Sooooo, f/11 you say? What’s Canon up to with these upcoming supertelephoto lenses?

[YuengLinger]

The most important feature for a new camera to me these days is the flip screen. Nothing has improved my photography more so than that. I'm not a fan of the flip to the side Canon version for the things I use it for. Would much prefer it to just tilt out to stay in line with the lens but regardless the R5 will be killer because it will be the first high quality Canon camera with a flip screen. If the 1DXIII had a flip screen I may have bought that camera to use its excellent LV system.

I guess by "high quality" you are referring to speed and weather sealing. Otherwise, the EOS R produces "high quality" images.
Or maybe you mean price?
In any event, yes, a welcome feature.

 

[Drcampbellicu]

Continue reading...

Late to the reply party on this but I hope these will be cheap lenses for casual wildlife folks that shout in good weather
Wildlife photography is primarily non professionals nowadays. Tons of enthusiasts who don’t have a corporate budget.
I don’t think these lenses would be for me but I have friends who would appreciate having this option. Otw those folks would have to buy used or keep an EF lens and use the adapter. Canon is making it clear that they want everyone using RF

 

[arbitrage]

Mount to sensor distance of Canon lenses (AFAIK):

• RF: 20 mm
• EF-M: 16 mm
• EF/EF-S: 44 mm

You're welcome

Thanks for the info.

 

[arbitrage]

Absolutely. I have a 3xTC which I can put on the 100-400mm II to give f/16.8 at 1200mm and it focuses fine on the 90D in liveview.

What is this 3xTC you speak of??

 

[AlanF]

What is this 3xTC you speak of??

I described it earlier in:

Kenco Teleplus Pro 300 3XM DG 3xTC

Some of us have played around stacking the 1.4xTC and 2xTCIII with an extension ring. They don't AF. I became intrigued on seeing the review of the Kenco Teleplus Pro 300 3XM DG, which is meant to be manual focus only 3xTC but it actually performs better than the Kenco 2xTC...

www.canonrumors.com

Here is a shot of the moon with it stacked onto a 2xTCIII with 300mm f/2.8 II on a 7DII to give 1800mm f/16.8 (hand held).

 

[Whowe]

Absolutely. I have a 3xTC which I can put on the 100-400mm II to give f/16.8 at 1200mm and it focuses fine on the 90D in liveview.

What's the IQ like with a 3x TC? I love my 100-400ii, but I hear so much about poorer IQ with the 2xTC.

I have also wondered if the IQ of the combination zoom lens with 2x TC would be improved with micro adjustment. (That would explain a lot of bad reports from people not really using the lens combination.)

 

[AlanF]

What's the IQ lie with a 3x TC? I love my 100-400ii, but I hear so much about poorer IQ with the 2xTC.

I have also wondered if the IQ of the combination zoom lens with 2x TC would be improved with micro adjustment. (That would explain a lot of bad reports from people not really using the lens combination.)

It's actually quite good with the 2xTC - see https://www.the-digital-picture.com...meraComp=979&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=2&APIComp=2
You have to use Liveview with the 100-400mm II + 2xTC so AFMA isn't required. I have had very good results with the 2xTC on the 300mm f/2.8 II and with the 400mm DO II on the 5DIII and 5DIV but not the 5DSR where the high resolution sensor shows up the loss of IQ. AFMA was required with them. I'll have fun with the 3xTC when I get an R series plus EF->R adapter.

 

[SteveC]

It's actually quite good with the 2xTC - see https://www.the-digital-picture.com...meraComp=979&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=2&APIComp=2
You have to use Liveview with the 100-400mm II + 2xTC so AFMA isn't required. I have had very good results with the 2xTC on the 300mm f/2.8 II and with the 400mm DO II on the 5DIII and 5DIV but not the 5DSR where the high resolution sensor shows up the loss of IQ. AFMA was required with them. I'll have fun with the 3xTC when I get an R series plus EF->R adapter.

I really should drag that 2x TC out for a test. I played around with it some a few months ago, and didn't get spectacular results, but then again I *was* shooting through a triple-glaze window with a screen, which might just possibly have had an effect. Just possibly.

 

[Joules]

I really should drag that 2x TC out for a test. I played around with it some a few months ago, and didn't get spectacular results, but then again I *was* shooting through a triple-glaze window with a screen, which might just possibly have had an effect. Just possibly.

Alan I believe also reported in the past that there are copy to copy variations of how well TCS behave with certain lenses. So it may be that you have one that doesn't play well with the lens you tested.

Or maybe I'm recalling it wrong. I believe I read that in the bird thread a while back.

 

[AlanF]

Alan I believe also reported in the past that there are copy to copy variations of how well TCS behave with certain lenses. So it may be that you have one that doesn't play well with the lens you tested.

Or maybe I'm recalling it wrong. I believe I read that in the bird thread a while back.

You remember well. I had 3 copies of the 1.4xTCIII, one of which was ok in the centre and poor at the edges, one which is excellent with the 100-400mm II and another which works best with the 400mm DO II. I have fallen out of love with extenders as sensor resolution has increased.

 

[SteveC]

You remember well. I had 3 copies of the 1.4xTCIII, one of which was ok in the centre and poor at the edges, one which is excellent with the 100-400mm II and another which works best with the 400mm DO II. I have fallen out of love with extenders as sensor resolution has increased.

In that case I really need to take that thing out for a test, especially since the 100-400 is precisely the lens I was using it with.

 

[scyrene]

There's nothing 'horrible' in F11 lens on full frame camera. It's going to be a direct competitor to popular 1" ultrazoom cameras, which have roughly the same equivalent aperture and focal length. Well, probably overall dimensions are going to be quite similar!

I'm surprised nobody else has pointed this out. The equivalent apertures for ultrazooms are crazy. f/11 sounds positively wide by comparison.

 

[scyrene]

So to sum up, the answer to the thread is - air shows, skiing, motorsports, surfing/windsurfing, some other sport situations, some wildlife, the moon, sun, possibly other astro subjects, and anything currently being shot with superzooms and long lens combinations on smaller formats. Can the naysayers take a seat now?

 

[Bennymiata]

Many on this forum were complaining that there were no cheap lenses for the R, and now it looks like Canon is bringing out some cheap lenses, you are now complaining about them!

These long lenses will sell well if the price is right. Not so much for serious pros but for most others they can show off that they have a 600mm lens. F11 is a meaningless term to them anyway.

 

[Dragon]

it can be, but don't forget in alot of cases people use telephotos and also need to stop motion, requiring a higher shutter speed.

You failed to quote most of what I said including "not exactly a BIF lens". But let's speculate here for a minute. What if Canon has figured out how to take the 3D map data that allows for eye tracking AF and applied it to a subject tracking IS mode. Even 3 stops of that suddenly turns f/11 into f/4 for a much wider set of use cases. Still not going to catch hummingbird wings, but it would likely work well on, say, an eagle in flight. I am not saying this is what Canon has done, but pre-judging an f/11 lens as useless when you don't have all the data is at best premature. Canon is a very conservative company and in the past when they have made big strides, they have not screwed up. I personally am very excited about the prospects of these lenses combined with the R5/R6.

 

[Skyscraperfan]

I had always hoped for something like that for the EF system. The 600 an 800 mm lenses are very heavy and expensive because of the amount of glass. An f/11 lens could be so much lighter and cheaper. Of course for wildlife you need a lot of light, but I take photos of skyscrapers from near and far and an f/11 lens would be perfect for that, as long as the camera still manages to focus at f/11.
There is already a Russian 1000mm lens with f/10, but it is manual focus and not very sharp. So you would get better photos by upscaling photos from a very sharp 400mm lens.

 

[Mr Majestyk]

These are lenses for people like me, and god I am excited for them. These are for the hobbyist and enthusiasts that dont have $13000 to put down on a lens, but just want to get a shot! f11 is plenty for non-professional work for people like me who are already used to a bit of noise in their shots. As someone who has shot many a bird with a Canon 100-400 and Sigma 150-600 with either extended these could be an absolute breath of fresh air. Extenders are primarily known for their slow AF performance (when you get it) and compromised image quality (especially on the 2x). If you're shooting with these already, a dedicated lense is going to offer much better IQ, and I guess the R model cameras are going to be able to handle the AF better. The R cameras are also going to handle that noise better.

You do know the reason the AF is slow because it is f/8 or f/11, so how does an 800 f/11 magically fix that

 

[Joules]

You do know the reason the AF is slow because it is f/8 or f/11, so how does an 800 f/11 magically fix that

OVF based AF suffers from slow apertures, because it has only a fraction of the light to work with. Keep in mind that the vast majority of light in an OVF is send to the photographers eye and only a small amount gets to the AF sensor.

With on sensor AF, especially DPAF (So, using LiveView on a DSLR), much, much more light can be used to AF. All Canon mirrorless cameras have DPAF now and it has been demonstrated to AF even with apertures more narrow than f/11

 

[dominic_siu]

Without decent light, F11 would not be very usable

 

[Aussie shooter]

So to sum up, the answer to the thread is - air shows, skiing, motorsports, surfing/windsurfing, some other sport situations, some wildlife, the moon, sun, possibly other astro subjects, and anything currently being shot with superzooms and long lens combinations on smaller formats. Can the naysayers take a seat now?

Not really because while those examples you gave are correct there was a bit missing. ALL of them will still require excellent light conditions. As soon as the light drops(overcast conditions) you will start to struggle. So if people are willing to fork out1500bucks for a lens they can only use when everything is perfect then fair enough. They will probably give it a shot. But if they want something that can also work when conditions are less ideal then they probably will look elsewhere. Canon are not stupid though and you would assume this has all been taken into account and they believe they will sell enough to make it a worthwhile endeavor. I just hope from a personal point of view that they also go with an equivalent to the third party 150-600 offerings. The 100-500looks ok but it is still an L lens and will therefore likely come with a typical L pricetag.