get that, but I still want it.

[@drbeardo6960]

Happy New Year Simon🎉🎉🎉 Wish you the best for your economic, social and spiritual growth 📈 I'd choose RF200-600 f5-6.3 Likely less $ and lower kgs compared to 150-600 f5-6.3 Hope that lens prices comparable to 200-800

[@OrdinaryFilmmaker]

Happy New Year mate. Here's to a successful and heathy year! I like the 150-600. At 150 is more usable. With the 100-500, I often find myself using 100 as a general purpose focal length in a pinch, but the 200-800 doesn't afford the same capability.

[@drbeardo6960]

​@@OrdinaryFilmmaker Agreed 💯 Let's see what is being served first by canon

[@Hectic_]

If canon can make the 200-600 f5-6.3 an internal zoom and affordable it would be great, or even better making the 150-600 with an internal zoom at or close to the same price as the sigma version would be a dream

[@OrdinaryFilmmaker]

I agree, the 150-600 with an internal zoom would be the winner.

[@johnclay7644]

informative news thanks Simon

[@VooDooZg]

150/180/200-600 5-6.3 will be record seller for price around 1500-1800eur especially if they manage to make it with internal zoom and max 1.8kg

[@Mr09260]

There already IS a 180-600 f5.6 - 6.3 with internal Zoom

[@janvanholten7592]

Interesting stuff. Start some savings from know on!

[@OrdinaryFilmmaker]

Already on it ;)

[@jakecook716]

Enough zoom lenses. There's an untapped market for Canon to fill with a mid range prime telephoto lens. An Rf 400 f4, or a 500 f5.6, a 600 f6.3. The price jump from Canon's zoom telephoto lenses to primes is ridiculous, with nothing in between unless you want to buy a previous generation model 2nd hand

[@illegalalien6542]

We don't even need prime telephoto lenses, just simple primes for the casual/hobbyist shooter. This market has largely been ignored by Canon, coupled with their refusal to truly open up the R mount to 3rd parties and you have a market flooded with bodies and little to no standard lenses to back it up. Meanwhile Canon continues roll out the red carpet for the "pro" market which makes up what, a fraction of a percent of the photography market?.

[@Talon97]

@@illegalalien6542 Exactly!!

[@jakecook716]

​@illegalalien6542 people who shoot telephoto as their main lens do. Wildlife photographers specifically, who want to have a faster lens that doesn't cost as much as a new car

[@davepastern]

Spot on

[@jefferyrobbins3468]

First, all need to completely work with TCs, and even better if a 1.4x is fully built in to use with the flip of a switch, L lenses. I liked the last option best -- zoom to 700mm or 800mm. However, the XXX-600 are good too. Of course they need outstanding IQ and AF speed/precision, even with TC.

[@TVe200]

A 200-500 f4 will probably be huge and definitely expensive.

[@OrdinaryFilmmaker]

Yeah. I'd say around 10K

[@alansach8437]

Which is the thing, right? Many of the suggestions in these comments are fantasy lenses. The folks making the suggestions would never buy the actual lens because the price would be prohibitive. A few would need a sherpa to haul it around!

[@billmartin1663]

Can vaporware be huge?

[@ER-gn8io]

@@alansach8437 Dann könnte man das Objektiv beim Aufstieg zum Everest mitnehmen!

[@joyntaroy8238]

That's great canon❤

[@JohnDrummondPhoto]

A 200-600 at F/4.5-6.3 would be very tempting.

[@CrawPhotography]

Honestly i'd love a 100-500 F4 or even 200-500F4. But i Know the price is probably going to be crazy. If canon brings a sigma competitor out and its L series, and its lighter, I might switch, but honestly... It all depends on the cost and weight etc.

[@novainvicta]

Canon needs to work on some longer zooms for the APS-C cameras. I hope in 2025 we also see the RF 85mm f1.4L VCM to round out the 24, 35 & 50mm VCM primes these are the mid level lenses that I think will sell exceedingly well for Canon.

[@OrdinaryFilmmaker]

The other day I went out with the 50 f1.2 instead of the 1.4. I should have known, but you know how it is with confirmation bias. Anyhow, once I realized I had the 50 f1.2 on, I felt sad... at that point I knew the 50 f1.4 was a great lens. It's quiet, light weight, compact and solid. It has the aperture ring. and the quality is very good. F1.2 is nice when showing at night. I need to look at the bokeh and sharpness, but for normal use, I;d pick the 1,4 over the 1.2 any day.

[@TheFireBurningWithin]

Finally, I've been losing hope. As someone who enjoys sports photography on large sports grounds ( i'm talking cricket and Australian football). The primes are impossibly expensive but each of the three available zooms just had massive down sides. The rf 100-400 5.6-8 is a great weight for handheld but using it at 400 f8 was is usually both too short and too slow (as well as not very durable) the rf 100-500 4.5-7 is a better length and faster at f7.1 at 500m but to justify tripling the cost and weight is such a tough ask and disappointment. Then the 200-800 6.3-9 came out with a much more attractive zoom length for someone who would use that 600-800mm area as well as that low end, as action changes quickly. BUT It's really not great for this purpose, firstly it's an unruly beast (bye bye moving in a crowd, changing position). At about the range 450-640 it's f8 anyway. The general consensus is that the RF 100-500 is faster lens more useful lens anyway. now a lens at that's around f6.3 at 500 or 600 would actually be what's sorely missing . (the 200-500 f4 is a dream, but likely out of reach in cost and size)

[@OrdinaryFilmmaker]

I agree. I love the 100-500. I'd be more curious to see a Mark 2 of that lens.

[@Met.Photography]

Hey sir,Happy belated new year, For a wildlife and bird photographer, what is better, the rf 200-800mm or the rf l 100-500mm with R5ii? Thanks in advance and let me know.

[@yannisvaroufakis9395]

I want a 400mm f4 prime in a super compact DO design. That’s what I need for travel, not an unusably slow super tele zoom the size of a Saturn V rocket that’s compromised in every way possible.

[@Simon-SBL]

I most often find myself at the longer end of long zooms, I suppose that is the point of them, and rarely use the short end, so I tend to ignore the aperture range and just look at the smallest aperture as that is where I am going to be using it, so f4.5 or f5, it probably won't matter. Lr is your best friend here, I just look at my usage, I can count on one hand the number of times I've used the 100-400mm or 150-600 at 100mm or 150mm respectively, I'm just about to get my hands on the 200-800, so I'll see how I cope with f9 up here! I think we're entering the limitations of physics at 800mm and f9, £13k+ to get an 800mm lens faster than f8and it's a monster, so I'm not sure the 200-800mm could be improved on much, maybe L build and better optics and optical coatings. An RF 150-600, though, which could be interesting, still no Sigma RF FF lenses, so maybe Canon plans to give Siggy more competition, (if) they let them make FF lenses.

[@OrdinaryFilmmaker]

I have had the worst luck with the 200-800. Whenever I got out, the wildlife hide on me. Go out with a 24-105 or 50mm and they are taunting me with their tunes. I used to favour the long end. It depends on when I am hunkered down and where the wildlife ends up. 800 is too zoomed at time which is what I love about the 200-800. It allows me to adjust the zoom to meet this condition. Tomorrow, I will go out with the 200-800 once again and try once again ;) I think oatmeal for breakfast is required for this trek ;)

[@Simon-SBL]

@@OrdinaryFilmmaker Wildlife do that on purpose, that's what they do for fun! 😄 I have a local heron that poses on a salmon ladder at the local wier any time I haven't got a long lens with me, I have another place that is abundant with swans, geese, and as many ducks as you can think of, and the occasional cormorant, but the only way to get the swans to fly is to pack up! haha 200mm is still relatively long, so that may get used more. It seems the 200-800 is a tad soft at 800 and pretty sharp as 700, so the jungle drums suggest, anyway. I think it will be quite an effort to zoom its entire range, as the Sigma can be.

[@craigpiferphotography]

If they do end up coming out with a 150-600 at a decent price, I'll have to seriously consider dropping my Tamron and finally adding some RF glass to my kit. Looking forward to seeing what actually transpires.

[@OrdinaryFilmmaker]

I wonder if I would get it. I have the 100-500 and the 200-800. Granted, the 200-800 is a big beast...

[@JohnSwen-p6b]

A RF 200-700 mm f5-F7.1 would be an ideal lens.

[@duckducktoad]

Is there any update on the zoom teleconverter from canon?

[@OrdinaryFilmmaker]

Zippo

[@guibospe]

I would like tô head something like RF400-800mm f4.

[@drbeardo6960]

That would be huge AF😅

[@OrdinaryFilmmaker]

Yeah, that would be huge!

[@cathco9]

I would love to see a 150-600 mm that is equivalent to the Sigma lens that can take the 1.4x for the entire range. I would sell my 200-800 for that. I wish Canon would make the small PF prime lenses that Nikon makes. A small 600 mm would be perfect. I guess we just have to wait and see what 2025 brings. Happy New Year! 🎉🎉🎉

[@electricpassmountain]

Hopefully they make the 400-600 f2.8/F4 that I will never be able to afford.

[@WernerBirdNature]

Happy 2025 Simon ! These patents are intriguing me of course, but I'm not so sure any of them really make sense. The 200-800 is already Canon's response to the Sigma trademark 150-600 as it already caters for a similar pricepoint but offers longer focal length and roughly the same bokeh power (focal length divided by max aperture). The actual patent values of the 200-700/7.1 give the same bokeh power. The fact the 100-500 doesn't take extenders "nicely" has for me been neutralized by getting the 200-800. Earlier I used the 420-700 about 50% of the time, but now I just switch to the 200-800 instead. I'm pretty confident the 200-500/4 will happen, but I'm equally confident it will remain out of reach for my wallet. If I were to buy another birding lens, it should not exceed the weight of the 200-800 and not exceed (much) the price of the 100-500 .. I do love zooms, but in order to maximize the bokeh power within these boundary conditions I would be dreaming of a 300/2.8 for low light cases, and a 700/6.3 in the style of both Nikon PF lenses

[@user-longtingfan]

125-500 f5-6.3 is not slower than 100-500 at 125, at 125mm 100-500’s max aperture is no longer 4.5 but 5 may be even 5.1

[@babajaiy8246]

If Cannon used their 'new' tech as applied for in patents - to a new 24-105 with lower fstop(2.8) and IS would be great.

[@jimbruton9482]

The Canon teleconverter is "useless" for the 100-500? What a ridiculous comment. Adding the 1.4 TC increases reach of the 100-500 zoom to 700 mm, a 40% increase . Yes you lose 100-300 mm but if you're using a TC with this zoom you're most likely using it for the extra reach beyond 500mm. And it's sharp. You need to watch a few pro photographer's experience with it.

[@OrdinaryFilmmaker]

Using the TC on the 100-500 is a royal pain. It would be better to just shoot with a 400mm or 600mm than adapter the 100-500. That way one gets the sharpness of a prime. The problem isn't the sharpness, it is being able to use the range of the lens.

[@jimbruton9482]

@@OrdinaryFilmmaker You originally said useless, not "a royal pain". I respectfully disagree. If one already has the 100-500 and wants a bit of extra reach, a 1.4 TC is less expensive than going out and buying a 400 mm or 600 mm RF prime. We are not all "pros" with an unlimited budget.

[@OrdinaryFilmmaker]

Your outings and scenarios are different from mine. I stand by what I said.

[@jimbruton9482]

@@OrdinaryFilmmaker As do I, respectfully disagree.

[@TravisCurry]

What’s up with all these zoom lenses with similar ranges lol

[@briansilcox5720]

400 f4 DO

[@fualexander7798]

I think you left out a bunch of other patents that Canon Rumors reported in the end of Nov. These are way more interesting lenses (well at least in my view), basically we are talking about more affordable super telephoto primes, presumably to compete with Nikon's PF primes. These aren't your 800mm f/11 type toys, so far they include a RF 400mm f/4, a RF 500mm f/5.6, a RF 600mm f/5.6 and a RF 800mm f/6.3. If indeed Canon ends up bringing them to market, I promise you I will stay with Canon and will definitely go for the RF 800mm f/6.3 just like the Nikon Z 800mm f/6.3 PF.

[@Tainted-Soul]

200-800 f7.1 L hell yes please when using the 100-500 its normally 300 -500 most of the time BUT and Its a BIG BUT focus distance is also as important to me that 500mm @1.2mtrs is amazing so even with 800mm if I cant get as close then thats a big Negative as I would still have to keep the 100- 500 for that close up shots but then in that issue you have no time to change lenses so I have my fingers crossed

[@thetruckingphotographer148]

The 200-500 f4 will be way too expensive, but the 200-700 f5-7.1 takes my interest

[@OrdinaryFilmmaker]

That 200-700 would be expensive too, but t would be far more useful than the 600 and 800 if done right.

[@thetruckingphotographer148]

I buy my stuff from panamoz, they are so cheap, currently the R5ii is £3200, a grand cheaper than UK price

[@OrdinaryFilmmaker]

Damn. That is cheap. I wonder if they are importing from Hong Kong.

[@thetruckingphotographer148]

​@@OrdinaryFilmmakeryes they are, I have no problem with that, I've used them a few times now and have saved a lot of money with them

[@Tedng84]

10500f7.1 was a disapppointment. why they cant produce a lens like 200600f6.3? plus RF lens are ridiculously expensive, also RF cannot support 3rd party lens is a downfall forcing others to only buy RF lens

[@billmartin1663]

These specs are not all that different than the excellent 100-500mm. It's hard to get worked up about them. 1/3 stop isn't much. (Isn't it time to accept that the RF 200-500mm f/4 is vaporware -- the product of a certain rumor site?)

[@vivianvaldi7871]

My last buy Nikon 85mm 1.8 made in 1974. The K one. Explanation : not seeking to help any crappy photo market pet editor. Help yourself with pets and kids.

[@HumidGamer]

This AI summarize video chat box is crazy. Just gave me all the info from the video in like 10 seconds. And I watched the vid to see if it was accurate about the lenses. Seems like it would hurt channels though

[@OrdinaryFilmmaker]

Depends on what people want. I can learn all I want about the world from the Internet, but there's nothing like seeing and touching it.

[@KungPowEnterFist]

Canon and Sony can rumor mill all they want, but until it's released it's a nothing burger. At least Canon has a chance to catch up to Nikon in the super tele game. They would have to release a lot of (300mm+) glass in a short period of time, but they can do it. Sony, OTOH, is so far behind that at this point it seems impossible that they will ever catch up.

[@NU7L]

Canon is falling short by not having an in-between 800mm prime. Something better than the F/11 but not the $16k f/5.6 either.

[@ER-gn8io]

Ein 800 f/8 wäre auch teuer!