mimbu said:

Every mount seems to have people who think including a 1.4x and 2x TC in the same lens would somehow be easy. It's not. The only way it might happen is if a single TC can be used for both. Either with a zoom function of sorts, or by having some subset of the elements work for 1.4x and the full set of elements work for 2x. Neither seems particularly likely.

Click to expand...

Canon has filed patent applications for a switchable 1.4x-2x TC, essentially a 1.4x with a second 1.4x that flips out. Not sure it will become a product, but Canon is certainly thinking about such an optic.

Pretty cool shot. Well done, Speedfinder.

neuroanatomist said:

Just to add, though Nikon didn't make a 1200/5.6 with a built-in 1.4x TC, they did come out with a basically equivalent version as a zoom lens, the 1200-1700mm f/5.6-8. They were only 6 years behind Canon for that one.

View attachment 228788

Click to expand...

I met a retired dentist (how cliche is that) in Japan who owned both this Nikon and the EF 1200/5.6.

neuroanatomist said:

Highly doubtful. One set of flip-out 1.4x elements, yes. Two sets of them, no.

Click to expand...

Something we can agree on.

Every mount seems to have people who think including a 1.4x and 2x TC in the same lens would somehow be easy. It's not. The only way it might happen is if a single TC can be used for both. Either with a zoom function of sorts, or by having some subset of the elements work for 1.4x and the full set of elements work for 2x. Neither seems particularly likely. Two full sets of elements (and the mechanisms to swap them each in and out) seems even less likely.

neuroanatomist said:

Personally, I helped develop a breakthrough cancer therapy that has benefited millions of patients so far.

Click to expand...

I'd be curious how you define "helped". By being the janitor? It's a critical job to society in general but I think it might be a bit of a stretch to equate it to helping with a cancer treatment.

neuroanatomist said:

I wonder what @mimbu has done to benefit society? Evidently he doesn't realize that by being an insulting buffoon on an Internet forum, he benefits no one...least of all himself.

Click to expand...

I volunteer at animal shelters and donate as much as I can. Honestly dealing with people like you makes me much more inclined to help mistreated animals than much of the human population.

Finally these just might be stuff I have been praying for, especially the 55/1.8.
The 50/1.8 is is cheap crap, and although I bought the 45/1.2 which is much better quality, it's size and weight is more than what would be ideal in scenarios when it matters.
I'd be happy with a 55/1.8 around 250g.

Also, a 85/1.8 with better AF but not more weight would be a welcomed upgrade to the 85/2.
I'd pre-order both.

P-visie said:

You have reached a new low. Cancer kills millions of people each year.

Click to expand...

How is recommending he stop doing something that might cause cancer a new low? Seems like a positive to me.

neuroanatomist said:

Many of us have figured out that you’re asinine and irrelevant.

Click to expand...

Yet, you cannot resist replying. You're like some sort of bot. Push buttons, get reply. It's very entertaining, I must say.

neuroanatomist said:

Repeating myself, but you perceive statements of fact as 'defending Canon'

Click to expand...

Your delusions of grandeur have become so strong that you think your opinions are somehow fact. Interesting.

neuroanatomist said:

I've agreed that Canon is blocking 3rd parties from making FF AF lenses for RF.

Click to expand...

That's about all there is to say on the matter then.

Just to add, though Nikon didn't make a 1200/5.6 with a built-in 1.4x TC, they did come out with a basically equivalent version as a zoom lens, the 1200-1700mm f/5.6-8. They were only 6 years behind Canon for that one.

Canon Rumors said:

Click to expand...

Don’t worry, I’ve started a new RF wishlist

Exploreshootshare said:

omg, how heavy was this lens? According to google AI, it was 16,8 kg. Instead of a tripod one should have probably used a golf cart Useful for a safari, for sure. But for which sport would one use a lens like this?

Click to expand...

Those five FDn lenses were all converted to EF mount (with the TC removed).

neuroanatomist said:

FD 1200mm f/5.6L + 1.4x lenses for the LA Olympics.

Click to expand...

omg, how heavy was this lens? According to google AI, it was 16,8 kg. Instead of a tripod one should have probably used a golf cart Useful for a safari, for sure. But for which sport would one use a lens like this?

Gorges de la Jont France

Shaping up nicely! Under lenses, perhaps a set of buttons to restrict by manufacturer?

neuroanatomist said:

You might feel differently if you owned one or more of these...

Click to expand...

That's higher end, I think he meant the old gold rings, and the best modern silver rings, like the EF 35mm f/2 IS USM, and EF 24 and 28mm f/2.8 IS USM.
IIRC, only the EF 50mm f/1.4 USM was on the lower side of things, with external focusing.

In my experience, for now, the only lens that is comparable is the RF 45mm. The RF 85mm f/2 could be another one, if it didn't focus externally.

I somewhat agree, these RF STM primes are the only lenses I've consistently been wishing to replace.
I ditched the RF 24 1.8, 35 1.8, the next possibly will be the 50 1.8 (I'm considering keeping it for the size, but it's unlikely), and the two other lenses I always look forward to replace are the RF 28 and RF 16, even though I consider these two to be a little more pleasant to use.

I don't need red rings on all my gear, but I would have paid an 100 or 200 extra bucks for the same lenses with a more refined experience.
Internal (front or rear, whatever, I don't care), quiet and smooth autofocus, dedicated lens hoods threads, and dedicated clicked control rings for consistency.

I don't think that's a lot to ask.

P-visie said:

A 600mm f4 with a built in 1.4 extender would leave only a long RF macrolens on my RF lens wishlist.

Click to expand...

It would leave a TS-R 14mm lens on my wishlist. Plus whatever else Canon may come up with, I did not expect the 20/1.4 or 14/1.4 VCM lenses, but they're excellent.

A 600mm f4 with a built in 1.4 extender would leave only a long RF macrolens on my RF lens wishlist.

Canis Lupus said:

Not two TC, but Nikkor Z 600mm f/4 TC VR S is something Canon should have made long ago.

NIKKOR Z 600mm f/4 TC VR S | Z mount Lenses | Nikon Consumer

Click to expand...

Yes, and it only took Nikon 9 years to innovate that switchable 1.4x TC, after Canon launched the EF 200-400mm with that feature in 2013. Or if you prefer, you can start counting from 1984 when Canon released a handful of FDn 1200mm f/5.6L + 1.4x lenses for the LA Olympics.

mangobutter said:

Essentially nearly none of the RF lenses in the "normal" focal length range make me proud to own, hold, touch, and operate them. they all seem like cheap lenses on their outsides with optics that are sharp yet make lots of distortion, with many of them with cheap feeling and looking extending barrels (and yes i get the physics/optical compromises/packaging considerations etc)

Click to expand...

You might feel differently if you owned one or more of these...

mangobutter said:

Loved the big front elements of yesteryear too.

Click to expand...

Oh, they're still around.



And even though the front element of my RF 85/1.2L DS is a bit smaller than that of my RF 28-70/2, the RF prime's front element is larger than that of the EF 85/1.2L II that I owned years ago.

Exploreshootshare said:

A 600mm with a built in 1.4 and 2.0 would be a "hold my beer" moment and probably break the internet Is there any lens around with such a design feature? I couldn't find one with my quick google search.

I dream of owning a big white some day. Which one depends on which sport my kid(s?!) will be doing.

Click to expand...

Not two TC, but Nikkor Z 600mm f/4 TC VR S is something Canon should have made long ago.

Hopeful. I always thought the RF 50 STM and 85 F2 IS were awkward and out of place -- not in line with other manufacturers offerings that are quiet, silent, and modern/non extending. The RF 50 was just lazy and i always hated that it was merely a reshuffled EF 50 STM which itself was just a re-dressed design going back decades. I'm sure the 50 STM will still sell along side any more higher priced sibling, but there should be a quiet internally focusing higher quality lens in the 50 1.8 arena than what is currently being offered. In terms of the 85 macro.. really i could do without the macro feature. the decades old EF 85 1.8 seems way more polished in operation and materials.

Essentially nearly none of the RF lenses in the "normal" focal length range make me proud to own, hold, touch, and operate them. they all seem like cheap lenses on their outsides with optics that are sharp yet make lots of distortion, with many of them with cheap feeling and looking extending barrels (and yes i get the physics/optical compromises/packaging considerations etc)

Give me back the look, feel, and operation of the old EF lenses that look and feel good to the touch, focus internally quickly and quietly. Loved the big front elements of yesteryear too.

Exploreshootshare said:

A 600mm with a built in 1.4 and 2.0

Click to expand...

Highly doubtful. One set of flip-out 1.4x elements, yes. Two sets of them, no.

An RF 600mm f/4L IS USM Extender 1.4×?

A 600mm with a built in 1.4 and 2.0 would be a "hold my beer" moment and probably break the internet Is there any lens around with such a design feature? I couldn't find one with my quick google search.

I dream of owning a big white some day. Which one depends on which sport my kid(s?!) will be doing.