# Patent: Canon presents some interesting fast zoom lens optical formulas



## Canon Rumors Guy (Aug 16, 2022)

> Canon appears to be working on some very fast zoom lenses for the RF mount. I’m not sure any of these optical formulas will lead to actual products, but it’s likely that these are part of the R&D for a more traditional zoom range with a fast aperture.
> These designs could be for the Cinema EOS line and not for RF. The backfocus distances are all over the place in this patent.
> Canon 30-90 f/1.5
> 
> ...



Continue reading...


----------



## Fran Decatta (Aug 16, 2022)

Some of those focals seems like can fit in APS-c RF system, trying to do something similar and more lightweight than the 28-70 f2. Probably I'm wrong, but would be great to see options of this kind!


----------



## janhalasa (Aug 16, 2022)

It looks like a result of a contest of 7 Canon engineers designing a 30cm long lens  But the 45-130 f/2.2 could be interesting for all kinds of portraits.


----------



## entoman (Aug 16, 2022)

All jolly exciting I'm sure, but I really do wish Canon and certain other manufacturers would get over their obsession with ridiculously wide aperture lenses. With one or two exceptions (e.g. 70-200mm F4), we only have two choices - either ludicrously expensive ultra-wide aperture L lenses, or cheapo budget lenses with barely usable apertures such as the RF 600mm and 800mm F11. It's one extreme or the other. Whatever happened to high quality middle-of-the-road lenses with modest maximum apertures?


----------



## dolina (Aug 16, 2022)

entoman said:


> All jolly exciting I'm sure, but I really do wish Canon and certain other manufacturers would get over their obsession with ridiculously wide aperture lenses. With one or two exceptions (e.g. 70-200mm F4), we only have two choices - either ludicrously expensive ultra-wide aperture L lenses, or cheapo budget lenses with barely usable apertures such as the RF 600mm and 800mm F11. It's one extreme or the other. Whatever happened to high quality middle-of-the-road lenses with modest maximum apertures?



My guess is your wanted outcome will come out by 2024 when the EF system ceases being produced.

Since 2012 the digital still camera market is shrinking as smartphones have been eating into it.







We're in year 4 of the RF system as such they're prioritizing new products with good margins 1st that gets headlines.

This resulted in 5 full frame RF bodies & 2 APS-C RF bodies.

On BH Photos' Best Selling RF lenses among the top 30 listed, 16 are non L lenses from both Canon & 3rd party.

RF 600mm and 800mm F11 are targeted at users who have

- mobility issues and want a light & compact long focal length
- limited discretionary spending

If my 2008 self saw those two 1kg lenses as an alternative over a 4.5kg EF 800mm & 5.4kg EF 600mm then odds are I'd get the f/11 copies as I am lazy in carrying things and the risk of being hassled over the gear is reduced to near nil.


----------



## David - Sydney (Aug 17, 2022)

Fran Decatta said:


> Some of those focals seems like can fit in APS-c RF system, trying to do something similar and more lightweight than the 28-70 f2. Probably I'm wrong, but would be great to see options of this kind!


The missing link for RF-S lenses is ultra wide. Yes, you can adapt EF-S lenses but otherwise there is no native UWA lens eg 10-~20mm


----------



## David - Sydney (Aug 17, 2022)

dolina said:


> My guess is your wanted outcome will come out by 2024 when the EF system ceases being produced.


Can you point to where Canon has stated that EF lens production will cease in 2024? I believe that Canon will continue to make EF lenses as long as there is demand for them - which makes commercial sense. The batch size for the manufacturing run may decrease though and perhaps they will make a final run to fill up inventory for warranty/replacement etc then but we won't see that decision from a consumer side of things



dolina said:


> RF 600mm and 800mm F11 are targeted at users who have
> - mobility issues and want a light & compact long focal length
> - limited discretionary spending


And also for occasional users who can easily afford these lenses. If I had a sometimes use for 800mm then this would be the lens I would buy rather than add a TC to my RF100-500mm. 

There is a massive difference in "discretionary spend" between USD900 and USD13,000 for EF800 and USD17,000 for RF800mm


----------



## dolina (Aug 17, 2022)

David - Sydney said:


> Can you point to where Canon has stated that EF lens production will cease in 2024? I believe that Canon will continue to make EF lenses as long as there is demand for them - which makes commercial sense. The batch size for the manufacturing run may decrease though and perhaps they will make a final run to fill up inventory for warranty/replacement etc then but we won't see that decision from a consumer side of things
> 
> 
> And also for occasional users who can easily afford these lenses. If I had a sometimes use for 800mm then this would be the lens I would buy rather than add a TC to my RF100-500mm.
> ...


Did I not mention that it was my guess? 

If it is occasional use then why not rent?

Here's another guess, 2024 is also the year I expect the R1, R5 Mark II & R6 Mark II to be released.


----------



## David - Sydney (Aug 17, 2022)

dolina said:


> Did I not mention that it was my guess?
> 
> If it is occasional use then why not rent?
> 
> Here's another guess, 2024 is also the year I expect the R1, R5 Mark II & R6 Mark II to be released.


Perhaps grammatical but I have seen that you mentioned it in another post.
Rent is not always easy or cheap like it is in the US/Canada. You can rent in Australia but it is expensive and has minimum rental periods. Canon Australia did try a system where owners could rent their own lenses to other people via a website where Canon paid for the insurance but it was closed within a couple of years.
https://kyoyu.canon.com.au/
I have a passing interest from a technical rather than purchase perspective for the R1 but not for the R5ii/R6ii... Maybe for the R5iii  
I have more of an interested for a RPii (ff base level body) though.


----------



## dolina (Aug 17, 2022)

David - Sydney said:


> Perhaps grammatical but I have seen that you mentioned it in another post.
> Rent is not always easy or cheap like it is in the US/Canada. You can rent in Australia but it is expensive and has minimum rental periods. Canon Australia did try a system where owners could rent their own lenses to other people via a website where Canon paid for the insurance but it was closed within a couple of years.
> https://kyoyu.canon.com.au/
> I have a passing interest from a technical rather than purchase perspective for the R1 but not for the R5ii/R6ii... Maybe for the R5iii
> I have more of an interested for a RPii (ff base level body) though.



I strive to avoid confusion by using very specific language.

By 2024 RF system would be 6 years old.

I know some countries have already ceased imports of further EF products to avoid slow moving & non-moving items.


----------



## David - Sydney (Aug 17, 2022)

dolina said:


> I strive to avoid confusion by using very specific language.
> 
> By 2024 RF system would be 6 years old.
> 
> I know some countries have already ceased imports of further EF products to avoid slow moving & non-moving items.


Then perhaps be specific....
I expect what you want to happen to occur by *year 2024 when I expect the EF system to cease production.*
My guess is your wanted outcome will come out by* 2024 when the EF system ceases being produced.
Given that EF system will be phased out by mid 20s*

I don't have an issue with Canon choosing to cease production or reduce the number of EF lenses they actively sell but they will be available to buy for a long time to come. There just isn't any clear reason to stop if Canon is still making money from them. 
Their R&D costs have been amortised to zero (except maybe the EF400/600mm)
There shouldn't be any manufacturing learning curve for their manufacturing cost
Parts costs should have been optimised by now but supply issues could impact this

Canon has and will surprise me and others with their decisions when it didn't seem logical to us but they haven't (to my knowledge) given any timeline indications for phasing out or stopping EF production.

Can you point to data for the countries that have stopped importing EF lenses? They may already have excess stock on hand to cover warranty and repairs but that would generally be at an individual lens level. EF-S lenses have reduced in range but are still essential whilst APS-C DLSRs are being sold and are the only option for UWA (adapted) focal range for the R7/10 today.


----------



## Mmm Toast (Aug 17, 2022)

That 21-80 1.5 would be a glorious if it was for full frame.


----------



## dolina (Aug 17, 2022)

David - Sydney said:


> Then perhaps be specific....
> I expect what you want to happen to occur by *year 2024 when I expect the EF system to cease production.*
> My guess is your wanted outcome will come out by* 2024 when the EF system ceases being produced.
> Given that EF system will be phased out by mid 20s*
> ...



My most recent posts are rather specific.

RF & last EF 400 & 600 are identical in lens formula. What makes them distinct would be the built-in flange adapter (painted in silver) on the EF SKU.

IIRC Canon offered a service to FD L lens owners to convert to EF mount L lens when EF system was starting out. That may be offered in the future for the last EF L lens SKUs. Would not be surprised if Canon removes it for a fee or free.






Above is a line chart with worldwide shipping data from CIPA that shows the history of both dSLR & MILC bodies from year 2003-onwards.

Last 2 years have dSLRs selling less than MILCs. Give it 2 more years and it would be nearing zero.

I also said EF *products* and not _lenses. _

No importer will publicly disclose that they stopped importing as it would cause an Osborne effect on whatever new old stock they have on hand.


----------



## Pixel (Aug 17, 2022)

A lightweight 120-300 2.8 is ALL I want and I'll keep crowing until I get one.


----------



## David - Sydney (Aug 17, 2022)

dolina said:


> My most recent posts are rather specific.
> 
> RF & last EF 400 & 600 are identical in lens formula. What makes them distinct would be the built-in flange adapter (painted in silver) on the EF SKU.
> 
> ...


You are using logic and conjecture as if it is fact.

As little as 2 weeks ago, Canon made this statement:
"Q5. What is your outlook for the camera market going forward? Additionally, will you continue to offer both Mirrorless and DSLR cameras?
A5. The camera market has largely bottomed out at its current size. Going forward, we expect the professional and advanced amateur segment to expand further and that products will become more highly developed. Accordingly, we expect the overall market to grow from now on. As for DSLR cameras, we will continue to supply products as long as there is demand."

Yes the chart shows the trend but Canon's statement contradicts your assertion about ceasing production for either DLSR bodies or EF/EF-S lenses any time soon. To say that demand would go "nearing zero" is assumption and not borne out by any facts. Even if you assume a bell curve then it still doesn't go to zero.

My conjecture is that Canon will continue to make EF-S DLSRs and associated lenses until there is a RF equivalent product at the same price level. The RF ecosystem is nowhere near a Rebel T100 with kit lens for USD379. It could be that Canon retires either the EF-S system or the M ecosystem but they seem content to keep both for the moment.

"I know some countries have already ceased imports of further EF products to avoid slow moving & non-moving items."
If you know but it is not public then say so but until there is external information then it is your conjecture.

I don't think that the Osbourne effect is of value for this discussion. Canon has announced products that have taken some time to be available - certainly available in significant volume but I haven't seen any figures showing current products are suffering sales because of this.
Do you have an example to share?


----------



## jeffa4444 (Aug 17, 2022)

These are almost certainly cinematography designs given the f1.5 although that would normally be T 1.5


----------



## Del Paso (Aug 17, 2022)

Mmm Toast said:


> That 21-80 1.5 would be a glorious if it was for full frame.


Can I place a preorder for it right now?
That lens would be an ideal combo with the 100-400 or 100-500 when hiking. 2 bodies, almost all needs covered!
But...I'm afraid it's either a cine or an APS/C lens


----------



## Cochese (Aug 17, 2022)

jeffa4444 said:


> These are almost certainly cinematography designs given the f1.5 although that would normally be T 1.5



This is what I was thinking. Lenses aimed more for cinema than photos


----------



## CanonGrunt (Aug 17, 2022)

Looks heavy…


----------



## bbasiaga (Aug 17, 2022)

another list of >$3k USD lenses? I'm all for innovation, but would like some I could afford. 

-Brian


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Aug 17, 2022)

David - Sydney said:


> Can you point to where Canon has stated that EF lens production will cease in 2024?


That was a prediction based on data trends.
It was not based on company statements.
It was also not presented as a factual statement.


----------



## Juangrande (Aug 17, 2022)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...


Those maximum apertures stops sound more like Cinema lenses then still lenses. Still lenses (rarely) deviate from the typical numbers 1.2, 1.4, 1.8, 2, 2.8 etc… but I’ve noticed cinema lens often end in odd numbers in the decimal.


----------



## navastronia (Aug 17, 2022)

Canon 21-80 f/1.5​_One lens to rule them all, one lens to find them, one lens to bring them all, and in the darkness bind them!_

EDIT: not gonna lie, I would pay 4K for this if it included a zoom lock switch


----------



## cpreston (Aug 17, 2022)

Juangrande said:


> Those maximum apertures stops sound more like Cinema lenses then still lenses. Still lenses (rarely) deviate from the typical numbers 1.2, 1.4, 1.8, 2, 2.8 etc… but I’ve noticed cinema lens often end in odd numbers in the decimal.


I would also guess this would be expensive cinema glass. The reason that the T numbers are odd on Canon glass, though, is because they are just taking the even focal length number and adding 0.1. I don't think many companies even measure the transmission, they just add 0.1 since the transmission will never be 100% of the theoretical f stop number. An f/1.5 would likely be a T1.6.


----------



## Nemorino (Aug 17, 2022)

Juangrande said:


> Those maximum apertures stops sound more like Cinema lenses then still lenses. Still lenses (rarely) deviate from the typical numbers 1.2, 1.4, 1.8, 2, 2.8 etc…


If you have a look at other lens patents, you will see a lot strange aperture numbers like 2.9 or 4.1 etc in the specs. The marketing division will sell them as 2.8 or 4.
For example








Patent: Canon patents RF 200mm f/2L IS, RF 300mm f/2.8L IS and RF 500mm f/4L IS optical formulas


Canon is obviously working on RF mount versions of the legendary EF 200mm f/2L IS, EF 300mm f/2.8L IS and EF 500mm f/4L IS lenses. I expect the 300mm and 500mm



www.canonrumors.com





And of cause the 300mm ist a 292.53mm in the specs.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Aug 17, 2022)

Juangrande said:


> Those maximum apertures stops sound more like Cinema lenses then still lenses. Still lenses (rarely) deviate from the typical numbers 1.2, 1.4, 1.8, 2, 2.8 etc… but I’ve noticed cinema lens often end in odd numbers in the decimal.


Cinema lenses usually go by T Stop.
For Canon, F Stops are usually even so when they have cine versions of photo lenses those ten to have off F stop numbers.
Like 50 f/1.2 and 50 T1.3 being different versions of the same lens.
Canon has dedicated cinema lenses with both odd and even F stops.
An F stop of 1.5 will probably be a T stop of 1.6 or so.
For comparison, those Sigma f/1.8 zooms have a T stop of 2.


----------



## SnowMiku (Aug 18, 2022)

dolina said:


> If my 2008 self saw those two 1kg lenses as an alternative over a 4.5kg EF 800mm & 5.4kg EF 600mm then odds are I'd get the f/11 copies as I am lazy in carrying things and the risk of being hassled over the gear is reduced to near nil.



I've even had people comment about my gear when I use a 700D and 55-250mm thinking it's professional gear. But when I use the M5 and 18-150mm no one cares. You will still get people approaching you with the RF 600mm and 800mm, but not as much as the big whites.


----------



## dolina (Aug 18, 2022)

SnowMiku said:


> I've even had people comment about my gear when I use a 700D and 55-250mm thinking it's professional gear. But when I use the M5 and 18-150mm no one cares. You will still get people approaching you with the RF 600mm and 800mm, but not as much as the big whites.


That has been my experience as well. You're more likely to see a Ferrari or McLaren than fast white primes.

This will only entificy as fewer and fewer people buy dedicated still cameras into the future.


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Aug 18, 2022)

As it is Canon, they will likely print "f/1.4" on those f/1.5 lenses. Sadly Canon cheats a little when it comes to specs. A 600mm lens is only 585mm and so on. I wish there were laws that require companies to fulfil at least the promised specs. It seems a few percent of cheating is legal and they alway try to use those few percent to their advantage.

I wish the industry would also switch to T-stops instead of F-stops like it is already done for professional video lenses. There are huge differences between the same F-stops of two different lenses. Only with T-stops the amount of light would always be the same.


----------



## koenkooi (Aug 18, 2022)

Skyscraperfan said:


> As it is Canon, they will likely print "f/1.4" on those f/1.5 lenses. Sadly Canon cheats a little when it comes to specs. A 600mm lens is only 585mm and so on. I wish there were laws that require companies to fulfil at least the promised specs. It seems a few percent of cheating is legal and they alway try to use those few percent to their advantage.
> 
> I wish the industry would also switch to T-stops instead of F-stops like it is already done for professional video lenses. There are huge differences between the same F-stops of two different lenses. Only with T-stops the amount of light would always be the same.


For prepackaged things we have https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_sign over here in Europe. Nothing is absolute, but it'd be nice to have guidelines on how much leeway there is on specs


----------



## kaihp (Aug 18, 2022)

koenkooi said:


> For prepackaged things we have https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_sign over here in Europe. Nothing is absolute, but it'd be nice to have guidelines on how much leeway there is on specs


Wow. Seen this sign gazillions of times, never stopped to ponder that it meaning "estimated". TIL.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 18, 2022)

Skyscraperfan said:


> As it is Canon, they will likely print "f/1.4" on those f/1.5 lenses. Sadly Canon cheats a little when it comes to specs. A 600mm lens is only 585mm and so on.


Your implication seems to be that when Nikon or Sony put out an f/1.4 or 600mm lens, it’s actually f/1.4 or 600mm and not something slower or shorter that’s rounded to the specified value. Do you believe that’s true?


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Aug 18, 2022)

No, I do not think that the others cheat less, but I only have Canon gear and it annoys me when a really expensive lens cheats.


----------



## peters (Aug 18, 2022)

This would be epic!

Canon 21-80 f/1.5​Would be a total nobrainer and a goto lense for any event or wedding photographer. I doubt that this is realistic on fullframe though...


----------



## AlanF (Aug 18, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Your implication seems to be that when Nikon or Sony put out an f/1.4 or 600mm lens, it’s actually f/1.4 or 600mm and not something slower or shorter that’s rounded to the specified value. Do you believe that’s true?


The patent for the RF 300mm f/2.8 has it as 292.53mm f/2.9. Are you still going to pre-order?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 18, 2022)

AlanF said:


> The patent for the RF 300mm f/2.8 has it as 292.53mm f/2.9. Are you still going to pre-order?


Not anymore. That sort of behavior is unacceptable for a manufacturer and I'm going to stick it to Canon by not buying their game or their lens.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Aug 18, 2022)

peters said:


> This would be epic!
> 
> Canon 21-80 f/1.5​Would be a total nobrainer and a goto lense for any event or wedding photographer. I doubt that this is realistic on fullframe though...


18-45 and 40-100 seem like a more likely combination.
These lenses would also probably be very expensive.


----------



## BakaBokeh (Aug 18, 2022)

21-80 f/1.5 is the bombshell that just walked in the room, and everyone's jaw just dropped

if it's FF, and 28-70 f2 is any indication, this is gonna be a thicc lens!


----------



## unfocused (Aug 18, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Not anymore. That sort of behavior is unacceptable for a manufacturer and I'm going to stick it to Canon by not buying their game or their lens.


Careful Neuro. If you don't use the [/sarcasm] tag people will believe you.


----------



## Wilfried Flitser (Aug 19, 2022)

45-130 f/2.2 is exelent for portait in all circumstances. I hope a minimum focus distance 30 cm and IS.


----------



## unfocused (Aug 19, 2022)

People might need a reminder that patents are not product announcements.


----------



## Etienne (Aug 19, 2022)

I'm so glad that Canon finally moved into the mirrorless market so that we can enjoy the benefits of small, lightweight gear.


----------



## [email protected] (Aug 20, 2022)

entoman said:


> All jolly exciting I'm sure, but I really do wish Canon and certain other manufacturers would get over their obsession with ridiculously wide aperture lenses. With one or two exceptions (e.g. 70-200mm F4), we only have two choices - either ludicrously expensive ultra-wide aperture L lenses, or cheapo budget lenses with barely usable apertures such as the RF 600mm and 800mm F11. It's one extreme or the other. Whatever happened to high quality middle-of-the-road lenses with modest maximum apertures?


Are you kidding right now? Aside from the RF 50mm f/1.8, all of Canon's cheaper lenses seem to actually be really good, sharp, affordable options.


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Aug 20, 2022)

AlanF said:


> The patent for the RF 300mm f/2.8 has it as 292.53mm f/2.9. Are you still going to pre-order?


If there is an optical formula for 292.53mm, shouldn't it be possible to adjust it to exactly 300mm by changing some distances or curvatures of lenses? The only problem is that it might no longer fit into a specific filter thread size. So the worst that could happen it that you need the next bigger filter thread.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 20, 2022)

Skyscraperfan said:


> If there is an optical formula for 292.53mm, shouldn't it be possible to adjust it to exactly 300mm by changing some distances or curvatures of lenses? The only problem is that it might no longer fit into a specific filter thread size. So the worst that could happen it that you need the next bigger filter thread.


Of course it’s possible. This type of lens doesn’t take front filters, though, so that’s irrelevant. The worst that could happen from Canon’s perspective is that more materials would be required to make a 300mm lens than a 292.53mm lens, and that would eat into their profits.


----------



## entoman (Aug 20, 2022)

[email protected] said:


> Are you kidding right now? Aside from the RF 50mm f/1.8, all of Canon's cheaper lenses seem to actually be really good, sharp, affordable options.


No, I'm not kidding at all. Most (but NOT all) of the budget lenses are sharp (I actually have the affordable RF 800mm F11) - the problem is that there are very few middle-of-the-road lenses. Not everyone wants or needs ultra-wide apertures, and few can afford them. Likewise, not everyone wants to settle for the opposite end of the scale, with limited maximum apertures and lack of weather-sealing. Canon caters well for pros and rich amateurs with it's big white primes and wide-aperture wide-angles. Fine and dandy. Canon caters well for novices and those on bottom-end budget. Again, fine and dandy. But I think there are a hell of a lot of people, probably the majority of enthusiasts, who would rather have e.g. F4 than F1.8, but want the build-quality and weather-sealing of an L lens. There's no middle ground.


----------



## AlanF (Aug 20, 2022)

Skyscraperfan said:


> If there is an optical formula for 292.53mm, shouldn't it be possible to adjust it to exactly 300mm by changing some distances or curvatures of lenses? The only problem is that it might no longer fit into a specific filter thread size. So the worst that could happen it that you need the next bigger filter thread.


These big whites don't have front filter threads, they have a drop-in rear 52mm so that's not relevant. What is relevant is the size of the front element canon has to make and its cost. A true 300mm f/2.8 would have a front lens diameter of 107.1mm. I wonder if someone measures their current 300mm f/2.8 II it would be closer to 100mm, which is about what a 292.53mm f/ 2.9 needs.


----------



## AlanF (Aug 20, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Of course it’s possible. This type of lens doesn’t take front filters, though, so that’s irrelevant. The worst that could happen from Canon’s perspective is that more materials would be required to make a 300mm lens than a 292.53mm lens, and that would eat into their profits.


Sorry neuro, I replied the same before reading yours as I picked it up as reply to my post.


----------



## unfocused (Aug 20, 2022)

[email protected] said:


> Are you kidding right now? Aside from the RF 50mm f/1.8, all of Canon's cheaper lenses seem to actually be really good, sharp, affordable options.





entoman said:


> No, I'm not kidding at all. Most (but NOT all) of the budget lenses are sharp (I actually have the affordable RF 800mm F11) - the problem is that there are very few middle-of-the-road lenses. Not everyone wants or needs ultra-wide apertures, and few can afford them. Likewise, not everyone wants to settle for the opposite end of the scale, with limited maximum apertures and lack of weather-sealing. Canon caters well for pros and rich amateurs with it's big white primes and wide-aperture wide-angles. Fine and dandy. Canon caters well for novices and those on bottom-end budget. Again, fine and dandy. But I think there are a hell of a lot of people, probably the majority of enthusiasts, who would rather have e.g. F4 than F1.8, but want the build-quality and weather-sealing of an L lens. There's no middle ground.


F4 14-35 L; f4 24-105 L; f4 70-200 L. What's missing?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 20, 2022)

entoman said:


> No, I'm not kidding at all. Most (but NOT all) of the budget lenses are sharp (I actually have the affordable RF 800mm F11) - the problem is that there are very few middle-of-the-road lenses. Not everyone wants or needs ultra-wide apertures, and few can afford them. Likewise, not everyone wants to settle for the opposite end of the scale, with limited maximum apertures and lack of weather-sealing. Canon caters well for pros and rich amateurs with it's big white primes and wide-aperture wide-angles. Fine and dandy. Canon caters well for novices and those on bottom-end budget. Again, fine and dandy. But I think there are a hell of a lot of people, probably the majority of enthusiasts, who would rather have e.g. F4 than F1.8, but want the build-quality and weather-sealing of an L lens. There's no middle ground.


Any time someone makes claims such as, "There are a hell of a lot of people, probably the majority who want [fill in the blank]," I have to wonder...who knows more about the market – the manufacturer that dominates it, or the individual claiming to know what 'a hell of a lot of people' want?

If Canon is making lenses for entry-level consumers and for wealthy enthusiasts and pros, and not much in between, why would they be leaving all that money on the table from the 'majority of enthusiasts' who want something in between? Could it be that they know more about the market than you? (That’s rhetorical, obviously.)

If you look at the RF lineup, there is a good spread for the ‘common’ lens types, IMO. Four FF standard zooms from $40 to $3100. Three FF UWA zooms from $550 to $2400. Four telephoto zooms from $650 to $2900. Fewer prime options, but zooms were Canon’s priority for obvious reasons.

When you say ‘e.g. F4 than F1.8, but want the build-quality and weather-sealing of an L lens,’ it sounds like you’re hoping for cheap L-series lenses or weather sealed non-L lenses. I would not recommend holding your breath waiting for either.


----------



## entoman (Aug 20, 2022)

unfocused said:


> F4 14-35 L; f4 24-105 L; f4 70-200 L. What's missing?


Primes with modest apertures and L build quality/durability/weather-sealing.

RF 24mm F2.8L - not everyone wants or needs F1.4 or F2
RF 35mm F2.8L - ditto
RF 85mm F2.8L - ditto
RF 100mm F4L macro - who shoots 100mm macro at 2.8 on mirrorless?
RF 180mm F5.6L macro - who shoots 180mm unstabilised macro at F3.5 on mirrorless?
RF 300mm F4L - not everyone wants to lug a F2.8 monster or to pay the cost
RF 400mm F5.6L - ditto

and zooms such as:

RF 70-300mm F4-5.6L - oddly missing from the range

to name just a few.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 20, 2022)

entoman said:


> Primes with modest apertures and L build quality/durability/weather-sealing.


So, slow L-series primes without the L moniker. Yeah, good luck with that.


----------



## entoman (Aug 20, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> So, slow L-series primes without the L moniker. Yeah, good luck with that.


No, what I want are true L lenses, just lighter, more affordable and with smaller maximum apertures. I don't think that is too much to ask, and I firmly believe there would be a viable market for such lenses. Examples - Canon made an EF 300mm F4L - not replaced with RF. Likewise they made an excellent EF 70-300mm that hasn't been replaced. Both were popular lenses (no I don't have the sales figures and neither do you, but I see them in regular use).

And as I suggested - who the hell wants or needs macro lenses with F2 or F2.8 apertures anymore? Such wide apertures were needed on DSLR lenses to ensure a bright OVF, but they ain't needed on mirrorless which will produce a bright EVF even at F16. I'd guess that 98% of macro shooters NEVER shoot wider than F5.6, even if focus-stacking.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 20, 2022)

entoman said:


> No, what I want are true L lenses, just lighter, more affordable and with smaller maximum apertures. I don't think that is too much to ask, and I firmly believe there would be a viable market for such lenses.


What matters is whether or not Canon believes it. Given the dearth of such lenses in both the EF and RF mounts, evidence suggests they don’t.



entoman said:


> Examples - Canon made an EF 300mm F4L - not replaced with RF.


Not updated since it launched late in the last millennium, to be accurate…a >2-decade span of time that included the heyday of DSLRs. It’s no coincidence that the 400/5.6 and 300/4 were not updated after the 100-400L launched, and that the 100-400 saw a MkII and early conversion to RF as the 100-500L. I highly doubt we’ll ever see an RF 300/4 or 400/5.6.



entoman said:


> Likewise they made an excellent EF 70-300mm that hasn't been replaced. Both were popular lenses (no I don't have the sales figures and neither do you, but I see them in regular use).


We might see an RF 70-300L or similar at some point. I had one, it was a decent lens but the IQ was mediocre for an L lens, similar to the 24-105/4. Given the higher MP counts, one could argue that the RF 70-200/4 and some cropping is an effective replacement for the EF 70-300L.



entoman said:


> And as I suggested - who the hell wants or needs macro lenses with F2 or F2.8 apertures anymore? Such wide apertures were needed on DSLR lenses to ensure a bright OVF, but they ain't needed on mirrorless which will produce a bright EVF even at F16. I'd guess that 98% of macro shooters NEVER shoot wider than F5.6, even if focus-stacking.


Given your focus, perhaps you’re ignoring the fact that macro lenses have other uses. The RF 85/2 is an excellent portrait prime, as are the 100/2.8 Macro lenses. The RF wide, fast(ish) primes with macro are just that – wide primes that also shoot macro.

The 180/3.5L was more of a dedicated macro lens. It’s 26 years old and was never updated, just like the MP-E 65 from 23 years ago.

So, we have dedicated macro lenses that languish, and multipurpose lenses with macro capability that are much more frequently updated and released in multiple mounts (EF, EF-S, EF-M and RF). It appears that dedicated macro lenses aren't especially popular, but rather that the market prefers macro as more of a beneficial add-on. As an ENTOman, I suspect you’re biased in favor of the macro-specific use case.


----------



## unfocused (Aug 20, 2022)

entoman said:


> Primes with modest apertures and L build quality/durability/weather-sealing.
> 
> RF 24mm F2.8L - not everyone wants or needs F1.4 or F2
> RF 35mm F2.8L - ditto
> ...


Composed this while @neuroanatomist was responding. He covered most of what I would say.

But, expanding on some of his points: Canon already makes faster, lower cost versions of several of your dream lenses. Who is going to pay more for a slower lens just because it has a red ring on it?

Today's zooms are as good as primes. First you said you wanted f4 lenses. But, when I listed the f4 zooms, you switched to f2.8. Moving the goal posts are we?

You seem unduly concerned about the "L" designation. You are complaining about the cost of RF lenses and at the same time turning up your nose at the lower cost RF lenses, which are generally good lenses. The "L" designation is mostly a marketing tool by Canon that has no consistent definition. It's whatever they want it to be.


----------



## mb66energy (Aug 21, 2022)

navastronia said:


> Canon 21-80 f/1.5​_One lens to rule them all, one lens to find them, one lens to bring them all, and in the darkness bind them!_
> 
> EDIT: not gonna lie, I would pay 4K for this if it included a zoom lock switch


A one year membership in a fitness center is also included.
Just doing my workout with the 100-400 EF lens ...


----------



## entoman (Aug 21, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> What matters is whether or not Canon believes it. Given the dearth of such lenses in both the EF and RF mounts, evidence suggests they don’t.
> 
> 
> Not updated since it launched late in the last millennium, to be accurate…a >2-decade span of time that included the heyday of DSLRs. It’s no coincidence that the 400/5.6 and 300/4 were not updated after the 100-400L launched, and that the 100-400 saw a MkII and early conversion to RF as the 100-500L. I highly doubt we’ll ever see an RF 300/4 or 400/5.6.
> ...


Yep, I accept all those points neuro, but it still doesn't alter the fact that I *want* some of those "missing" middle-of-the-road optics. Canon are in business to make money and they are pretty good at knowing what will sell and what won't sell. Same with Apple, who have a very similar "we know what you want" philosophy. But sometimes they don't know what we want, or what will sell, unless we tell them, and that was the point of my original post.


----------



## entoman (Aug 21, 2022)

unfocused said:


> Who is going to pay more for a slower lens just because it has a red ring on it?
> 
> You seem unduly concerned about the "L" designation. You are complaining about the cost of RF lenses and at the same time turning up your nose at the lower cost RF lenses, which are generally good lenses. The "L" designation is mostly a marketing tool by Canon that has no consistent definition. It's whatever they want it to be.


Me. I'd pay more (compared to a budget non-L lens) for a really good L lens, even if it had a limited maximum aperture. Why? - Because I want a more compact and lightweight lens than the wide-aperture exotica. And I want L build quality because I use my gear in adverse conditions and want it to last a few years. Of course the red ring and L designations are marketing tools, but they also tell me that I'm getting the sharpest glass, the fastest AF motors and the best build quality that Canon can offer.


----------



## AlanF (Aug 21, 2022)

mb66energy said:


> A one year membership in a fitness center is also included.
> Just doing my workout with the 100-400 EF lens ...


A 21-80 f/1.5 would be of very similar size to a 105-400mm f/7.5, considerably lighter than the EF 100-400mm and hardly more than the RF 100-400mm f/8 lightweight!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 21, 2022)

entoman said:


> Yep, I accept all those points neuro, but it still doesn't alter the fact that I *want* some of those "missing" middle-of-the-road optics. Canon are in business to make money and they are pretty good at knowing what will sell and what won't sell. Same with Apple, who have a very similar "we know what you want" philosophy. But sometimes they don't know what we want, or what will sell, unless we tell them, and that was the point of my original post.


I see. So we’ve gone from ‘a majority of enthusiasts want…’ to ‘I want…’. 

I trust you’ve been around here long enough to know that posting here isn’t telling Canon anything. That pretty much obviates the point of your original post.


----------



## Johnw (Aug 22, 2022)

entoman said:


> RF 24mm F2.8L - not everyone wants or needs F1.4 or F2
> RF 35mm F2.8L - ditto
> RF 85mm F2.8L - ditto



I don't really get the appeal of a prime series at 2.8 though, that seems rather slow. I would also like to see more lenses in the category you are wanting, L quality mid level lenses but not as high priced as the 1.2s. But I see that more like a line of 1.4s such as the EF 50/85 1.4 etc. Generally falling more into the mid-range I usually stick with the f/4 zooms but then for primes if I'm going to get a prime I usually want at least 2 stops better than what I have on a zoom to make it worth it for purchasing another lens, which would mean at least f/2, a 3 stop improvement to 1.4 would likely get me even more interested.


----------



## koenkooi (Aug 22, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Any time someone makes claims such as, "There are a hell of a lot of people, probably the majority who want [fill in the blank]," I have to wonder...who knows more about the market – the manufacturer that dominates it, or the individual claiming to know what 'a hell of a lot of people' want?
> 
> If Canon is making lenses for entry-level consumers and for wealthy enthusiasts and pros, and not much in between, why would they be leaving all that money on the table from the 'majority of enthusiasts' who want something in between? Could it be that they know more about the market than you? (That’s rhetorical, obviously.)
> 
> [..]


I agree with your premise, but we also have to keep in mind that Canon seems to have trouble meeting demand for new releases and in interviews have said their lens design department is a bit understaffed.
And that would mean that Canon decided that leaving ‘in-between’ money on the table is better than designing and producing 3 lines in parallel.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 22, 2022)

koenkooi said:


> I agree with your premise, but we also have to keep in mind that Canon seems to have trouble meeting demand for new releases and in interviews have said their lens design department is a bit understaffed.
> And that would mean that Canon decided that leaving ‘in-between’ money on the table is better than designing and producing 3 lines in parallel.


Certainly more RF lens launches are coming, and the pace has been negatively impacted by supply and personnel constraints. But @entoman is arguing there’s a demand for lenses like a 35mm f/2.8L, and I don’t believe Canon will make RF lenses of that ilk ever, regardless of resource constraints. Canon will make a 35/1.2 or 1.4 L, certainly. They have an RF 35/1.8 Macro costing $500. I highly doubt they’ll make a 35/2.8, but if they do it sure as heck won’t be an L-series lens.


----------



## entoman (Aug 22, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> I see. So we’ve gone from ‘*probably* a majority of enthusiasts want…’ to ‘I want…’. - you conveniently missed out "probably"
> 
> I trust you’ve been around here long enough to know that posting here isn’t telling Canon anything. That pretty much obviates the point of your original post.


A bit tetchy neuro!

"probably a majority of enthusiasts want" and "I want" are not mutually exclusive - I think there would be a huge demand for more middle-of-the-road" L quality lenses. You may think differently, but that doesn't prove that you are right and I'm wrong, or vice versa.

I'm not entirely convinced that "posting here isn't telling Canon anything". I don't for one second claim to be an expert on corporate business practices, but if I was in charge of a huge company like Canon, I'd *want* to know what my customers think, and I'd pay a small team specifically to read on-line reviews *and* gear forums relating to my products!

... and if *you* believe that "posting here isn't telling Canon anything", what is the point of you or anyone else posting on this site?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 22, 2022)

entoman said:


> "probably a majority of enthusiasts want" and "I want" are not mutually exclusive - I think there would be a huge demand for more middle-of-the-road" L quality lenses. You may think differently, but that doesn't prove that you are right and I'm wrong, or vice versa.


The evidence suggests differently. Where was the EF 35/2.8L? Where was the EF 24/2.8L? They were never made. There were very few 'middle of the road' L-series lenses, e.g the 200/2.8L and the 70-200/4L non-IS, those were made back in the 1990s and not updated since. As I said, that period includes the heyday of DSLRs. If there was a demand, Canon would have answered it. 

If you look at what Canon has said about L series lenses, the philosophy is really not consistent with narrow aperture primes in typical focal lengths. 



entoman said:


> I'm not entirely convinced that "posting here isn't telling Canon anything". I don't for one second claim to be an expert on corporate business practices, but if I was in charge of a huge company like Canon, I'd *want* to know what my customers think, and I'd pay a small team specifically to read on-line reviews *and* gear forums relating to my products!


Some time back, one of the mods mentioned he had looked for Canon-owned IP address hits on the site, and there was just one in the logs. Canon has lots of ways to determine what customers think, the main one being what they buy. They also conduct customer surveys, I've received several. 

In any case, I haven't seen anyone but you clamoring for slow, L-series primes like a 35/2.8L, and others here have posted they see no point in such lenses. So if your goal was to communicate demand to Canon, and _if_ Canon actually reads this post (LOL), then they'll come away with the conclusion that there isn't a demand for such lenses. We should also let them know that water is wet. That way they can learn two things they already knew. 



entoman said:


> ... and if *you* believe that "posting here isn't telling Canon anything", what is the point of you or anyone else posting on this site?


It's a discussion forum. The point is to discuss topics relevant to Canon gear and photography. If you believe the point of posting on this site is to communicate your desires to Canon, you're wasting your time.


----------



## entoman (Aug 22, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> It's a discussion forum. The point is to discuss topics relevant to Canon gear and photography. If you believe the point of posting on this site is to communicate your desires to Canon, you're wasting your time.


So a user's opinion about what items are available in Canon's range are irrelevant? Are we not allowed to express our opinions and desires my Lord?
Well sorry, but unlike some, I've never been a member of the "Canon can do no wrong" school of thinking - I give companies (and people) credit where it is due, and will criticise where I think it's deserved.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 22, 2022)

entoman said:


> So a user's opinion about what items are available in Canon's range are irrelevant? Are we not allowed to express our opinions and desires my Lord?


Overreact much? Please point out where I said you couldn't express your opinions and desires. That's rhetorical, I didn't – quite the opposite, I explicitly stated the point of posting here is to discuss things related to photo gear. 

My point, since you seem to have completely missed it, is that Canon is not paying any attention to the opinions and desires you express here. Express away, your fellow forum members are listening, even if Canon isn't.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 22, 2022)

entoman said:


> Well sorry, but unlike some, I've never been a member of the "Canon can do no wrong" school of thinking - I give companies (and people) credit where it is due, and will criticise where I think it's deserved.


I agree. People make mistakes and have foolish ideas, just like companies. Canon has made some major gaffes, but they are relatively few as supported by the fact that they've led the ILC market for >20 years and currently have ~50% of the market share. That's a good sign they don't make many missteps. 

I also criticize where deserved. For example, I think the suggestion that there's a large market for slow L-series primes is a foolish idea.


----------



## unfocused (Aug 22, 2022)

entoman said:


> So a user's opinion about what items are available in Canon's range are irrelevant? Are we not allowed to express our opinions and desires my Lord?
> Well sorry, but unlike some, I've never been a member of the "Canon can do no wrong" school of thinking - I give companies (and people) credit where it is due, and will criticise where I think it's deserved.





neuroanatomist said:


> I agree. People make mistakes and have foolish ideas, just like companies...I also criticize where deserved. For example, I think the suggestion that there's a large market for slow L-series primes is a foolish idea.


 We all have our fantasy lenses. Mine would be a Canon version of the third-party 150-600 f6.3 zooms, but lighter, better quality and faster focusing. But there is a world of difference between imagining a product and being upset that Canon doesn't produce your fantasy lenses. Insisting, without any evidence, that others share your fantasies is a bit delusional. Rejecting perfectly good lenses because they don't fit your preconceived notions is a recipe for making yourself unhappy. 

No one on this site has ever suggested "Canon can do no wrong." It's just that some of us recognize that Canon's objective is to give their shareholders a good return on investment and that requires them to make products that actually sell. A good share of those products have been ones that I want to buy. If Canon isn't making products that you want to buy then maybe you should look elsewhere.

One piece of practical advice: if you are concerned about weather sealing of non "L" lenses, just get yourself a storm cover. They are cheap and a lot more reliable than any 50-cent rubber gasket. I never trust Canon's weather sealing anyway. Instead I just use common sense. It's not like any of us on this forum are combat photographers.


----------



## entoman (Aug 22, 2022)

unfocused said:


> if you are concerned about weather sealing of non "L" lenses, just get yourself a storm cover. They are cheap and a lot more reliable than any 50-cent rubber gasket. I never trust Canon's weather sealing anyway. Instead I just use common sense. It's not like any of us on this forum are combat photographers.


On that point I agree. I permanently carry a polythene bin-liner in my pocket when out taking photos, just in case of unexpected rain. But note that weather-sealing isn't just about rain - it's also about dust and high humidity. I spend a lot of time in rainforest and cloudforest, which is extremely humid, and that's why I want L-level weather sealing. I'm usually in the field with 2 bodies and a couple of lenses, which is why I want compact and light lenses, as well as L quality and durability.


unfocused said:


> We all have our fantasy lenses. Mine would be a Canon version of the third-party 150-600 f6.3 zooms, but lighter, better quality and faster focusing. But there is a world of difference between imagining a product and being upset that Canon doesn't produce your fantasy lenses. Insisting, without any evidence, that others share your fantasies is a bit delusional. Rejecting perfectly good lenses because they don't fit your preconceived notions is a recipe for making yourself unhappy.


Several other CR forum users have stated that they want middle-of-the-road lenses, or "liked" posts where they have been proposed, so I'm certainly not alone or being delusional. CR forum users are only a very tiny percentage of Canon's customers, but we are probably quite representative of enthusiast buyers.

Nowhere have I "rejected" lenses that don't fit my own needs or wants - quite the opposite - I own several L lenses and a couple of Canon's "budget" RF lenses myself. What I'm advocating is a 3rd tier of middle-of-the-road lenses, so that Canon offers a more complete range. Why that upsets one or two people here is a mystery. I'm expressing a desire for lenses that I would like to be added, which is no different to you expressing a desire for a 150-600mm. I actually expressed a desire here for exactly the same thing a few months ago.


----------



## AlanF (Aug 22, 2022)

entoman said:


> On that point I agree. I permanently carry a polythene bin-liner in my pocket when out taking photos, just in case of unexpected rain. But note that weather-sealing isn't just about rain - it's also about dust and high humidity. I spend a lot of time in rainforest and cloudforest, which is extremely humid, and that's why I want L-level weather sealing. I'm usually in the field with 2 bodies and a couple of lenses, which is why I want compact and light lenses, as well as L quality and durability.


Do you cut eye slits in it so you can see when wearing it?


----------



## Jethro (Aug 22, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Some time back, one of the mods mentioned he had looked for Canon-owned IP address hits on the site, and there was just one in the logs. Canon has lots of ways to determine what customers think, the main one being what they buy. They also conduct customer surveys, I've received several.


It's always been surprising to me that they don't pay a little more notice to Rumour sites - not because the occupants of the forums of such sites are representative of the overall customer base (pretty obviously we're not), but because you'd think companies like Canon would have an interest with what rumours are circulating at a given time? There is clearly a fair degree of internal secrecy about development and (eg) release dates etc, so if there is a published rumour revealing something which is accurate, I would have thought that would be of interest. And I can't imagine they could be bothered using anything other than a Canon address to do the checking.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Aug 22, 2022)

Johnw said:


> I don't really get the appeal of a prime series at 2.8 though, that seems rather slow.


Some people like compact lenses.
I doubt they would be L lenses though.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Aug 22, 2022)

koenkooi said:


> I agree with your premise, but we also have to keep in mind that Canon seems to have trouble meeting demand for new releases and in interviews have said their lens design department is a bit understaffed.
> And that would mean that Canon decided that leaving ‘in-between’ money on the table is better than designing and producing 3 lines in parallel.


It seems like Sony is putting out far more lenses.


----------



## unfocused (Aug 23, 2022)

Jethro said:


> It's always been surprising to me that they don't pay a little more notice to Rumour sites - not because the occupants of the forums of such sites are representative of the overall customer base (pretty obviously we're not), but because you'd think companies like Canon would have an interest with what rumours are circulating at a given time? There is clearly a fair degree of internal secrecy about development and (eg) release dates etc, so if there is a published rumour revealing something which is accurate, I would have thought that would be of interest. And I can't imagine they could be bothered using anything other than a Canon address to do the checking.


Most likely it’s farmed out to a third party. There are a lot of companies that monitor the internet and produce daily summaries of what’s trending in relation to hundreds if not thousands of topics. Canon’s PR departments would have someone monitoring those reports and including the information in a daily briefing to executives if they see something of importance that’s trending. Something big like the R5 overheating issue no doubt made it into the daily summary but don’t kid yourself that any discussion that isn’t on multiple sites over multiple days will ever be seen by anyone other than maybe an intern, if that.


----------



## Jethro (Aug 23, 2022)

unfocused said:


> Most likely it’s farmed out to a third party. There are a lot of companies that monitor the internet and produce daily summaries of what’s trending in relation to hundreds if not thousands of topics. Canon’s PR departments would have someone monitoring those reports and including the information in a daily briefing to executives if they see something of importance that’s trending. Something big like the R5 overheating issue no doubt made it into the daily summary but don’t kid yourself that any discussion that isn’t on multiple sites over multiple days will ever be seen by anyone other than maybe an intern, if that.


I'm sure that's true. 

I was thinking more about actual leaks. So, there has been development of (say) a new APS-C R body for(likely) years. Or the R1 for a forthcoming version. It's got to a stage past patent, past R&D, into pre-production, and copies are out in the wild under confidentiality agreements. The marketing dept are doing (well) all the things they do for a living, and there are timelines for announcements etc. At some point, specs which are at least substantially correct end up on a rumours site with a CR2 or 3 rating. Wouldn't you want to know about that right away?


----------



## entoman (Aug 23, 2022)

AlanF said:


> Do you cut eye slits in it so you can see when wearing it?


Don't need to, I've got x-ray vision


----------



## entoman (Aug 23, 2022)

Jethro said:


> I'm sure that's true.
> 
> I was thinking more about actual leaks. So, there has been development of (say) a new APS-C R body for(likely) years. Or the R1 for a forthcoming version. It's got to a stage past patent, past R&D, into pre-production, and copies are out in the wild under confidentiality agreements. The marketing dept are doing (well) all the things they do for a living, and there are timelines for announcements etc. At some point, specs which are at least substantially correct end up on a rumours site with a CR2 or 3 rating. Wouldn't you want to know about that right away?


Early rumours are most likely just wish-lists toned down a little in line with logical expectations.

But when gear is "in the wild" being tested, the "substantially correct rumours" are more likely IMO to be intentional leaks, with the purpose of arousing interest and pre-orders for an about-to-be-released model. So Canon not only already know about them, they probably created them.


----------



## LogicExtremist (Aug 23, 2022)

Jethro said:


> It's always been surprising to me that they don't pay a little more notice to Rumour sites - not because the occupants of the forums of such sites are representative of the overall customer base (pretty obviously we're not), but because you'd think companies like Canon would have an interest with what rumours are circulating at a given time? There is clearly a fair degree of internal secrecy about development and (eg) release dates etc, so if there is a published rumour revealing something which is accurate, I would have thought that would be of interest. And I can't imagine they could be bothered using anything other than a Canon address to do the checking.


Two points to bring up, 

First, Canon's market research must come from somewhere, it's not like they invest huge amounts into product development randomly! They may consult with specialist groups of professionals for their expensive, premium pro range gear, but with their consumer level and currently absent mid-range series, it would likely be some other way. Whether they look at competitor's sales, or sales of their previous EF, EF-S and EF-M lines is a possibility, but that's a 'chicken and egg' problem if there aren't pre-existing products. They must have spoken to someone, conducted some kind of survey or research to figure that there was a market for relatively cheap, super-tele wildlife lenses before they controversially released the RF 600mm and 800mm lenses with f/11. They obviously didn't consult their pro market segment who use expensive primes and high-end zooms on that one. I have no definitive answers here, but it's something to think about.

Second, as someone familiar with running websites, I'd say that half the traffic or more on many sites comes from mobile devices. We can't assume that marketing researchers are all using desktops, and can therefore be tracked via their IP addresses. If they're using mobile devices, they may be connecting via 1. local company wifi 2. home or other remote wifi services or 3. mobile data. Only the former would use a corporate IP address if it wasn't going through a VPN. Many marketing types may be on the road often, or work from home part time. Just a few more possibilities... I'm not commenting on the likelihood that Canon scans online forums, just on the slip in reasoning. 

Also worth considering, while forums may not be representative of the whole market, they probably accurately represent a specific demographic, a subsection of the non-professional enthusiast market (who also like sharing their opinions and views online), so forums are probably not without value. It wouldn't be too hard to profile the users on this forum and DPR and others, to figure which part of the market they represent, what type of gear they buy and how often, whether they are early adopters and tech buffs, how much they generally spend, and whether they would likely unquestionably swallow up whatever Canon throws out on the market. Then again, that last point may be the reason why Canon might never need to read forums, they just might be able to get a rough idea of what might sell based off some other data, and chance it because this demographic will buy everything from low to high end released for the hybrid digital camera range..


----------



## AlanF (Aug 23, 2022)

LogicExtremist said:


> Two points to bring up,
> 
> First, Canon's market research must come from somewhere, it's not like they invest huge amounts into product development randomly! They may consult with specialist groups of professionals for their expensive, premium pro range gear, but with their consumer level and currently absent mid-range series, it would likely be some other way. Whether they look at competitor's sales, or sales of their previous EF, EF-S and EF-M lines is a possibility, but that's a 'chicken and egg' problem if there aren't pre-existing products. They must have spoken to someone, conducted some kind of survey or research to figure that there was a market for relatively cheap, super-tele wildlife lenses before they controversially released the RF 600mm and 800mm lenses with f/11. They obviously didn't consult their pro market segment who use expensive primes and high-end zooms on that one. I have no definitive answers here, but it's something to think about.
> 
> ...


I'm sure they have reports back from forums. For example, they will read that we would love to have variable fps for the electronic shutter for the R5. So, they won't implement it with a firmware update and will have it as a feature of the R5 II that we we will have to pay for. Similarly, they won't remove its unnecessary 30 minute limit. Now you might think I am jesting, but many a true word in jest.


----------



## LogicExtremist (Aug 23, 2022)

entoman said:


> Early rumours are most likely just wish-lists toned down a little in line with logical expectations.
> 
> But when gear is "in the wild" being tested, the "substantially correct rumours" are more likely IMO to be intentional leaks, with the purpose of arousing interest and pre-orders for an about-to-be-released model. So Canon not only already know about them, they probably created them.


Would not be surprised if the marketing departments intentionally leak out rumour info, it would just help build the marketing hype to drive hapless consumers into gear-lust frenzy, much like their drip-feed pre-release product updates, and pre-release product reviews. They drag it out, it gets the speculation buzzing on the forums (which is all free product promotion) which drives up (or artificially creates) demand (sometimes where there is none), and the pre-orders come flooding in. In what can be described as an act of company loyalty and brand faith. people gladly hand over their money for products they've never seen before, that have never been tested by an independent reviewer. I suppose people in the US have the luxury of going on a spending and unboxing orgy, experiencing buyer's remorse, then sending it all back. Can't do that in too many countries. Got to love the allure of effective marketing, it's the type of emotional manipulation that politicians dream of being able to do lol!


----------



## LogicExtremist (Aug 23, 2022)

AlanF said:


> I'm sure they have reports back from forums. For example, they will read that we would love to have variable fps for the electronic shutter for the R5. So, they won't implement it with a firmware update and will have it as a feature of the R5 II that we we will have to pay for. Similarly, they won't remove its unnecessary 30 minute limit. Now you might think I am jesting, but many a true word in jest.


I can see that happening, strategic market segmentation, you want it, you pay for it in the 'new and improved' model lol! 

I'm sure the R5 overheating saga that saturated the forums, YouTube reviews and blogs must have reached Canon via these means. I can't imagine it would have been solely from tech support calls, as it would be so easy for Canon tech support to cite some official company line with disclaimer and just brush it off. Guessing they get their negative feedback online somewhere!! Perhaps people need to complain more online???


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Aug 23, 2022)

entoman said:


> But when gear is "in the wild" being tested, the "substantially correct rumours" are more likely IMO to be intentional leaks,


I am not sure that I agree with that.
Once a product is in the wild leaks are pretty much inevitable.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Aug 23, 2022)

LogicExtremist said:


> Would not be surprised if the marketing departments intentionally leak out rumour info


I would be surprised if they didn't.


----------



## entoman (Aug 23, 2022)

EOS 4 Life said:


> I am not sure that I agree with that.
> Once a product is in the wild leaks are pretty much inevitable.


I would have thought that the pros testing pre-production gear in the wild, would have to sign NDAs in order to get access to the gear. It would be very foolish for them to leak info if that is the case. An onlooker might recognise something as being a new model, but would find it pretty hard to work out the specifications. "Leaks" about specification, once gear is in the wild, IMO originate from the manufacturers, and are part of the strategy to drive up demand. It stimulates pre-orders, and helps manufacturers gauge demand and set production targets.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Aug 23, 2022)

entoman said:


> I would have thought that the pros testing pre-production gear in the wild, would have to sign NDAs


The whole rest of the world that they are testing in is filled with people who have not signed NDAs.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 23, 2022)

EOS 4 Life said:


> The whole rest of the world that they are testing in is filled with people who have not signed NDAs.


True, but I haven't seen sensor types, MP counts, frame rates, or any other such specifications printed on cameras. And such cameras would not have a badge or more likely have the badge of an existing camera with a similar appearance (e.g. slap the R3 batch on an R1 being field tested).


----------



## entoman (Aug 23, 2022)

EOS 4 Life said:


> The whole rest of the world that they are testing in is filled with people who have not signed NDAs.


Of course not, but the rest of the world don't have the cameras in their hands, and can't know the specifications. The only people with that knowledge are the pros doing the testing, and the people in and outside of Canon who are involved in preparing marketing material. And all of them will have signed NDAs. Think of it like this - once the cameras are in pre-production and being tested, why *wouldn't* Canon be happy to "leak" information and drive up pre-orders?


----------



## LogicExtremist (Aug 23, 2022)

EOS 4 Life said:


> The whole rest of the world that they are testing in is filled with people who have not signed NDAs.


If you recall the mystery about how many MP the R5 was, pro photogs were spotted using it out in the field but they wouldn't say how many MP it was. 
I get what you're saying, at some of the expos they had new cameras in glass cabinets (look but don't touch), but they allowed participants to take photos, so people got an idea of the controls and layout, but no technical specs. I would assume they're not fussed about that part getting out.


----------



## Johnw (Aug 23, 2022)

EOS 4 Life said:


> Some people like compact lenses.



RF 24/1.8 = 270g. RF 50/1.8 = 160g. RF 35/1.8 = 305g.

Those are all pretty compact. I think Canon has shown they can do compact prime lenses with larger apertures than f/2.8.


----------

