This is likely Canon’s lens roadmap for 2020

[Eclipsed]

Why is everyone panicking? I mean, if you think this lens is too dark for your uses just don't buy it. Of course Canon will release the F2.8, F4 and F5.6 superteles.

Yes, and the RF versions are simply a matter of having a summer engineering intern redo the rear housing of existing lenses for RF. I predict this is being held until the R1 release with a whole library of big white RF lenses simultaneously released.

 

[Mark3794]

Some here get it, but let me say it: these f11 teles are mostly for FUTURE cameras.

There is some market for slow and long now, but as with Moore’s law, camera sensors advance rapidly and inexorably. How many years has it typically taken per stop of low light performance. Do the math and see that these f11 lenses in several years will be performing like the f2.8 pro lenses of recent years.

Of course sensor improvements and lens sharpness mean that extreme lengths might not be needed with the ability to crop to zoom from, say a 400.

Unfortunately unless some magic software trickery happens we are almost at the limit.

https://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Canon EOS 1D X Mark III,Ideal FF/FX,Sony ILCE-7M3

 

[dflt]

Unfortunately unless some magic software trickery happens we are almost at the limit.

https://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Canon EOS 1D X Mark III,Ideal FF/FX,Sony ILCE-7M3

Like multiple image combined into one in almost real time.

 

[SecureGSM]

Some here get it, but let me say it: these f11 teles are mostly for FUTURE cameras.

There is some market for slow and long now, but as with Moore’s law, camera sensors advance rapidly and inexorably. How many years has it typically taken per stop of low light performance. Do the math and see that these f11 lenses in several years will be performing like the f2.8 pro lenses of recent years.

Of course sensor improvements and lens sharpness mean that extreme lengths might not be needed with the ability to crop to zoom from, say a 400.

+++++ these f11 lenses in several years will be performing like the f2.8 pro lenses of recent years.

+++++Some here get it, but let me say it...

A.M.:let me say it: this is a pure garbage. Not even going to explain that F11 is a 4 full stops slower than F2.8 And what are the implications.
some here get it. correct. Not you though.

 

[stevelee]

And ten assistants for carrying and holding it!

When I think about some of the lenses that folks here ask for, the word that comes to my mind is "sherpas."

 

[Quarkcharmed]

Do the math and see that these f11 lenses in several years will be performing like the f2.8 pro lenses of recent years.

... and in a few more years after that, these f11 lenses will be able to detect habitable planets in distant galaxies.

 

[alejandrobox]

And... what about a RF 35 1.2 IS??????

I think 35 mm is one of the best lenses and I don´t know why don´t have one professional (I have the RF 35 1.8 and is not what I am talking about...).

 

[mpmark]

Canon seems to be really bold these days, which i like.

Imagine an under 1kg 800mm lens. Could be great for hiking and travelling and used in decent light.

yes I can imagine it, then forget it quite quickly, if you every do wildlife in the forest this will be completely useless.

 

[AlanF]

Some here get it, but let me say it: these f11 teles are mostly for FUTURE cameras.

There is some market for slow and long now, but as with Moore’s law, camera sensors advance rapidly and inexorably. How many years has it typically taken per stop of low light performance. Do the math and see that these f11 lenses in several years will be performing like the f2.8 pro lenses of recent years.

Of course sensor improvements and lens sharpness mean that extreme lengths might not be needed with the ability to crop to zoom from, say a 400.

Fortunately for now and unfortunately for the future, current sensors are so efficient for light gathering that there is not much room for improvement. It's a quite different situation from microprocessor chips and Moore's Law. Low light performance has hardly improved in the last couple of years because it is now limited predominantly by light flux and not sensor efficiency.

 

[Joules]

As above, in order to keep the same shutter speed at f11, we'll have pump the ISO up to 1600. Will ISO 1600 on a FF look the same as ISO 500 on a crop camera? I'm not sure.

f11 sounds very limiting to me, although I'm very far from buying RF lenses anyway.

I just set up the experiment in the garden with the 80D and EF-S 55-250mm 4.0-5.6 IS STM:

Take 4 pictures from the same spot, over a quick period of time under a clear sun. So the perspective is identical and the lighting conditions are identical.

Same shutter speed in all of them, so that they all can be magnified to the same extent because they all have the same motion blur.

2 images are taken at 100mm and enlarged by a factor of 2 horizontally and vertically. 2 are taken at 200mm and not enlarged. So the FoV is basically identical.

For both focal lenghts, one image was taken at f/5.6 and ISO 2000 and one at f/11 and ISO 8000. So they all have the same brightness.

They are all taken at the same whitebalance and focussed on the same flower.

There are not adjustments to the brightness or anything else in lightroom. No sharpnes, no profiles. Turned down all the chroma and luminance noise reduction. The following comparison shows only the center 1920 X 1080 section of each image (after enlargement of the 100mm ones), so that differences are more apparent. There is a bit of uncorrected vignette in the wide open shots that may appear to impact brightness.

My expectation and understanding of the subject: Enlarging / Cropping by a factor of 2 has a comparable effect on image noise as decreasing the aperture by 2 stops.

The results:



To me it looks like the bottom right looks best, the top left looks worst and the two others look close enough for me to call that equivalent. Obviously, one is a bit softer due to being a 6 MP section of an image that is upscaled to 24 MP (factor of 2 horizontally and vertically). But so far I stand by my original point: If I can get images that I like with my 150-600mm C at 600mm f/7.1 (And 500mm f/7.1 for that matter, to use the exact equivalent), I don't agree with the assesment that 800mm f/11 is a useless lens for the same applications as it should deliver very comparable images. Nonetheless, I totally agree with you that a prime with f/11 is very much a lens with a narrow range of applications and I personally would only consider it if the price or weight are outstandingly low.

Here is a variation of the same comparison, where the diagonally opposing image is set beside each one for a better look:



Should the upload have messed up the files (Edit: It did, these were originally 4K images. You can still see the differences though) and somebody doubts my assessment, maybe conduct the experiment yourself. Or make a suggestion where I can upload the files elsewhere for acces to a better quality version. If you see an issue with this demonstration, please let me know.

Please do not see this as me trying to be right. I'm just trying to confirm and demonstrate what I'm saying here so that we don't need to argue endlessly. Far more than 1000 words have surely been said about the subject, and I think images add more than written back and forth.

 

[Canon-Chas]

You are free to have your subjective opinion of my image and voice it in a matter you see fit.

But f/7.1 on an APS-C sensor is equivalent to f/11 on FF in all aspects that people generally care for when talking about image quality. If you disagree with that, you are just wrong. Do you need a demonstration, or are you okay with researching it on your own?

It wasn't a subjective opinion I was just agreeing with your comment on your own images " Obviously, these images are utter rubbish! ". I still think F11 is nonsense, I doubt if Canon would be so stupid, time will tell when the rumours are finished. I wouldn't recommend an F11 lens to anyone, there are far better options out there . Good luck if you enjoy the challenge and image quality at F11, hope you enjoy it .

 

[blackcoffee17]

yes I can imagine it, then forget it quite quickly, if you every do wildlife in the forest this will be completely useless.

And it will be useless shooting football inside a stadium at night too.

It will be a budget lens. Not for every occasion or lighting condition but plenty. I did shot very good images in the dark forest at ISO 800-1600 at F5.6 and 640mm on old Canon 20D/7D so 1 or 2 stop ISO increment should be still usable on a modern full frame.

Of course, you can always buy the $15000 800mm 5.6 and carry all the 4.5 kg weight up to a mountain. I am happy that there will be choice.
Brighter lenses will be there too.

I have a feeling these lenses will be more unusual than the specs show. They will have some weird optics/design.

 

[Joules]

It wasn't a subjective opinion, I was just agreeing with you. I still think F11 is nonsense, I doubt if Canon would be so stupid, time will tell when the rumours are finished

"Agreeing" with me on a statement that was meant to be obviously sarcastic. I'm not sure what to make of that.

Still, that's not what I was rejecting. I stated that f/11 on FF should deliver results that are comparable to /7.1 on APS-C with regards to noise. And as I can tell from personal experience that the latter isn't useless, even for wildlife, the former should not be called that either.

To which you seemed to object that this comparison is not valid. Did I miss understand you there? Else see this post for a demonstration of what I meant.

 

[stevelee]

Sometimes it is useful as a shorthand to say that something on a crop-sensor camera is equivalent to something on a FF camera. If the writer and reader make the same assumptions about "in what way?" then there is useful communication. Otherwise you get the recurring arguments about whether f/4 is f/4 or f/6.4 or f/6.9644 and the like. I bought a 50mm f/1.4 as my portrait lens for the T3i, but I didn't expect the laws of physics to change just because I bought it.

 

[stevelee]

I find that overexposure is more of an issue with a full moon than camera shake on a clear night.

 

[SecureGSM]

And it will be useless shooting football inside a stadium at night too.

It will be a budget lens. Not for every occasion or lighting condition but plenty. I did shot very good images in the dark forest at ISO 800-1600 at F5.6 and 640mm on old Canon 20D/7D so 1 or 2 stop ISO increment should be still usable on a modern full frame.

Of course, you can always buy the $15000 800mm 5.6 and carry all the 4.5 kg weight up to a mountain. I am happy that there will be choice.
Brighter lenses will be there too.

I have a feeling these lenses will be more unusual than the specs show. They will have some weird optics/design.

Dark forest at ISO 800-1600, F5.6 and 640mm.
ok. What shutter speed though? And what lens? 640mm focal length sounds fancy. A genuine interest. Thanks.

 

[Random Orbits]

I'm not seeing much discussion on the 85mm f/2 macro IS STM. That would be an interesting lens. If it can do 1:1, then it could replace both the 85 f/1.8 portrait lens and a 100mm macro for most people, so it seems like a value play. I'm guessing that the 100mm focal length will only have the "L" macro unlike the current offerings in the EF system.

 

[Joules]

Sometimes it is useful as a shorthand to say that something on a crop-sensor camera is equivalent to something on a FF camera. If the writer and reader make the same assumptions about "in what way?" then there is useful communication. Otherwise you get the recurring arguments.

I have a feeling that Canon is preparing the RF ecosystem for being FF exclusive. And that means in order to still have some very compact lenses, we're now seeing what appears to be shockingly slow apertures.

But in reality people with MFT and APS-C have been getting by with camera and lens combinations that are the same or worse with regards to low light performance. People also have and still do put teleconverters to good use, which are even worse than these lenses as they can impact AF performance. I think talking about it just helps to put Canon's actions into context. I've read the terms absurd and stupid used to describe Canon's new lenses in this thread, so I believe there is a benefit to bring up some of the technical contexts that can explain why they are doing what they do.

In the end, not everybody can afford a big white. If Canon moves away from DSLR entirely, slow lenses allow them to offer something in the RF system to those that don't fancy the limits if the M system without offering a RF crop line of lenses. It makes sense to me.

 

[blackcoffee17]

Dark forest at ISO 800-1600, F5.6 and 640mm.
ok. What shutter speed though? And what lens? 640mm focal length sounds fancy. A genuine interest. Thanks.

The 400 5.6 prime on APS-C. Shutter speed was quite low and static subject of course.

 

[jolyonralph]

The big mistery for me is: what are the teleconverters for?

No mystery at all. They were announced and shown alongside the RF 100-500L lens. As far we can see that's the only lens they currently work with. They certainly WON"T work with the RF 70-200 f/2.8