I now have the RF 50mm f1.2 and an EOS R... gave up on waiting!
the 50mm F1.2 is an excellent lens in every way but one.... focusing speed.
Upvote
0
I now have the RF 50mm f1.2 and an EOS R... gave up on waiting!
But I will be getting a R5 or R5s and I strongly assume it will AF just fine with a f7.1 lens with 70.4mm aperture.
Yes, I did say "But I will be getting a R5 or R5s and I strongly assume it will AF just fine with a f7.1 lens with 70.4mm aperture." But you assume that my premise is that it will AF just fine with any f7.1 lens. That was not my premise.Your assumption proceeds from an invalid premise. The AF sensor doesn't care about the physical aperture, just the f-ratio. The image size on the sensor is the same size regardless of the diameter of the objective.
By your reasoning a 2250mm f/32 lens would AF just fine because it has a 70mm aperture...
A lot of people will be happy with the 100-500. Eventually, if the IQ checks out, I will probably be one of them.
That's why Canon has, for sports photographers and birders, some beautiful 300, 400 ,600 and 800 mm L lenses in the program.I take sports photography, polo and horseball, and sometimes birds.
An L 500 f: 7.1 lens. I don't see the point, no matter how good the sensors are today
Zoom lenses with a lower f# at their wide angle end always (IMHO) seem to quickly have their f# approach the f# of the telephoto end as they go through their range to telephoto. Therefore I'd bet that the f# of the 100-500 f4.5-7.1 at 400mm is in the far upper 6's or even 7.1.
The lens certainly *could* be capable of f/5.6 at 400 based on the design. 400/500 * 7.1 = 5.68 Now, that equation doesn't hold true for all lens designs of course, but it does show that at least it's possible it's f/5.6 at 400mm.
I can't see why Canon would release this class of lens if it DIDN'T do f/5.6 at 400mm - people would buy the EF lens instead.
So, it would seem possible that the RF 100-500 may be f5.6 at 400mm and quite likely that it is within 1/3 stop of f5.6 at 400mm?I was thinking that as well, but I'm slowly coming around to the other side:
But there's a counterpoint: there's the actual effective aperture and then there's the aperture that shows up in your EVF. Is anyone really going to notice it being f/6.0 when it reports f/5.6 in the EVF and EXIF?
- With more and more f/7.1 lenses Canon is signalling that small apertures are OK now
- With 100mm extra reach, people might forgive 400mm being f/6.3
I'm sorry, but you need to rethink your math. By your own assumption, the 100-500 f4.5-7.1 at 100mm should be "able" to have a f# of 100/500 * 7.1 = 1.4. So, do you really think it could be f1.4 at 100mm? That'd be one heck of a lens there!The lens certainly *could* be capable of f/5.6 at 400 based on the design. 400/500 * 7.1 = 5.68 Now, that equation doesn't hold true for all lens designs of course, but it does show that at least it's possible it's f/5.6 at 400mm.
I can't see why Canon would release this class of lens if it DIDN'T do f/5.6 at 400mm - people would buy the EF lens instead.
A lot of people will be happy with the 100-500. Eventually, if the IQ checks out, I will probably be one of them.
The good news here though is that a F7.1 lens will allow for a metering at 0EV light levels. Here is an example of such an exposure:Unless the lens is just unusable, I plan to get one. I have hope that with high ISO (on a great body, like an R5 or R1) and careful use of shutter speed, I could get away with it for outdoor events and daytime outdoor sports.
I agree. Canon obviously must be very bold about the low light performance of their new R series sensors, otherwise such a zoom wouldn't make much sense. On the other hand, many people love the Sigma 150-600mm sports despite the fact that it closes to f = 6.3 already @ about 320mm (maybe the main reason why it is sharper than Sigma's cheaper C zoom).As someone who shoots mainly sports and wildlife with Canon at shutter speeds that wouldn't rely on IBIS, I still can't get my head around an L tele zoom with a 7.1 aperture, especially as I already have the 100-400ii. Would it be 6.3 at 400mm?
or HNO for "High Noon Only"Canon should have introduced a new naming convention for F7.1 lenses: DLO
Stands for : Daylight Only
In fact, this is one of the most interesting Canon tele lenses for me, too. With the Mk II version they really tackled the softer contrast of the Mk I lens compared with non-DO lenses back then. With that DO optic's tech Canon proves that they were really innovative with lens designs. Nikon tried to follow-up with their smaller 300mm f/4 five years ago, but like so often they struggled with off-centered lenses when they introduced it to the market, they really have issues with production precision: https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/20...-ed-vr-test-or-why-i-dont-test-just-one-copy/Pipe dream. You need to try the 400mm DO. No zoom, but you are only going to use it at the long end anyway. With a 1.4x you get to your 560mm at a reasonable f5.6.
Thanks for the link to the PF (phase fresnel) Nikon lens. I haven't considered fresnel lenses before since they weren't so good long ago (as I remember at least) so I assumed they wouldn't be now. I am very surprised to see that they can be as good. I guess we will see if Canon decides to come out with any RF DO(diffractive optic) lenses. As lens designs get big & heavy it could really make a drastic difference in reducing weight & size.In fact, this is one of the most interesting Canon tele lenses for me, too. With the Mk II version they really tackled the softer contrast of the Mk I lens compared with non-DO lenses back then. With that DO optic's tech Canon proves that they were really innovative with lens designs. Nikon tried to follow-up with their smaller 300mm f/4 five years ago, but like so often they struggled with off-centered lenses when they introduced it to the market, they really have issues with production precision: https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/20...-ed-vr-test-or-why-i-dont-test-just-one-copy/