Patent: Canon RF 100-400mm f/3.5-5.6L IS and more

[Asher]

Could be a great lens; I already like the 100-400 II adapted better on the R than on my 5D IV . Just seems to be a bit more accurate with focus. Superb combination with a 500 or 600mm for wildlife.

Did you microadjust the focus on the 5DIV (or try live view)? The R doesn't need that since it's using the sensor to focus.

 

[RobbieHat]

I would love to see the pro-body (5DSR replacement) come out at 75mp. If it did, I would sell my current 5DSR and replace by 600mm with the much lighter 500mm (I already have the extenders). That would allow for BIF cropping on the higher MP at about the same rate as the current 50mp 5DSR and a much lighter set up when I am on the move, handheld or in a kayak.

Dream set up for me but it appears it will be a bit more time before this comes along.

 

[juststeve]

Bringing up teleconverters raises the question if any of these lenses in the patent can be used with a converter. Note how close the back focus at the short end is. The 100-400 is listed at just over 4 mm. A mistake? The other two lenses are close too, well inside the camera lens mount. It will be hard to make a converter for that.

My EF 100-400 ii pairs very well with the 1.4 iii even when it is used with the 5DS. There is a wee bit of edge softening which largely clears up at F8 and some CA. And the lens works well enough with the 2x iii for emergencies. It is best to stop down once for decent performance. An adapted R can focus the lens with the 2x, a bit slowly but accurately.

Given how well the EF lens can work on the R, I might prefer to keep using the EF 100-400 on the R because of the converters. It is a pain to use the converters with the adapter. There is always the chance of a fumble, especially while in a hurry with frozen hands. It will be too bad if converters cannot be used with the RF 100-400 from my standpoint.

 

[knight427]

Bringing up teleconverters raises the question if any of these lenses in the patent can be used with a converter. Note how close the back focus at the short end is. The 100-400 is listed at just over 4 mm. A mistake? The other two lenses are close too, well inside the camera lens mount. It will be hard to make a converter for that.

My EF 100-400 ii pairs very well with the 1.4 iii even when it is used with the 5DS. There is a wee bit of edge softening which largely clears up at F8 and some CA. And the lens works well enough with the 2x iii for emergencies. It is best to stop down once for decent performance. An adapted R can focus the lens with the 2x, a bit slowly but accurately.

Given how well the EF lens can work on the R, I might prefer to keep using the EF 100-400 on the R because of the converters. It is a pain to use the converters with the adapter. There is always the chance of a fumble, especially while in a hurry with frozen hands. It will be too bad if converters cannot be used with the RF 100-400 from my standpoint.

I don't think the usefulness of extenders is lost on Canon. I don't pretend to know the optical challenges presented by the lens design in the patent, but I'm highly confident Canon has a plan for extenders, and that was factored into the design already.

 

[edoorn]

Did you microadjust the focus on the 5DIV (or try live view)? The R doesn't need that since it's using the sensor to focus.

Yes it is. It just misses focus now and then and I have the idea the R just misses less. Mind you, in general it is doing really well on the 5d4 and I like it a lot .

 

[AlanF]

Yes it is. It just misses focus now and then and I have the idea the R just misses less. Mind you, in general it is doing really well on the 5d4 and I like it a lot .

I am just so happy with the 100-400mm II (±1.4xTC) on the 5DSR (and 5DIV) that I am reluctant to change.

 

[AlanF]

Looking at the patents, it seems that they might be using the new design principles from the 400/4 and 600/4 III of using smaller elements spaced back from the front element to reduce weight and have the c of g closer to the body?

 

[highdesertmesa]

The release of the R replacement for the 5DsR along with the RF 100-400L is going to open the R floodgates. I will pre-order both the minute they are available on the B&H website.

The EF 100-400L II is a near-perfect lens, but for the RF version, I'd love to see less vignetting wide open throughout the range.

 

[hmatthes]

Sure, that makes sense (if that's what he meant), but without him saying that explicitly, I was lost.

Sorry to have confused folks. I moved from a 6D to the R -- one good sensor to another!
The results, in my hands, are that the R delivers even sharper images using the same lenses. My landscapes are shot with higher ISO before any degradation is apparent. This eliminates (minimizes) the need for full f2.8 for my images. I used to shoot my 70-200 wide open most of the time.
Looking at EXIF it seems that 'm stopped down just a bit (often f/4) with higher shutter speeds -- thus sharper for my handhelds.

 

[navastronia]

Sorry to have confused folks. I moved from a 6D to the R -- one good sensor to another!
The results, in my hands, are that the R delivers even sharper images using the same lenses. My landscapes are shot with higher ISO before any degradation is apparent. This eliminates (minimizes) the need for full f2.8 for my images. I used to shoot my 70-200 wide open most of the time.
Looking at EXIF it seems that 'm stopped down just a bit (often f/4) with higher shutter speeds -- thus sharper for my handhelds.

Oh! that makes much more sense thank you for clarifying!

 

[efmshark]

So the big difference is the aperture at "wide":
EF 100-400 4.5 -5.6
RF 100-400 3.5-5.6
and obviously the size and weigth.
I think the general discussion about the long backfocus of tele could not be applied to zoom and different zoom optical designs can take advantage of short backfocus

I can't imagine the RF100-400 will be any smaller or significantly lighter than the EF version.

 

[slclick]

Here's the aperture info for the EF Mk2. Is there anything out there on the Max Aperture spread for the RF?

 

[bf]

People con-laining about the lack of consumer lenses for the R mount don’t seem to have too much to worry about. Canon knows they’re needed, and they’re coming, hopefully sooner rather than later.

I loved going through the discussions in this topic. My point on initial R launch is that Canon released flag-ship lenses with mid-range/prosumer body. Not the best combination to buy both. Questions would be:
Where is the pro body for $$$$ lenses?
Where are the prosumer and consumer grade lenses?
Is there any benefit in the lens eco-system? If not, why the hell to switch if you use 5d or 6d?
What will be the timeline and roadmap?
In the M line, Canon was terrible and still is in listening to itscustomers and showing some light on the ecosystem.
I personally remain very pragmatic to invest in a new system coming from Canon to the point I see all the components I need.

 

[Ozarker]

Patience is a virtue. In our instant gratification world we "want it now". It is impressive how quickly the lens lineup is filling out, to me. A year isn't a long time to wait for pro body release. Available glass will be important to those folks when they purchase. Canon is doing a fine job.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

The EF 70-300 IS II USM lens is criminally underrated, especially for the price. I'll probably hold on to my EF version though and upgrade to the RF 100-400L at some point.

Yes I agree, I think the problem with this lens is that it was so late to the market. I needed to have been released back when the 75-300IS was around. So that it would be precieved as an upgrade to that lens. I used to see a lot of these 70-300LIS on landscape workshops. Far more versatile than a 70-200 f2.8 or f4. In fact a lot of landscapers opted for it over the 70-200 f4LIS and a 1.4x TC. But these days every one has upgraded again for the even more versatile 100-400LIS II.

 

[melgross]

I loved going through the discussions in this topic. My point on initial R launch is that Canon released flag-ship lenses with mid-range/prosumer body. Not the best combination to buy both. Questions would be:
Where is the pro body for $$$$ lenses?
Where are the prosumer and consumer grade lenses?
Is there any benefit in the lens eco-system? If not, why the hell to switch if you use 5d or 6d?
What will be the timeline and roadmap?
In the M line, Canon was terrible and still is in listening to itscustomers and showing some light on the ecosystem.
I personally remain very pragmatic to invest in a new system coming from Canon to the point I see all the components I need.

People look at lenses before buying into a system. Back in the “old” days, when I was in the commercial end of the business, people used to come up to me all the time, and ask what cameras I recommended for them. I asked what they were looking at. Very often they would tell me Canon or Nikon. I asked why, and I would often get an inexplicable reply. Because they make 600 to 1200mm lenses (which they did, back then). what?

Seriously, how many people starting out were going to buy a 600-1200mm lens? How many people buy them no matter what they do?

This is why Canon and Nikon come out with a few high end lenses. So Canon has two lenses that few are going to buy - now. But looking at a system, people look at the best, and often most expensive lenses, even though they do know, deep down, that they will never buy them. It’s asperational for them. If Canon just came out with cheap to medium quality and priced lenses at first, a lot of people would think that all they were going to produce, and there would be nothing for them to aspire to, or to brag about being available to them.

The rest of us know that Canon will come out with cheaper lenses for these folk, and we also know that Canon will come out with a body that’s worthy of these lenses. So we really don’t worry about it.

 

[AlanF]

That's not the modern scene. People now buy Canon so they can bitch about them and and write they will jump ship to Sony. It beats taking photos.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

That's not the modern scene. People now buy Canon so they can bitch about them and and write they will jump ship to Sony. It beats taking photos.

Many people buy Canon because they are Nikoners at heart but find the Canon range gives them a better option...then they can't get on with Canon and constantly moan about their life choices and then jump to Sony as a sort of protest. Forgetting that Sony also isn't Nikon. Then they jump ship back to their preferred Nikon world....realise they were better off with Canon all along and the wheel rotates for another spin of the dial....

I kind of wonder if the big three deliberately engineer their UI's to lock in users and cause the maximum frustration for users of the other two brands. Ie Canon lenses rotate one way to focus or zoom...Nikon's rotate the opposite way. The camera dials are the same (although mostly editable deep in the UI settings menus).

 

[knight427]

Many people buy Canon because they are Nikoners at heart but find the Canon range gives them a better option...then they can't get on with Canon and constantly moan about their life choices and then jump to Sony as a sort of protest. Forgetting that Sony also isn't Nikon. Then they jump ship back to their preferred Nikon world....realise they were better off with Canon all along and the wheel rotates for another spin of the dial....

This is sounding a lot like a confession.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

This is sounding a lot like a confession.

Ha...no just an observation. I've been a Canon boy all my photographic life. My Dad had an AE-1 Program and 3 lenses. All I could afford was an AV-1 and 50mm f1.8....but I could mostly borrow my Dad's lenses when I needed them. I saw cameras come along like the T90 and then Eos 650. My last film camera was an Eos 33 with eye control focus. Then I went Digital when the Eos 300D was lauched. My first full framer was an Eos 5D from the first batch in Wiltshire....I even helped the shop unbox them from the pallet...I was so eager.
But I also used to be the president of the Swindon Camera Club...and I noticed a certain look in the eye of the Noikers who were dabbling with Canon. The used the Canon gear but they weren't happy or fulfilled with Canon gear.