Latest activity

antonn · Apr 8, 2026

neuroanatomist said:
No idea, but I'd expect that if the new 400mm and 600mm lenses have an integrated, switchable 1.4x TC (there were patents published on those about a year ago) then they'll go up in cost a bit over the current versions. Maybe $1K or $2K more?

Like any new lens, this will make it more expensive. If it adds a feature that's not found in other lenses, or is extremely rare, the price immediately skyrockets. I'd guess they'll add $3,000-4,000.I'd be happy to use the version with even just the 1.4.

Bob Howland · Apr 8, 2026

Ron888 said:
Right or wrong it's how almost everyone thinks.Just go with it

I find that the concept of equivalence is not at all useful. When taking an image with an R7 and a Sigma 18-50, I don't calculate the equivalent FF focal length and DOF. I just zoom the lens and use the DOF of the lens that I'm using and it works. One consequence is that I shoot wide open or nearly so most of the time.

I don't think that equivalence of DOF is how most people think. Equivalence seems to be an attempt of a small group of posters to say that other posters are incorrect and must be enlightened. My background is in psychology and economics so, for good or ill, that's how I see the world.

neuroanatomist · Apr 8, 2026

homebodyMacro2 said:
Given the identical front end size requirement, do you figure getting to 600mm adds more cost than the 2x (instead of 3x) zoom factor reduces it? Honestly, unless some magic happens, I'm not really in the market for this one either

Probably not, unfortunately.

antonn · Apr 8, 2026

R52+RF600/4, Ardea cinerea, I don't know what's wrong with her fingers...

Ron888 · Apr 8, 2026

Bob Howland said:
It's not f/6.3. It's a 15-70 f/4 lens with the DOF of a 15-70 f/4 lens, regardless of the size of sensor. The only reason the DOF changes is when people move forward or back or change the focal length to maintain the same FOV. I'm rather interested in this lens but I already own the 18-50 Sigma and I highly value small size and especially light weight.

Right or wrong it's how almost everyone thinks.Just go with it

Dragon · Apr 8, 2026

neuroanatomist said:
It's technically possible to have a focal reducer that maintains the same lens mount and flange focal distance - there is a 0.7x focal reducer for PL to PL. Of course, technically possible ≠ easy...that optic is 20 cm long, has 13 elements, rotates the image 180° and costs $5500. But it will give you 0.7x the focal length and an extra stop of light with a FF lens and an S35 sensor (or an S35 lens and an S16 sensor).

It might not be possible to accomplish that in a TC-sized optic, though the 'boost' would not need to anywhere near a full stop because the light loss from an extension tube (along with the magnification benefit) decreases with increasing focal length.

The 180 rotation makes sense. that would indicate that the adapter created an intermediate focal plane and supports what my friend told me. I guess you could create yet another focal plane and rotate the image back for only $12k

.

homebodyMacro2 · Apr 8, 2026

neuroanatomist said:
No idea, but I'd expect that if the new 400mm and 600mm lenses have an integrated, switchable 1.4x TC (there were patents published on those about a year ago) then they'll go up in cost a bit over the current versions. Maybe $1K or $2K more? The 1.4x TC is selling for $600...

Even if the 300-600/5.6L is not a rumor, while it will likely be cheaper than the 400/2.8 and 600/4, it won't be 'cheap'. Likely a bit north of the RF 100-300/2.8, so figure on the order of $11.5-12.5K.

Yeah, the integrated TC would seemingly add a bit to it. Definitely would make for some steep prices

It does seem like a 300-600 f/5.6L should be in the ballpark of the 100-300L unless some magic happens. Given the identical front end size requirement, do you figure getting to 600mm adds more cost than the 2x (instead of 3x) zoom factor reduces it? Honestly, unless some magic happens, I'm not really in the market for this one either

danfaz · Apr 7, 2026

Okay, today a White-lined Sphinx moth (aka hummingbird moth) visited my garden! Getting lots of visitors lately.

becceric · Apr 7, 2026

Saturday we had some crocuses appearing.

Today we had some yellow ones appearing, but not opening. I guess they wanted to stay warm...

neuroanatomist · Apr 7, 2026

Dragon said:
A friend of mine who worked for Canon for many years once pointed out to me that the reason no one made the equivalent of a Metabones Speed Booster for EF-to EF is that focal reducers do not extend the focal plane like extenders do so they can only be made to fit inside the existing back focus distance of a lens. Hence, we have focal reducers that replace the EF to M and EF to R adapters, but no focal reducers for EF to EF or R to R.

It's technically possible to have a focal reducer that maintains the same lens mount and flange focal distance - there is a 0.7x focal reducer for PL to PL. Of course, technically possible ≠ easy...that optic is 20 cm long, has 13 elements, rotates the image 180° and costs $5500. But it will give you 0.7x the focal length and an extra stop of light with a FF lens and an S35 sensor (or an S35 lens and an S16 sensor).

It might not be possible to accomplish that in a TC-sized optic, though the 'boost' would not need to anywhere near a full stop because the light loss from an extension tube (along with the magnification benefit) decreases with increasing focal length.

Dragon · Apr 7, 2026

neuroanatomist said:
That hypothetical 1x-1.4x TC would require reducing optics for the 1x setting, a completely different set of optics than the extender optics that would need to flip in when the 1.4x elements flip out. Same thing as the magical unicorn 1x-1.4x-2x TC that people have been dreaming about after someone misinterpreted a Canon patent for something completely different that happened to have 1-1.5-2x markings on the diagram.

Not sure that even reducing optics would solve the problem. A friend of mine who worked for Canon for many years once pointed out to me that the reason no one made the equivalent of a Metabones Speed Booster for EF-to EF is that focal reducers do not extend the focal plane like extenders do so they can only be made to fit inside the existing back focus distance of a lens. Hence, we have focal reducers that replace the EF to M and EF to R adapters, but no focal reducers for EF to EF or R to R.

neuroanatomist · Apr 7, 2026

homebodyMacro2 said:
Do we expect these potential 400mm and 600mm big whites to be comparable in cost to their predecessors? I wish I were in that market... sigh. I feel there's a fair chance this 300-600L zoom is perhaps destined to remain a rumor lol.

No idea, but I'd expect that if the new 400mm and 600mm lenses have an integrated, switchable 1.4x TC (there were patents published on those about a year ago) then they'll go up in cost a bit over the current versions. Maybe $1K or $2K more? The 1.4x TC is selling for $600...

Even if the 300-600/5.6L is not a rumor, while it will likely be cheaper than the 400/2.8 and 600/4, it won't be 'cheap'. Likely a bit north of the RF 100-300/2.8, so figure on the order of $11.5-12.5K.

homebodyMacro2 · Apr 7, 2026

Do we expect these potential 400mm and 600mm big whites to be comparable in cost to their predecessors? I wish I were in that market... sigh. I feel there's a fair chance this 300-600L zoom is perhaps destined to remain a rumor lol.

becceric · Apr 7, 2026

Looking good! I like the filters.
Is a light mode/dark mode toggle possible?

Michael Clark · Apr 7, 2026

Dragon said:
And then there are those that are declared classics before they even leave the showroom. At this point, all DSLRs are heading into classic territory. My 5D II must qualify.

Del Paso said:
I once was in a pharmacy in Switzerland, proud owner of a 2 years old Leica digital M 240. The black enamel had already suffered from use, showing shining brass underneath. The pharmacist asked me if I enjoyed collecting classic cameras...
You see, "classic" is no rigid definition.

EricN said:
It's a very good point. One could say, even now, they keep "the classic Leica design."

You can say I'm the Easter bunny. It doesn't make it true.

neuroanatomist · Apr 7, 2026

blackcoffee17 said:
Doesn't matter how long it took for Nikon. They have 2 modern lenses with TC, Canon has 0. The last one is from 15 years ago. You always find a way to defend Canon, no matter what. It's getting boring.

Whatever. Nikon has over 50 Z lenses ranging from 12-800mm. Canon has over 60 RF lenses ranging from 10-1200mm. Sony has more than both. Of course there will be lenses that one has and the other does not. Canon has an f/2 zoom. Nikon has an f/0.95 prime. Etc. If one doesn't have the lens(es) you want, either wait, switch brands, or run multiple brands.

Most likely, part of the dynamic is that Canon is prioritizing lenses their market research indicates their customers want, and Nikon is making lenses that Canon doesn’t offer precisely because Canon doesn’t make them.

blackcoffee17 · Apr 7, 2026

neuroanatomist said:
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.

Doesn't matter how long it took for Nikon. They have 2 modern lenses with TC, Canon has 0. The last one is from 15 years ago. And while Nikon managed to make these 2 pro lenses, they also made a whole series of light and affordable tele primes. In the meantime Canon added TC elements and "glued" RF adapter onto years old EF designs.

You always find a way to defend Canon, no matter what. It's getting boring.

mawlki · Apr 7, 2026

In a walk-around zoom i'd even prefer f4 over f2.8 (apsc-c) . A bigger aperture only will make things needlessly heavy and a prime like a 35mm f1.4 would outperform a f2.8 zoom anyway in multiple ways.

john1970 · Apr 7, 2026

I currently have the RF 400 mm f2.8 lens and would strongly consider the upgraded version as long as the weight does not get any heavier. A built in 1.4x TC would be nice, but I would also want to ensure I could use an external 1.4x TC as well so I could switch between a 560 mm f4 and a 800 mm f5.6 at a flip of a switch. Lastly, there would be the question which is sharper. My current 400 mm f2.8 lens with my 2x extender or the new lens with two 1.4x extenders engaged. Will be interesting to see what the specifics are at the end of May.

John D P · Apr 7, 2026

Doug7131 said:
The EF to RF adapter is just a hollow tube because the RF mount is physically closer to the sensor than the EF mount (20mm vs 44mm) so the adaptor puts an EF lens exactly in the same place as it would be on a EF mount camera - hence why it doesn't cause focus issues - it actually solves them.

Thanks for the information. Always good to learn something new.

John D P · Apr 7, 2026

neuroanatomist said:
Yes, it is a hollow tube...but not an extension tube. An extension tube is something that positions the lens such that the lens mount is farther away from the sensor than the specified flange focal distance (mount surface to sensor).

The EF lens mount has a flange focal distance of 44 mm, whereas the RF lens mount has a flange focal distance of 20 mm. In other words, the EF lens is already designed to focus the image at a distance of 44 mm from the mount. Thus, the adapter is needed so the lens mount is that distance from the sensor on an RF camera body.

I doubt it. If you remember the switch from FD to EF mount that happened decades ago, Canon released an adapter for their expensive lenses. The FD mount had a 42 mm flange distance, but a 2 mm thick adapter isn't very feasible (but not impossible, google "Ed Mika adapters"). The Canon FD-EOS adapter was 12mm thick (much thinner than a switchable TC could be), the same as the EF 12 extension tube. The optics in that adapter to correct for infinity focus resulted in the adapter being a 1.26x teleconverter.

Thanks for the additional information, always good to learn something new.

Jethro · Apr 7, 2026

The advanced filters look really useful.

Doug7131 · Apr 7, 2026

John D P said:
I admit that I'm not an expert in optics and that I've never seen the optical design for the 200-400mm. I see your point, but I have 2 questions.
1. Isn't the EF to RF adapter a hollow tube with adapting electronics. To my knowledge I have not heard of any focus issues. It seems that these multiple different EF lens on RF cameras are able to maintain focus.
2. Following your logic, then to have a separate switchable teleconverter and not produce an extension tube; it would require additional glass. How about a teleconverter that adds 1.12 ( 1/3 of a stop ), which would be similar to the native lens. But could then switch to 1.4 or 1.5. This is probably too simplified for complex optics; just thinking out loud.

The EF to RF adapter is just a hollow tube because the RF mount is physically closer to the sensor than the EF mount (20mm vs 44mm) so the adaptor puts an EF lens exactly in the same place as it would be on a EF mount camera - hence why it doesn't cause focus issues - it actually solves them.

neuroanatomist · Apr 7, 2026

John D P said:
I admit that I'm not an expert in optics and that I've never seen the optical design for the 200-400mm. I see your point, but I have 2 questions.
1. Isn't the EF to RF adapter a hollow tube with adapting electronics. To my knowledge I have not heard of any focus issues.

Yes, it is a hollow tube...but not an extension tube. An extension tube is something that positions the lens such that the lens mount is farther away from the sensor than the specified flange focal distance (mount surface to sensor).

The EF lens mount has a flange focal distance of 44 mm, whereas the RF lens mount has a flange focal distance of 20 mm. In other words, the EF lens is already designed to focus the image at a distance of 44 mm from the mount. Thus, the adapter is needed so the lens mount is that distance from the sensor on an RF camera body.

John D P said:
2. Following your logic, then to have a separate switchable teleconverter and not produce an extension tube; it would require additional glass. How about a teleconverter that adds 1.12 ( 1/3 of a stop ) that can switch to 1.4. This probably too simplified for complex optics; just thinking out loud.

I doubt it. If you remember the switch from FD to EF mount that happened decades ago, Canon released an adapter for their expensive lenses. The FD mount had a 42 mm flange distance, but a 2 mm thick adapter isn't very feasible (but not impossible, google "Ed Mika adapters"). The Canon FD-EOS adapter was 12mm thick (much thinner than a switchable TC could be), the same as the EF 12 extension tube. The optics in that adapter to correct for infinity focus resulted in the adapter being a 1.26x teleconverter.

John D P · Apr 7, 2026

neuroanatomist said:
A 1x-1.4x switchable TC is NOT just a matter of 'adapting it into a separate teleconverter'. A teleconverter mounted behind a lens, with the optics 'flipped out of the way' would be an empty tube between the camera and the lens...that's called an extension tube, and what it does is reduce the minimum focus distance at the cost of losing the ability to focus the lens on distant subjects. Probably not what you would want with teleconverter on a telephoto lens, y'know?

That hypothetical 1x-1.4x TC would require reducing optics for the 1x setting, a completely different set of optics than the extender optics that would need to flip in when the 1.4x elements flip out. Same thing as the magical unicorn 1x-1.4x-2x TC that people have been dreaming about after someone misinterpreted a Canon patent for something completely different that happened to have 1-1.5-2x markings on the diagram.

The reason a 1.4x flip in TC works in a lens is precisely because it's part of the lens design and not something that mounts behind the lens. There are lens optics that sit behind the 1.4x TC optics in the lens, as I labeled them in the EF 200-400/4, which is why the lens can maintain infinity focus with the TC flipped out.

View attachment 228797

I admit that I'm not an expert in optics and that I've never seen the optical design for the 200-400mm. I see your point, but I have 2 questions.
1. Isn't the EF to RF adapter a hollow tube with adapting electronics. To my knowledge I have not heard of any focus issues. It seems that these multiple different EF lens on RF cameras are able to maintain focus.
2. Following your logic, then to have a separate switchable teleconverter and not produce an extension tube; it would require additional glass. How about a teleconverter that adds 1.12 ( 1/3 of a stop ), which would be similar to the native lens. But could then switch to 1.4 or 1.5. This is probably too simplified for complex optics; just thinking out loud.

Latest activity

Latest activity

Filter

Forum statistics

Gallery statistics