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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

EricN said:

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

Click to expand...

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

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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

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.

Click to expand...

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

The advanced filters look really useful.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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

Click to expand...

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.

I'll reply for the benefit of others who may read this thread, in the hope that your cluelessness doesn't engender false hope in others. Spreading misinformation seems to be a pattern for you, among other distasteful habits that you exhibit.

mimbu said:

A 1.4x TC built into a lens does not have to be any different to a separate 1.4x TC added to a lens. The lens is simply designed to focus onto the sensor without the 1.4x TC in place, and the 1.4x TC optics are designed so that they don't screw with that.

Click to expand...

Yes, it does have to be different. A flip-out TC works when the TC is added within the lens. Notice how in the block diagram of the EF 200-400/4 that I posted above, there is a (weak) converging group behind the TC optics. The same is true for any lens with a flip-in TC. Here's the Nikon 600/4 + 1.4x, which has even more optics (but still net weak convergence) behind the TC group.



The only way in which your statement would be correct would be for a lens to be designed to take a drop-in TC, like a really fat drop-in filter holder. There would need to be optics behind that big hole in the lens barrel. Moreover, in these expensive lenses the TCs are designed for optimal performance with each lens' optics. For example, the TC group in the Nikkor 600/4 + 1.4x has an SR element (their equivalent of Canon's BR elements aka 'blue goo'), whereas the TC group in the Nikkor 400/2.8 + 1.4x does not.

In other words, each supertele lens would need it's own specific drop-in TC, rather than having a generic drop-in TC for a series of lenses that would have more of a negative optical impact than tailor-made TCs for each lens. So even the kludgy idea you are suggesting (well, that you would have suggested if you actually understood optical design) would not happen. A dedicated TC for each lens...why make a drop-in version at all, then? That would be foolish, something that manufacturers' lens designers are not. That's why both Canon and Nikon have made lenses with flip-in TCs, not completely removable drop-in TCs.

And not separate flip-in TCs...because physics. The nice thing about physics is that it remains true even when people like you don't understand it.

mimbu said:

You showed exactly this with the dual TC design in an earlier reply. Either one or both of the 1.4x TCs can flip out of place. When both are out of the way, the lens can still maintain infinity focus even though there is only air there now.

Click to expand...

No. Clearly, you don't understand what I posted, or the underlying Canon patent application. More importantly, you don't understand the relevant optical concepts. A lens cannot maintain infinity focus with an extension tube behind the lens, and if all the optical elements of a TC mounted behind the lens were to move out of the optical path, you would have an empty tube behind the lens...i.e., an extension tube.

I will try to simplify with a picture of the Canon patent design that perhaps you can understand. Only one set of 1.4x TC optics flips out of place, though it does so in two pieces to minimize the size of the overall optic. When the rear split 1.4x group ('B') moves out of the optical path, the front 1.4x group ('A') slides further back into position but remains in the optical path. At no time is there an empty tube.



This is still not the thing you think is happening, i.e. there is no 1x form for this design or any other. As already stated, an extension tube precludes infinity focus, so a '1x' option in a switchable TC would require reducing optics to flip in when the TC optics flip out.

mangobutter said:

Loved the big front elements of yesteryear too.

Click to expand...

I think people have said mirrorless/short flange distance (if that's the term) means the elements for some focal lengths can essentially be reversed, so the bigger ones are at the back? I suppose it means less glass exposed to potential scratches.

neuroanatomist said:

We have very different priorities, and that's perfectly fine.

Click to expand...

Well of course

neuroanatomist said:

After I put a prime lens on my camera, I pretty much don't touch it until I take it off (I'd even say that applies to the EF 600/4 II, since I'm supporting it by the replacement RRS lens foot and not really touching the lens itself). About the only exception is manually focusing a lens for shooting the night sky (or lenses without AF, like the TS-Esand MP-E). Zoom lenses...I use the zoom ring, and that's it.

Click to expand...

Apart from holding the camera from the lens (usually), it's not that I operate a lot of controls on the lenses either, but I do use their control rings sometimes, and I photograph exclusively handheld. I don't own lenses with custom buttons, neither VCMs with their aperture rings.
And I shoot absolutely everything using autofocus. Its smoothness can be felt in the hand and seen on the EVF. Plus, noise - or the absence of it.

External focusing designs, specially if with weird lens hoods (like the RF 35 1.8 and 28), are pretty much a vulnerability as they protrude from the lens housing. They're also more prone to allowing dust entering the lens - it doesn't take rubber gaskets for a lens to be a little more protected.

neuroanatomist said:

Refinement is subjective, but if you're looking for that then look for the L.

Click to expand...

With the red ring often comes extra size, weight and, of course, the price tag.

I'm not asking a lot, I'm asking for attributes we had on gold and some silver ring EF lenses, like the EF 24 and 28mm f/2.8 IS USM, EF 35mm f/2 IS USM, EF 28mm f/1.8 USM, EF 85mm f/1.8 USM, EF 100mm f/2 USM, and probably others I'm not even aware of - all these were internal focusing and reasonably silent USM lenses with proper lens hoods.

So far, I think the RF 45mm is the only silver ring RF prime lens that is on par with that, in terms of "build quality".
Get me more lenses like that! Perhaps a 16mm f/1.8, a 20mm f/1.8, a 28mm f/1.8, an 85mm f/1.8...or f/2, whatever, I'm not asking for f/1.4 or f/1.2.

Like I said, I would have paid an extra 100 or 200 bucks for the same lenses (RF 16, RF 28, maybe others) with a little more refined experience.

neuroanatomist said:

Yeah, not me. If I want my images to have a dreamy look to them, I'll just take a long nap...

Click to expand...

I won't say I'm fond of the dreamy look because I'm not, but I don't usually shoot at f/1.2 either (my most used aperture is definitely f/2.8, across all lenses). I go to f/2~f/1.2 when I specifically want the shallow DoF, or when available light drops significantly so, for the price, I think can live with that.
Ergonomics are great, autofocus is not annoying, I don't have to worry if something knocks it at the front, and a filter prevents dust from entering directly the lens barrel. As long as it's not raining and I'm not photographing in the dust, I'm good.

rombe3jr said:

Canon wants 30% of the sale price as a fee for anyone using the RF mount. Pay or get sued.

Click to expand...

What is your source, is it fully reliable?

mimbu said:

No amount of (claimed) education can cover for the miserable person you actually are.

Click to expand...

Well, you've done an excellent job of showing everyone what sort of person you prefer to be, which is that you

mimbu said:

... prefer to be a dick

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

A 1.4x TC built into a lens does not have to be any different to a separate 1.4x TC added to a lens. The lens is simply designed to focus onto the sensor without the 1.4x TC in place, and the 1.4x TC optics are designed so that they don't screw with that. You showed exactly this with the dual TC design in an earlier reply. Either one or both of the 1.4x TCs can flip out of place. When both are out of the way, the lens can still maintain infinity focus even though there is only air there now.

neuroanatomist said:

It's good that you help out with small, local problems, and even better that you provide assistance to creatures with more maturity than you possess.

Click to expand...

No amount of (claimed) education can cover for the miserable person you actually are.

m4ndr4ke said:

To me, it's the combination of everything. That includes optical performance, build quality and refinement, and the first alone is not enough. If I don't like using a product, even if it provides better image quality, I'm ditching it. For instance, I know those 24 and 35 are better than their predecessors, but I still didn't like them, so I sold both and felt glad I got rid of them.

Click to expand...

We have very different priorities, and that's perfectly fine. Ergonomics are important, which is why I prefer bodies with an integrated grip. But lenses? After I put a prime lens on my camera, I pretty much don't touch it until I take it off (I'd even say that applies to the EF 600/4 II, since I'm supporting it by the replacement RRS lens foot and not really touching the lens itself). About the only exception is manually focusing a lens for shooting the night sky (or lenses without AF, like the TS-Esand MP-E). Zoom lenses...I use the zoom ring, and that's it.

I've never had an issue with AF that's too slow. Perhaps that's due to my usage pattern – with fast-moving subjects I'm using an L-series lens, anyway. But comparing the RF 24/1.8 STM to the RF 28-70/2L, for example (which I just did, on my R8), they go from MFD to infinity focus in about the same amount of time. I’d say the 28-70/2 focuses reasonably quickly, but it’s perhaps two ‘notches’ slower than lenses like the RF 70-200/2.8 or RF 24-105/2.8, which are among the fastest-focusing lenses. Lenses like the RF 24-105/4, RF 100/2.8 and RF 100-500 are in between. The only lens that I've used where I'd call the AF relatively slow is the EF 85/1.2L II.

Refinement is subjective, but if you're looking for that then look for the L.

m4ndr4ke said:

The exception, to me, is the RF 45mm. Probably the worst optical performance, but good plastics, decent dimensions, proper lens hood attachment, smooth, quiet and internal autofocus. Finally, something that doesn't feel or work like a toy. It's a joy to use, I'm in! Get me more lenses like this!

Click to expand...

Yeah, not me. If I want my images to have a dreamy look to them, I'll just take a long nap...or maybe smear a coating of vaseline on a cheap filter and put that on my lens. I mean, it's great that the RF 45/1.2 offers similar image quality to the EF 50/1.2L for a much lower cost, but I didn't have any desire for the 50/1.2L, either.

neuroanatomist said:

I can't speak to the build quality of the RF 85/2 as I've never used it, but holding the RF 24/1.8 STM and the RF 24/1.4L VCM side by side, the build quality is actually very similar, both are very good.

Click to expand...

neuroanatomist said:

In terms of optics, the RF 24/1.8, RF 28/2.8, and especially the RF 35/1.8 are better than their EF 'best modern silver ring' counterparts, for example see this 35mm comparison.

Click to expand...

To me, it's the combination of everything. That includes optical performance, build quality and refinement, and the first alone is not enough. If I don't like using a product, even if it provides better image quality, I'm ditching it. For instance, I know those 24 and 35 are better than their predecessors, but I still didn't like them, so I sold both and felt glad I got rid of them.

I've owned or at least tried most of the lenses I mentioned (all the RF lenses, at least).


Do I actually enjoy using any of these lenses? Do/did I feel glad that I own/owned them? Do I want to use them? No, not really.
I'll take the 28 with me because it's the only 28mm RF lens there is, not because I enjoy using it.

The exception, to me, is the RF 45mm. Probably the worst optical performance, but good plastics, decent dimensions, proper lens hood attachment, smooth, quiet and internal autofocus. Finally, something that doesn't feel or work like a toy. It's a joy to use, I'm in! Get me more lenses like this!

AlanF said:

and weigh a large number of pounds

Click to expand...

Any new 600 f/4 is going to be expensive, but if the zoom is built as a variable TC (i.e. magnifier), rather than the more elaborate approach used in most zooms, the size hit might not be that significant. The current approach to 800 and 1200 lenses takes the magnifier approach and making it variable is not impossible. I have an interesting Vivitar 2x macro TC (in FD mount) that is a combo of a 2x TC and a variable extension tube rolled into one. With some of Canon's recent exploits, it is not unreasonable to expect that they might take a new approach. Not much doubt that any sensible way to combine several Super Telephotos into one would be a big cost saver for Canon and might even reduce the price a bit thanks to increased production volume of the single design.