F8 and F5.6 versions of the 600 and 800mm lenses just announced...
Upvote
0
That would be a fantastic travel lens!17(20)-70/4L IS USM
The front elements of these two will have the same size (500/5.6 vs 550/6.3). Both will need a 95mm filter sizeRF 500mm L f~5.6 DO. Or RF 550mm L f~6.2. (Light Weight)
Quite so. I would prefer the 550/6.3 as we would get up to 10% extra resolution. As I have written elsewhere, the loss of a 1/3rd stop can be compensated for by upping the iso if the light is poor and down resolving to the f/5.6 size. I'd buy either of them at a drop of a hat if Canon could keep the price down to that of the Nikon 500/5.6 PF.The front elements of these two will have the same size (500/5.6. 550/6.3). Both will need a 95mm filter size
You wouldn't be thinking of putting a Nikon 500/5.6 PF on a 5DSR or R5? Surely not.A Nikon F mount (for E lenses) to Canon RF converter
Yeah. Looking for the sweet spot of the most magnification in a sharp, lightweight prime that just hits the diffraction limit on an R5 with a 1.4X TC. Somewhere in this area.The front elements of these two will have the same size (500/5.6. 550/6.3). Both will need a 95mm filter size
I'd also like to 2nd this one! A single extra wide lens that reaches 70mm to avoid needing 24-70 when traveling light. Canon did a 17-70 patent but at a slower variable aperture. I think the 17-70mm f4 L IS USM would be a MAJOR seller for Canon!17(20)-70/4L IS USM
It could also be 17-70 3.5-5.6 L serving decently enough as an astrophoto lens (at 17mm f/3.5) for these cases where we really want to take only one travel lens (in addition to our birding lens of course ! )I'd also like to 2nd this one! A single extra wide lens that reaches 70mm to avoid needing 24-70 when traveling light. Canon did a 17-70 patent but at a slower variable aperture. I think the 17-70mm f4 L IS USM would be a MAJOR seller for Canon!
In fact, I think a 17-70 would be in such demand that Canon could justify 2 versions of it which would both sell very well:
17-70mm f4 L IS USM $2000+ (the highest quality possible, and the one I'd buy)
17-70mm ~f5.6 $1000 (affordable with possibly higher max magnification and "good enough" quality)
So far, all the lens companies have had difficulty make an L quality lens that is sharp over that entire zoom range. Probably possible in a non L f~3.5-5.6 lens.It could also be 17-70 3.5-5.6 L serving decently enough as an astrophoto lens (at 17mm f/3.5) for these cases where we really want to take only one travel lens (in addition to our birding lens of course ! )
I'd agree with that statement in general, but with this additional comment: Canon making a lens of full L quality would mean their best seals, materials, and best optical design they could do, which IMHO would be the best *anyone* could ever hope for, and thus I'd consider it a "real" L lens if the MSRP was $2K or more as I'm sure it would be "superb enough" for that difficult range. I'd be happy with either the fixed f4 or variable f3.5(or whatever)-5.6 as long as it's their best L version & quality possible.So far, all the lens companies have had difficulty make an L quality lens that is sharp over that entire zoom range. Probably possible in a non L f~3.5-5.6 lens.
Interesting trade as a travel lens 1. One heavy beast with slightly compromised optics vs 2. Two light lenses with better optics over more limited zoom ranges: say 17-28 & 28-70mm.I'd agree with that statement in general, but with this additional comment: Canon making a lens of full L quality would mean their best seals, materials, and best optical design they could do, which IMHO would be the best *anyone* could ever hope for, and thus I'd consider it a "real" L lens if the MSRP was $2K or more as I'm sure it would be "superb enough" for that difficult range. I'd be happy with either the fixed f4 or variable f3.5(or whatever)-5.6 as long as it's their best L version & quality possible.
Well, at f4 or so think a 17-70 L IS would be around 700g, which I wouldn't call a "heavy beast" - well "somewhat heavy" might be fair. It would be interesting to see if that was true.Interesting trade as a travel lens 1. One heavy beast with slightly compromised optics vs 2. Two light lenses with better optics over more limited zoom ranges: say 17-28 & 28-70mm.