Patent: Multiple small RF prime lens optical formulas
- Thread starter Canon Rumors
- Start date
I don’t find my 600mm f/4 prime to be ‘pretty much pointless’.
I didn't say it was...I said I thought HE said 4.0 primes were. (He probably wasn't thinking of the really long primes.) In the interest of full disclosure, however, I was inclined to agree with him, but I was thinking of short primes (e.g., 85mm, 50, 35, and so forth), just as he likely was.
That 600mm f/4 must be a royal pain to buy (front) filters for!
Upvote
0
L
Loswr
Guest
That’s why there’s a drop-in slot and a CPL, and a holder for other 52mm filters.
Upvote
0
Just from looking at the page on B&H it's not threaded up front.
Come to think of it, that makes my statement even more true. It really would be a royal pain...
It's way beyond my level in either case. I might end up with that 100-400 L someday, but before I pull the trigger on that I'll want to see how much of an improvement (vast, or very vast?) it is over my 18-400 Tamron.
Upvote
0
unfocused
Photos/Photo Book Reviews: www.thecuriouseye.com
Same here. I thought it was pretty clear he was referring to prime lenses at smaller apertures than f2.8 and was thinking of it in relation to the wide angle lenses mentioned in this thread. This is a good example of why people should not shoot first and aim later. To be fair he was responding to someone who mentioned an f4 "trinity." For many of us older photographers this would be referencing a wide angle, a normal and a short telephoto – all primes.
I never use the term because I think it is stupid and smacks of jargon. Most jargon is used by people who want to feel superior to others by speaking in coded phrases, when simple language would be much more suitable and precise.
In my younger days, I routinely carried three lenses: 24mm, 50 mm and 135 mm. They covered most situations. Other photographers preferred a 28 mm or a 35 mm and a few stuck to an 85mm at the long end. I guess you could call these a "trinity," but I never knew a professional photographer who used the term and only learned of the term when I started participating in this gearhead forum.
Ironically, I think Mel probably misunderstood the post he was reacting to, which referenced f4 lenses but didn't make clear whether the poster was thinking of primes or zooms. I don't know anyone who has suggested f4 primes, so I doubt that is what the person was thinking of.
So, to recap: Mel made a comment that was probably based on a misreading of another person's post. Then Neuro jumped down his throat based on a misreading of Mel's comment.
Another glorious day at the Canon Rumors outhouse.
Upvote
0
L
Loswr
Guest
When was there an f/4 trinity of primes? In the Canon lineup, I had to go back to the Serenar lenses around 1950 to find short telephoto primes (100-135mm) that were f/4, and even then their 35/50/85mm counterparts were at least f/3.5 and usually faster.
Sorry, I’m still not seeing how anyone could see the phrase, “f/4 trinity,” and think that’s a reference to prime lenses. Maybe I’m too young. Perhaps there was an f/4 trinity of primes back when daguerreotypes and magnesium flash powder were state of the art?
Incidentally, Mel subsequently ‘clarified’ (and I use the term loosely and sardonically) that, “...we’re talking about the lenses in the article, and no other, or should be...” I guess I missed the three f/4 prime lenses in the patent that he included the quote about...or maybe Mel was talking about lenses even he says he shouldn’t have been discussing.
Upvote
0
L
Loswr
Guest
Definitely!!
Wonderpana makes 186mm filters and a holder for the 11-24L. Maybe one of those and some duct tape?
Upvote
0
2.0 20mm might be a good ultrawide for my purposes - seldom use of ultra wide lenses if I want to capture more atmosphere. And the 2.0 would make it a good lens for some homeopathic bokeh in the background ... a 1:4 maximum reproduction would be great for some "atmospheric" close up work.
Upvote
0
Canon is definitely putting a lot of effort into what they've long known how to do...lenses. As near as I can tell from all the third and fourth hand things I've been seeing, they're rapidly catching up on the sensor side of things. The next bunch of R body releases will fill in the other half of a truly awesome system. Then at their leisure they can add longer and shorter lenses--the range of R lenses runs, I believe from 24 to 240 right now.
I'd love to see the M series get one tenth this much love...but it appears third parties will be filling in the gap.
Upvote
0
I'm in love with the R. I can hardly believe how good it is for the price. I'd like to get the 80 mega pixel camera when it comes out, but that would also mean spending thousands to upgrade my 6 year old computer that already has trouble with 30 mega pixel files. That, and somebody would have to die for me to collect my inheritance. I'm in no hurry for that.
Dad will probably outlive me. He still runs marathons at 76. Tough old Marine.
Upvote
0
I passed on the 24mm & 28mm f/2.8 because I have the EF 24-70mm f/2.8L on my camera as default, and the 24mm f/2.8's IQ is mediocre.
If things changed on the RF mount, e.g. the f/4 trinity of zooms is small or the 24mm prime is f/2.0, I might very well buy it.
Upvote
0
D
Deleted member 378875
Guest
I think this is fantastic news
The switch to RF would be breathtakingly expensive if the only glass was best-in-the-world-class
However if Canon were to provide a suite of small lightweight RF primes (and f4 zooms) and a small lightweight R camera then this would make an awesome replacement for their existing APS-C and EF-S range
I for one would be thrilled at such a prospect
My journey with Canon started with an 80D and a few of the cheaper EF lenses (50,85 and 24-105) and then upgraded to a 5D and f/2.8 zooms
I can see a few cheaper primes and f/4 zooms offering a very realistic and attractive way in to the world of RF
The switch to RF would be breathtakingly expensive if the only glass was best-in-the-world-class
However if Canon were to provide a suite of small lightweight RF primes (and f4 zooms) and a small lightweight R camera then this would make an awesome replacement for their existing APS-C and EF-S range
I for one would be thrilled at such a prospect
My journey with Canon started with an 80D and a few of the cheaper EF lenses (50,85 and 24-105) and then upgraded to a 5D and f/2.8 zooms
I can see a few cheaper primes and f/4 zooms offering a very realistic and attractive way in to the world of RF
Upvote
0
D
Deleted member 378875
Guest
Maybe lots of patents is like the presidential motorcade having lots of cars so you don't know which is the real president's car ...
Upvote
0
One possible answer to your question is that this way they want to make the job of third party lens manufacturers harder. They do not want them to produce small and inexpensive lenses that would eat into the Canon's cake.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
I cannot speak for all, but my reaction to these lenses was:
(1) the 35mm f2 IS is on my list (which is postponed till the time I finally decide whether to stay with Canon or go somewhere where they have IBIS on APS-C)
(2) I was eagerly waiting for the 24mm IS (when it was only in the stage of rumor) hoping that it would be F2.0 so it could serve as the moderate wide angle for my APS-C camera. But it came out as 2.8 so I lost my interest. Since then I have no affordable wide primes for my APS-C DSLRs because Canon decided not to produce such...
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Don't think so!
I believe Canon was thinking that renewing and adding IS to the lenses would make the people rush on them and tried to milk the market.
And when that didn't happen they had to accept that the value to the market was lower.
Upvote
0
Those lenses were announced in 2012 during the height of the yen.
Canon Japan exports to Canon USA, so currency exchange plays a huge factor.
Upvote
0
I live in Germany. The Yen was just about 20 % lower (better said higher, as the scale is the other way around) to the Euro in 2012 than today.
This "height" does not describe a price drop in MRSP from about 800€ to now about 550€ (more than 30%) and a street price lower than 420€ (more than 47%). And I bought for 377€ (more than 52%) at a well known retailer.
Currency effects take place here, yes.
But it was more about "supply and demand" IMO.
(time scale of both charts is different; would love to sync but too much work)
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Similar threads
