Wherein we opine on more or less anything that strikes our fancy.

Canon 200-800mm?6 October 2026   ▲

In a word, no.  Nikon has handholdable supertelephoto lens choices (400-800mm), zoom and prime, budget and pro quality.  Sony likewise has choices for both budgets and for fixed and zoom.  But Canon?  The only entry is the tepid RF200-800mm f6.3-9 budget zoom.  Nothing, prime or zoom, at the upper end of image quality.

Why no to the budget zoom?  Let me count the ways. . .

• First, and perhaps foremost, the optics are not pro quality.  Since I use teleconverters, this is an instant no-go.

• It's an extending zoom.  Closed 12.4", extended ~16.2".  Worse, with hood 19 2/3 inches.  Talk about awkward.

• Because it is an extending zoom, the zoom ring is both stiff and long throw.  Slow, tiring and limiting for fast breaking action in use, one would guess.

• Despite a newer design, the quality at 800mm is a bit less than Sony's very long-in-the-tooth FE 200-600mm f5.6-6.3 with Sony's 1.4X teleconverter in place.  The Sony is only 16" with hood and, despite the outdated design, hardly more than the Canon's 4 /2/3 lb.  A 1.4X teleconverter adds only another inch.

• The Sony optic is also slightly better at 1200mm with their 2X teleconverter than Canon's offering at 1120mm with RF1.4X.

• The RF200-800mm can be a bit fragile; there are reports of lenses breaking in half due to rough handling.

Need more be said?

Decoding supertele choices21 Sept 2026   ▲

TL;DR—if you don’t like long posts please skip. And a faux-apology to those who are offended by the very existence of such.

Responding to the commentary by several on-line posters in the wake of various recent Canon super-tele patents as well as a lack of actual delivered products. First, the obvious truth: different people have different needs, preferences and budgets. To clarify my perspective up front: although I like to do a lot of things photographically, by far my favorite is bird photography. The gear needs for that can be quite specialized and expensive—albeit there is significant overlap with sports photography.

More specifically, I want the best possible optical quality, partly for use with TCs and partly for cropping ability—and sometimes both. That suggests that primes are more suitable than zooms because the former are (usually) of higher optical quality.  Thankfully, I am at a time of life where I can afford the best—but I am also at a point where I would much rather work out of or fairly near my car. Thus I'm interested in the latest generation of very light super-teles, prime or zoom.

I’m willing to devote two lenses to this application, the first being a 600mm f4 on a gimbal and tripod. For the second, and especially at my age, I want a lens as light as possible, consistent with above stated quality, for handholding and walkaround.

As an adjunct, I also chase deer and other large mammals in the mountains. At present, my aging EF400mm f4 DO II doubles for this use as well as for birding walkarounds, in the mammal case usually without TCs, f4 being a benefit in the early morning and late evening light that draws deer out to play.  But, with EF-RF adapter this lens tips the scales at roughtly 4.9 lb.  I really want something lighter.

Put all this together and Canon's lineup doesn't stack up well with what is available from Nikon, and now from Sony—caveating the comparison with the fact that I don’t like either makers’ bodies compared to my R5 MkII. Nor would I change brands—Canon’s shorter zooms and primes (e.g tilt-shifts, f1.4 VCMs) suit my preferences admirably—I would be forced to hold my nose regarding the bodies and go dual system for the long end.

With Nikon, on the long and fast end, there is the Z600mm f4 TC, the best choice available in my opinion. And there is the Z600mm f6.3 PF.

Sony has a very good 600mm f4 and has added the newly announced 600mm f6.3 GM. On paper, both the Nikons and the Sonys would serve very well if bodies weren’t a consideration.

In either case, there’s still the problem of a faster and shorter hand held optic for those early morning, late evening deer. That would point to either’s 400mm f4.5 lenses, giving up 1/3 stop for a much lighter lens, to be used with TCs for walkaround birding.  Alternately, either Nikon's or Sony's 600mm f6.3 would make an even better walkaround birding lens—a worst case, most expensive three-lens solution..

For those who extol the virtues of less expensive solutions, e.g. the RF200-800mm f6.3-9 or an RF100-400mm f5.6-8 paired with an R50 APS-C body, the unyielding dictates of the laws of optics, engineering and cost mean that at the extreme they will simply never be as good as more expensive optics. How good they would have to be is, of course, a matter of individual judgment and budget constraints. To those who are unconvinced, my question is always, “How are they at 1200mm?” One quick perusal of MTFs and resolution tests make the answer abundantly clear.

And yes, I have rented the R50 with the RF100-400mm several times in an attempt to get my teenage grandson interested (sadly to no avail in competition with on-line gaming.) It is a nice little affordable starter combo, but on comparable subjects the R5 MkII and the EF400mm f4 DO II side-by-side are enough better that I would never consider the former as a solution for what I do—exactly as one would expect.

For me at least, what would constitute an ideal two lens solution, assuming top level optical quality throughout? First, a 600mm f4 with built in TC, similar to Nikon’s offering. Second, a high quality XXX-600mm f4-6.3 zoom (think RF100-300mm f2.8 quality). Or a lighter 400mm f4 or f4.5 or maybe a 500mm f5—although losing 2/3 of a stop with the latter starts to pinch a bit.

Will Canon produce lenses such as these? History so far says we will have endless patents as far as the eye can see. But like Lucy and the football, they will all evaporate when one checks the Canon catalog for products.

Sony throws down gauntlet21 September 2026   ▲

Sony has just gone and done it.  After years of whining about Canon's lack of lightweight hand holdable super telephotos compared to Nikon and threatening to buy a Nikon body so I can use their light and optically excellent Z600mm f6.3 PF lens, Sony has announced not one but two competitors, a 400mm f4.5 GM and a 600mm f6.3 GM, GM being their top of the line designation, comparable to Canon's L series.

Worse for both Canon and Nikon, both Sonys are lighter then their Nikon counterparts.  The Sony weighs in at 995 grams (2.2 lb), sans tripod foot and hood whereas a comparably configured Nikon is 1390 grams.  The weights for their 400mm products are 994 grams and 1160 grams respectively.  Further, the Sony optics do not depend on fresnel technology to achieve their target weights.  In the 400mm range, Canon's only competing product for handholdability is the agng EF400mm f4 DO II, also like the Nikon, dependent on a fresnel diffractive element.  It weights in at a heafty 2100 grams.

Comparing bodies, Nikon's Z9 vs Sony's A1 II, the NIkon $5300 integrated vertical grip body is 1340 grams with battery whereas the $7000 Sony, which does not have an integrated vertical grip, is 743 grams with battery, needing an add on body grip ($58, 236 grams) plus an extra battery (85 grams) for a total cost of over $7500 and a weight of 1064 grams.  Based on performance and feature specs, the Sony is a more capable body.  This is simply a matter of cost vs weight and performance and one must decide on that basis.

I don't particularly care for Nikon's relatively heavy bodies, and in some cases this top-of-the-line body has fewer useful features for my use cases than Canon's R5 Mk II.  On the other hand, I absolutely detest Sony's bodies, primarily due to their small size and their byzantine menu structure and ergonomics.

With all that said, I will probably rent the Sony 600mm and an A1 II body for a test drive once both are available.  One can hold one's nose and ignore Canon's failure to produce comparable modern supertelephoto products for just so long.

Come on, Canon.  Stop teasing wildlife photogaphers with endless vaporware patents that never turn into products and get in the game.

Canon rumor mill picks up steam06 August 2026   ▲

Sometimes a rumor lingers around so long it begins to resemble Charlie Brown's football--snatched away once one gets too close.  Such is Canon Rumors' often repeated hint of a now-you-see-it, now-you-don't RF300-600mm f5.6L IS supertelephoto zoom, a mythical beast that has oft been bruited about in rumor-land.

Well, they're at it again.

The problem with reports so far is that it is virtually impossible that they can all be true together.  At various times, it has been said to have a max aperture of f5.6, be light weight, be optically excellent and be relatively inexpensive compared to other big whites, maybe in the $6000 range.  Raising a big dose of doubt is the fact that the front element diameter is nominally the same as the outstanding RF100-300mm f2.8L IS, an optic that weighs in at 5.7 lb and retails north of $10K.  It hardly seems likely that a longer lens of equivalent quality would weigh or cost less.  (Since 5 lb is my handholding limit, that would exclude an RF300-600mm f5.6 of equivalent optical quality.)  In the lower cost space, there is already the RF200-800mm f6.3-9 zoom so there seems little point in adding another budget super-tele zoom.

Now we have a new report that suggests something in September, either a launch or a development announcement. The Canon Rumors article is a little more ambiguous this time around.

We cannot confirm what the focal range, aperture or price is going to be, but we have been promised that we'll find out in the near future.

This disavowal of anything specific actually raises hopes that the lens will be of hand-holdable weight.  A $10K+ heavy but excellent lens would only be of interest if it was f4 and of the same quality high quality as my just-sold EF600mm f4L IS II, the sharpest supertlephoto I have ever owned and quite usable at 1200mm with an EF2XIII.  Such a lens would not be hand-holdable (by me) but would replace the departed tripod-only prime.  A more desirable alternative, because handholdable, would be an RF300-600mm f4-6.3L IS.  At f4 on the short end, it could replace my much used but long-in-the-tooth EF400mm f4L DO II, a lens I use without TCs for twilight deer photography in the mountains and for walk-around bird photography with TCs.  At f6.3, it would be light enough to easily hand-hold.  Having rented and greatly coveted the Nikon Z600mm f6.3, such a lens would be an instant purchase.

Sadly, if past is any guide, Lucy (Canon Rumors) will likely once again yank the football (lightweight high-quality telephoto) away at the last instant.

Canon Rumors forums gone12 July 2026   ▲

The way of the world:  businesses come and go.  The latest casualty within my orbit of interest is the shut down of Canon Rumors forums, in conjunction with an apparent transfer of ownership, or at least operational control, to another entity.  The site is useful in that there were sometimes hints of things to come.  Rumors are, of course, rumors, not facts.  But given my long expressed desire for better modern Canon supertelephoto alternatives--and their continuing failure to appear, other than as rumors on the site--I sometimes felt like Charlie Brown.   Canon Rumors is Lucy and the forever elusive big whites are the now-you-see-it, now-you-don't football.

Admittedly, for me the forums were mostly entertainment.  But that being said, Canon Rumors is the foremost site of its kind on Internet.  It will be interesting to see if anything remotely comparable emerges from the change--and how many visitors return after the loss of the forums.

UPDATE:  Forums and comments have returned to Canon Rumors. This time around, the previous time-ordered in-line style has been replaced by an oft-used standard commerical package featuring multi-level comment nesting.  One beneficial consequence of the change is that one of the most acerbic of the previous moderators is no longer raining his caustic, sarcastic bile down on those who have the tremerity to criticize the great almighty camera god, Canon.  Perhaps that person's absence is due to the fact that the new comment system incudes the ability to up or down vote individual comments.  In that case, a lot of chickens might come home to roost.

Maybe some good can come from change after all.

Canon captives?7 June 2026   ▲

Thoughts on a recent thread from a photography forum:

Post:
It appears to me that Canon think that their lack of modern wildlife lenses and the cost of switching platforms means that users are more "captive" than they actually are.

Reply:
It appears to me that you believe you understand the interchangeable lens camera market better than the company that has led that market for 23 years and counting. You don't.

Strictly speaking, the first statement might actually contain a grain of truth,  i.e. it is not impossible that Canon may indeed calculate that cost to change and brand loyalty will keep a sufficient number of users on-side until they get around to addressing, if ever, "wildlife lenses" to the satisfaction of the original poster.  However, while Canon probably has a pretty good idea (hence the above reply), I have no clue as to just how captive wildlife photographers really are. Whether Canon does or doesn’t think the above specifically, their market leading position is the product of many things beyond wildlife telephoto sales.

As an external observer it is evident that Canon has emphasized several well-chosen marquee product areas that contribute significantly to their over-all market share. Among them, in no particular order: entry level products, mainstream wedding, event and photo journalism cameras and lenses (i.e. upscale general purpose), sports-oriented gear, and video-centric equipment, especially products directed toward the burgeoning content creator and influencer segment.

Within that framework, wildlife lenses are less emphasized at present than, for example, at Nikon.  Of course, there is a significant overlap between the telephotos used for sports and those for wildlife.  A 600mm f4 will serve both.  However, I'm guessing that one is more likely to see a 200-800mm f4.5-9 at a wildlife refuge than on the sidelines of an NFL game.

Sadly for me personally, Canon has little in the light weight and high optical quality segment, preferably with the ability to deliver high image quality beyond 800mm with teleconverters—which would appear to be a niche within the wildlife niche.  I currently fill that segment, inadequately, with an aging EF400mm f4 DO II,  I recently rented a Nikon Z600mm f6.3 lens with Z camera to try out a lens that seems closest to what I would like to be able to buy in the Canon line. I have zero intention of switching brands overall—I have a quite large stable of Canon cameras and lenses that serve other needs exceedingly well. But, I was impressed enough to consider renting the Nikon combo for extended bird photography trips.

As a footnote, Nikon's stable of long telephotos is sometimes cited as an example of where Canon "should" go.  And yet, Nikon is a distant third among the big three in overall market share.  Others have stated, and the facts are certainly consistent with the thesis that Nikon's extensive offerings in this space reflects a Nikon choice to "focus" on long telephotos as a possible profit area that Canon has not yet fully concentrated on.

Big Whites6 May 2026   ▲

From my perspective, mainly bird photography, there are two distinct big white niches, a 600mm f4 (built in TC would be nice) and a much lighter hand holdable optic, prime preferred for image quality and weight but zooms are better if those two criteria are met. Those more interested in sports photography or other genres where the extra stop would be beneficial may prefer the 400mm f2.8.

(I don’t include the outstanding RF100-500mm in the “big” white category. That lens is excellent for a variety of uses but not the same ones that I use the two big whites denoted above for. Examples include air shows and sports. RE the latter, at a younger age, for about a decade I photographed professional tennis from the stands as a spectator with the EF100-400mm and its Mk II successor.)

I’ve held on to the EF600mm f4L II because MTFs and test images (e.g. at The-Digital-Picture) show an ever so slight edge over the more recent EF and RF twins with a 2X TC. Unlike perhaps many, the places I visit frequently benefit from the 2X TC.

For me, optical quality sufficient for use with TCs and handholdable weight are paramount in the second case. For that category, I currently rely on the now aging EF400mm f4 DO II. It is my primary hand held lens for both birds and twilight hour mountain deer, the latter without TCs to take advantage of f4 in low light. That lens, with EF-RF adapter weighs in at just under 5 lb and at my age that’s my limit. Probably a bit restrictive for younger photogs, but it’s my money and my choice of uses so that’s how I would spend it if something better came along.

That having been said, the ideal hand held lens for birding from my perspective would be a Canon equivalent of the Nikon Z600mm f6.3 if of sufficient optical quality to produce 2X images comparable to the EF600mm f4L II. If there was a way to adapt Nikon’s optic to my R5 Mk II without loss of functionality I would already own one. I am fortunate enough to be able to pay for quality and patient enough to wait for it, so until Canon fills a comparable niche the cash will remain in my bank account.

To be clear, I’m extremely pleased with every non-big-white Canon product I own, not the least of which are my R5 and R5 MkII. Also, with Canon’s introduction of the f1.4 VCM series I’m finally enthusiastic about short fast primes again, harkening all the way back to my 1970s film days. The tilt-shifts are also a big plus for architecture, another subject I enjoy. I can’t imagine changing brands, although I occasionally toy with the idea of adding a Nikon Z body and the Z600mm f6.3. Trouble is, I don’t care for Nikon bodies.

Tele uncertainty1 April 2026   ▲

Like many Canonites (and acolytes of other brands, I suppose), I get frustrated by what Canon offers that misses the mark (i.e. what I wish they would have done instead) and by what they don’t offer that I personally want. The reality is that Canon, like others, is a gigantic liner plying the oceans of commerce, each according to their chosen corporate goals, and my only steering mechanism (aside from not buying or changing brands) is to complain to Canon and CPS (points, not pro). However, coming from a non-pro, that amounts to one of those epsilon and delta thingies, where the limit approached is a big fat zero—i.e. an exercise in futility. Complaining on Internet forums, I suspect, produces the same result.

I have a lot of Canon gear and most of it is near ideal for my uses. In particular, the R5 and R5 MkII (I have both) fit my needs almost perfectly. (I would like to have seen zebras for stills and a way to assign a button to pre-capture.) The RF f4L zoom trinity is optically good and lightweight. Focus peaking is a big help when using manual focus EF tilt-shifts.  And having just bought into the RF f1.4L VCMs, Canon finally offers a line of non-telephoto primes that I am enthusiastic about.

That leaves only two areas where I wish Canon would step up. The first is the 28-70mm f2L zoom. While it is a great lens, Sony’s comparable product is considerably lighter; at my age that has become significant for walk-around photography. To me, the apt comparison is the EF11-24mm f4L vs the RF10-20mm f4L. The image quality of the RF lens is good and its light(er) weight makes it easy to carry and use. Do I worry about the stretching needed to achieve design goals? Not at all; so long as MTFs and lens test sites show equivalent optical quality their relatively light weight decides the question.

The second area is Canon’s long telephotos. There, a combination of weight and optical quality are paramount to me, the latter in large measure because I often employ extenders and in that case a high quality bare lens is a prerequisite. Fortunately, I’m willing and able to pay more, if necessary, to get them. In particular, I’d love to have a 600mm f4L with buit-in extender (think Nikon's Z-mount version) that equals the optical quality of my EF600mm f4L II, which many say edges out the EF III and RF versions when used with teleconverters.

I'd also prefer a lightweight, high quality walkaround tele that reaches at least 1000mm and preferably 1200mm with the RF2X, a use I currently fill inadequately with the EF400mm f4 DO II.  Will the rumored RF300-600mm f5.6L zoom meet those requirements? Will there even be such a lens? Time will tell.  Meanwhile, I’m thinking of renting a Nikon Z body and the Z600mm f6.3 PF for my next outing.  I have no intention of changing brands but I may, reluctantly, run a dual system to get what I want.

Of scans and scanners9 February 2026   ▲

For those of us with old film photographs scanning in the digital age is a must.  Herein I relate my own experiences with the film era, including a recent revisiting of old slides to mine any remaining nostalgia nuggets that should be preserved in digital form.  Along the way, one also discovers things about film that are very relevant to the longevity of a collection of old original media.

To summarize, over the years we shot black and white negatives, color negatives and color slides.  In the Kodak line we used Kodachrome and Ekrachrome slide film, Tri-X black and white negative film as well as Kodak color negative film.  Fujifilm choices inclued early slide film plus Velvia and Provia.  Other film included Agfachrome and GAF slides.  We have owned three separate Nikon scannerss, two 4000s and a 5000, as well as a recent PlusTek 135i Ai.  For the Nikon scanners, film was processed by NikonScan.  With the PlusTek scanner, we've used both the supplied QuickScan Plus and the powerful but obtuse SilverFast software.  In table form:

We perfered and used Kodachrome 64 from the late 1960s.  At some point we began using Kodachrome 200 and Ektachrome for the higher ASA ratings.  Unfortunately slide mounts of the era didn't always distinguish between the two flavors of Kodachrome but it is perhaps significant that we did use plenty of Ektachrome, possibly hinting that Ektachrome gave better results at higher ASA speeds.  Over 40 years later, we are beginning to notice a difference in longevity between Kodachrome and Ektachrome.  Considred archival, Kodak still holds up fairly well, showing only modest loss of contrast. 

Ektachromes exposed in the 1970s are starting to fade a bit.  Thankfully, there isn't the color shift one sees with other films.  Further back in time, Ektachrome slides we inherited from the 1960s and 1950s have turned orange and faded substantially.  In this latter case, quality of storage is unknown and it could be that environmental factors are at work.

Perhaps the most surprising observation regarding both Kodak slide films is that daylight color rendition is by far the most accurate of any film or digital camera we've ever used.  For people photographs, the colors are spot on compared to the reality of the subject on the day of exposure.  Scans of these slides are easy to work with in digital post-processing as well.  Would that digital cameras produced such accurate results with such ease.  Indoors under tungsten light, it is a different story.  We didn't filter such photos and the result is a distinct yellow-orange cast that is difficult if not impossible to eliminate in post.

Here we comment only on earlier FujiFilm emulsions.  Velvia and Provia came later, when we took up bird photography circa 1999.  The comparison of those earlier FujiFilms with Kodak does not favor Fuji.  Forty years later, many have faded to orange, rendering them virtually useless.  There aren't enough Agfachrome or GAF examples to give a reliable recommendation, but the few we have have held up well.

Right up front, our Kodak Tri-X negatives are still in good shape.  With that out the way, color negative film is a different story.  Not too many years after shooting a lot of color negative film, mostly Kodak, we scanned many of those we liked best.  Years later we went back  to see if we missed anything.  To our horror, we found creeping mold and color shifts to orange on just about every negative strip.  Many were beyond salvaging.  We quickly bought archival storage envelopes and scanned what little could be saved.  But the damage had been done.  It was a hard lesson, with no payoff from having learned it due to the long since completed conversion to digital.

Back in the day Nikon's Super Coolscan 4000, and later 5000, were the best consumer grade scanners available. Accompanied by Nikon's easy to use NikonScan software, one could push a great many images through those machines -- and I did.  In fact, I wore two out and the third finally needed repairs long after production had ceased.  The problems were never mechanical; the scan optics eventually began to show color shifts and loss of conrast.  In that sense, the reliabiity and longevity of the scanner hardware was a disappointment.  NikonScan, on the other hand, was an excellent product.  The interface was intuitive and the program had all the controls one would want to produce good scans out of the box or to work an image for maximum results.

Fast forward to today and one must look anew for a good commercial grade scanner and the software to run it.  After much investigation, I decided on the Plustek 135i Ai.  This unit comes bundled with Plustek's own QuickScan Plus application as well as the notorious SilverFast.  So far scan results with QuickScan Plus have been good.  The software is about as bare-bones and one could imagine, with very limited post scan adjustments.  Nevertheless, the results out of the scanner are good enough to feed into a post processing workflow.  The four-slide carrier for the scanner is easy to use -- although one can bend a thin cardboard mount when extracting a slide if one isn't careful.

Silverfast is a different universe.  It is every bit as clunky and awkward as advertised.  The very style of the user interface is right out of the 1970s.  The only other program I have used that is as bad in Pano2VR.  Both are incredibly powerful for full-time users, but neither of their user interfaces conform to modern software user interface practices.  It would take more space than I care to employ to fully analyze all the things wrong with SilverFast so I won't.  But, frustration compels me to point out that the File dropdown menu does not contain a save selection.  At that point, it's anybody's guess as to how one saves one's scanned file.

For all of that, SilverFast appears on limited sampling so far to extract a bit more detail from scans than QuickScan Plus.  Countering that, one is compelled to make careful parameter adjustments in order to get a decent color graded file out.  This is different than my experience with QuickScan Plus which tends to produce good colors and contrast out of the box, files that are easy to work with in post processing.

Given that film is a thing of the past, at least for me nothwithstanding a modest resurgence in recent years, these experiences are relevant largely to mining old collections for a few more photos worth saving.  Based on that, the new Plustek scanner meets the need.  I use SilverFast so little that each time amounts to starting the learning process all over again.  The lesson learned, long after it is relevant for me, is that some film stocks, especially color negatives but slide films as well, albeit to a lesser degree, are subject to irreversible long term deterioration.  While the process cannot be stopped it can be slowed through proper storage environmental conditions and archival containers.