This is likely Canon’s lens roadmap for 2020

[scyrene]

Talking Shooting handheld with IS on @800mm. That’s 400/2.8 II + x2III. I could not get sharp shots unless was shooting at around 1/800s.
5d4. It could be me or could be my setup but my experience is as described.

It does sound like you, sorry. Are you sure the IS is switched on? The standard used to be 1/focal length (so 1/800 for an 800mm lens); for pixel-level sharpness on higher resolution sensors, maybe a bit more, say 1/(focal length x1.5), so 1/1200. But the IS in the mark II superteles is good for 4 stops, so you should be able to shoot at ~1/160 and get a lot of keepers. I've shot static subjects handheld at 500mm 1/15 with no motion blur, but the keeper rate is naturally pretty low when you go to such extremes.

PS when you say sharp, you're talking about motion blur, right?

 

[scyrene]

Firstly, there is far more practically options then the 800/5.6 from this 800/11. Secondly, this obsession with extreme high telephoto lenses is just overboard, I have no problem getting close enough to wildlife at 420mm/F4 which is my setup. It takes some practice and patience to get wildlife to get close, creates a more intimate encounter as well but you can get close to wildlife if you know what you are doing. Shooting at such high focal lengths just seems quite lazy to be honest.

I would much rather have my 420/f4 combo and get amazing photography that is useful another 15minutes past the sun setting then to have a f/7.1 or f/11 which is honestly poor light gathering and really only useful in harsh daytime sunlight. People tend to say, oh well the iso is getting better and you can push this. What they fail to mention that the opposite is true as well, if you have faster glass, that can be pushed far more as well. But too each their own.

Saying you prefer your way is one thing, castigating those with a different approach as lazy is pretty arrogant. Getting closer almost always results in a better image. But sometimes it's physically impossible, and how close you can get varies a lot by species, habitat, and region. Get over yourself.

I would just add - not everyone has the same standards with regard to 'acceptable image quality'. All my years of being a photography enthusiast have taught me that for most people, budget and subject matter are far more important than technical minutiae, even findamental stuff like sharpness, noise, and the quality of the light. Your shots may end up better, but if the buyers of these lenses are happy with what they produce, they will be serving their purpose well.

 

[SecureGSM]

It does sound like you, sorry. Are you sure the IS is switched on? The standard used to be 1/focal length (so 1/800 for an 800mm lens); for pixel-level sharpness on higher resolution sensors, maybe a bit more, say 1/(focal length x1.5), so 1/1200. But the IS in the mark II superteles is good for 4 stops, so you should be able to shoot at ~1/160 and get a lot of keepers. I've shot static subjects handheld at 500mm 1/15 with no motion blur, but the keeper rate is naturally pretty low when you go to such extremes.

PS when you say sharp, you're talking about motion blur, right?

+++++ Are you sure the IS is switched on?

A.M.: appreciate the humour
Is on, mode 3. Could be issue with IS in the lens. I am not claiming otherwise. Typically was shooting with the lens at around 1/2000s with IS off. Was never happy with IS in the lens. Sold one 11 months ago.

 

[Eclipsed]

Moore's law has nothing to do with photoelectric conversion. Nothing at all.

But I have a better idea about future cameras: these lenses are for making sketches. The AI of the future cameras will take these sketches and paint the pictures they could correspond to.

How do you reconcile that with the consistent past advancement of every aspect of image quality? Do you think that advancement has stopped? My only point is that I assume it has not and will not.

 

[PhotonShark]

Here's a thought that a couple of posts have alluded to it, but not clarified.

Surely this is all about luring/tempting customers away from APS-C SLR to full frame?

It's all good and well with your EOS ?0D and an EF 100-400 IS II. But, how do you get the equivalent focal length for even remotely reasonable money on Full Frame (3rd party lenses excluded).

Enter a 100-500mm RF lens. Granted, it's down to 7.1 but at high ISO, the noise advantage of Full Frame takes care of the difference?

Just a thought.

 

[Joules]

How do you reconcile that with the consistent past advancement of every aspect of image quality? Do you think that advancement has stopped? My only point is that I assume it has not and will not.

Advancements certainly haven't stop, but with regards to most aspects, they have slowed down a lot.

For noise and low light performance for example, there are two aspects that are subject to improvements. There is the efficiency of how much of the light hitting a sensor is converted to electricity and therefore detected. This is currently in the high 80% range for consumer cameras AFAIK. So even if 100% was achievable, that would make things not much better.

And the other aspect is the noise generated inside the camera electronics due to heat (dark current noise) and the read and amplifier circuitry (read noise). The latter is what has improved over the last years a lot. But it also has a lower limit. I don't know where exactly that would be, but obviously the read noise is very small in modern sensors and as it can't go negative, it seems we are approaching the practical minimum. Dark current can be reduced by cooling the sensor, which is actually a big part of dedicated astro cameras. But for general purpose photography, not much heat is generated in the sensor. And it should also be less now that the newer cameras are using more energy efficient parts.

As for megapixels, this is where we have seen most improvements in the recent past. You now can get as far as 32 MP APS-C sensors! Scaled up to FF that would be just over 80 MP. Quite a lot. But there's a limit as well: the diffraction limit. One your resolution has climbed so high that all apertures you frequently use are beyond the diffraction limit, you're getting the most detail for your money. But adding more MP won't help anymore. We are not at that point yet, a 32 MP sensor can resolve all the detail from f/6.3 and upward.

But getting past the diffraction limit involves some pretty specific techniques, so once we are there, that should be Pretty much it for the megapixel race. At the current rate of MP growth, it while take over a decade to get there though.

There are improvements to be had in DR. Canon has demonstrated that with its new Dual Gain Output sensor, and Sony has a different approach with dual amplifier stages that does also improve DR, although far less.

 

[tron]

I stop down the 500+2x combination to f/10 because I found the IQ was slightly better than way. In my opinion, 1000mm f/10 is close enough to 800mm f/11 for the purposes of countering the claim that such a lens could never be used in anything but bright midday light, a claim which seems to be based of supposition and received wisdom. I present my experience as a counterexample.

In 500+2X case there is always the option to use f/8 to avoid higher iso so I disagree 1000 f/8 is not the same as 800 f/11. Also we cannot know if IQ will be excellent fully open for that rumored (and possibly non-L) lens.

But, as mentioned in a previous post I believe 800 f/11 will be a successful lens. Portability and cost are they keywords.

 

[tron]

Canon had planned a 600 4 DO but I guess this got abandoned due to the new 600 4L IS III which is 3.1 Kg although not 31cm long (as the prototype). At least they could proceed by making some DO lenses in between like 500 5.6 (Nikon's is superb) 600 5.6 800 8 and 1000 11.

 

[Kit.]

How do you reconcile that with the consistent past advancement of every aspect of image quality?

Consistent with what? With Moore's law? I don't think so.

There's less than 2 stops of increase in high ISO DR of FF cameras in the last 15 years. And now we are already pretty close (within 1 stop) to its theoretical limit.

 

[Michael Clark]

Wow, these guys should be incredibly light weight! At least from that drawing they look basically empty

370 mm length sticking out from the mount is also pretty decent for an 800mm lens. And 310 for the 600mm.

View attachment 190730View attachment 190731

Those total lengths are to the imaging plane. Subtract 20mm to get the length in front of the flange ring.

 

[Michael Clark]

Interesting. But a DO 500mm f5.6 would be far more useful. With a 1.4X converter it would be a 700mm f8 and a 1000mm f11 with a 2x extender. f5.6 is far more usable in a situation where you need high shutter speeds.

More expensive, too. I'd be willing to bet these f/11 lenses won't take extenders, at least not officially. The designs are very simple. They're going to be (relatively) cheap for their focal lengths.

 

[Michael Clark]

F11 - could be a Cassegrain style mirror lens with primary and secondary mirror elements. This greatly reduces the lens length to possibly 150mm long.

See the patents posted above. A couple of those look suspiciously like these two f/11 tele lenses.

 

[Michael Clark]

Where the hell are the 500 f/4 and 300 f/2.8 not this ultra slow rubbish.

They're been in the catalogue for years and will continue to be.

Why introduce "duplicate" lenses when the EF tele lenses work just as well on RF bodies?

Canon is wise to introduce affordable tele lenses not already in their EF catalog first. It will sell a TON of RPs (and possibly R6s if the price is right) to budget conscious shooters.

 

[Michael Clark]

A 500mm f/5.6 and a 600mm f/5.6 would be ideal. After seeing the Nikon 500mm f/5.6 in person I am sold. F/11 is just not going to work here unless it’s at ISO 18000 in a forest.

Edit: I missed these are rumoured to be STM lenses so they aren’t aimed at me anyway. I am wanting a 500 or 600 f/5.6 L lens with all the weather sealing it can have so I can have a light prime for going on long walks.

These will not be "L" lenses. These are for the budget conscious masses who shoot birds, air shows, and similar in bright daylight.

 

[Michael Clark]

Suppose the 100mm f/2.0 Macro is a 1:1 and the 85mm f/2 Macro IS STM is a 1:2 like the RF35/F1.8.


Time will tell...
Most popular lenses first.

And lenses that aren't already in the EF catalog. The EF 100mm f/2.8 L IS Macro does perfectly well on an RF body.

 

[Michael Clark]

F11 , I would like to know what Canon engineers are smoking.

The entire Micro Four-Thirds geosystem. They're about to light it up like Obi Wan did Anakin.

800mm f/11 on a FF RP is "equivalent" to 400mm f/5.6 on µ4/3.

 

[Michael Clark]

what the hell do you do with a Canon RF 800mm f/11 ?

You sell a crap-ton of RP and maybe R6 bodies with them. That's what you do.

 

[Michael Clark]

F8 would be more acceptable. The 2 stops and DO over the 600mm F4 would make it much smaller and cheaper.

And sell in numbers the 600mm f/4 will never hope to approach.

 

[Michael Clark]

This is pretty amazing, Long lenses with small max apertures shows Canon has something up their sleeve as far as incredible sensor technology. ISO 120,000 with NO noise at all?

Nope. These are FF daylight teles to convert the APS-C 150-600mm crowd over to FF RF.

This lens is a match made in heaven for the RP and whatever follows it. Perhaps the R6 if the price is right.

These specs aren't telling me Canon expects me to use f/11 with current tech. They're telling me the R5/6 high ISO performance is going to be as big a leap as was the leap to 8K. Imagine ISO 6400 that looks like the current ISO 400. At least this is what I'm telling myself they're telling me

That's not what they are telling you.

 

[Michael Clark]

So far there were amazing lenses released but bodies were somewhat underwhelming. Now this overwhelming body (R5) is on its way and no new lens to match???
Looks like the lens division is running out of steam.

It looks to me like they're just getting started.

Those lenses you're turning your nose up at will sell in unit numbers 10:1 vs. lenses like the RF 28-70/2 or the RF 50/1.2 and RF 85/1.2 which we already have. They'll also draw a lot of Rebel owners into the RF system with the RP or whatever replaces it. They might draw a bunch of µ4/3 shooters to FF, too.