Here’s a full list of what will be announced with the Canon EOS R3 this month

[Chig]

I thought so too, until I read this: "The EF 400mm F2.8L IS III USM and EF 600mm F4L IS III USM, which we released in 2018, were manufactured to an extremely high level of perfection in order to realize high image quality, light weight and high-performance IS. However, we did not develop these lenses with the intention of making them 'dual-mount.'"
Source: Go Tokura, Chief Executive, Image Communication Business Operations at Canon. https://www.dpreview.com/interviews...devices-supporting-8k-is-a-very-high-priority

According to Canon, they have yet to release any of their high quality supertelephoto primes designed from the ground up for RF. I, for one, am really looking forward to seeing what they come up with. In the meantime, the RF 400 and RF 600 are "optical masterpieces" as you say.

Can't see how the R mount makes much difference for long telephotos as the different flange distance isn't very significant on these huge lenses .
If Canon did a clean sheet new design of the 400 f/2.8 and 600 f/4 for the R mount what would be different ?
The extra electrical contacts in the R mount would offer more options for the electronics though.
I hope Canon doesn't make any new RF telephoto zooms or primes which don't work properly with extenders like the RF100-500 (sorry only works at 300mm +) fiasco

 

[AlanF]

It is over 30 years since I studied any optics, but since nobody else has answered, I'll try to explain what I remember, without using jargon.

The formula for f-number needs the word effective inserted into it, twice.
f-number = effective focal length/effective entrance pupil

If you have a simple, single, symmetric lens it is easy, you can measure the focal length and diameter and calculate the f-number. In a modern camera lens which have multiple elements it is not so obvious. Each element alters the characteristics of the ones in front of it. However, what also changes is where the effective entrance pupil is located ... is it nearer the front element or the rear element or somewhere in between? The answer to the mystery is that with some lens designs the effective entrance pupil can be in front of the front element, thus its diameter can be wider than it. (Unfortunately, before someone thinks to suggest a 600mm F1 lens, it can only be a short distance in front without excessive distortions.)

I hope that explanation is sufficiently accurate for certain members, if not please offer a better explanation. (Also, not 100% sure this is the case for the lenses being discussed, but I know it is theoretically possible.)

Thank you so much for attempting to explain what the poster failed to do, I really appreciate it, and it has clarified my own thoughts. I do know that we use effective focal lengths and effective entrance pupils. For the telephoto lenses we use and are discussing here, like a 100-400mm or a 600mm, they are much shorter than their effective focal lengths. The stated focal lengths of a lens and the f-numbers are for the objects at infinity and the light rays entering the lens are parallel. So, the amount of light let into the lens cannot be greater than the area of the hole at the front of the lens times the light flux. It doesn't help the brighness of the image by having an effective entrance pupil greater than the diameter of the front hole, it can't let in any more light than the size of the front hole allows. This is summed up nicely in a paragraph of a review of the Canon 50-1000mm cine lens: https://www.studiodaily.com/2015/07/review-canon-50-1000mm-t5-0-8-9-ultra-telephoto-zoom/

"The size of the front elements in a zoom lens is critical. When magnification exceeds the entrance lens diameter, some light is inevitably lost as the pupil entrance diameter exceeds the physical diameter of the input lens group. The imperative to limit size and weight means that some ramping is inevitable. As shooters and more or less mature individuals, we don’t like it, but we accept some ramping and are in fact quite used to it. The Canon 50-1000 holds a constant T5 (F4.5) until 560mm, when the entrance pupil size exceeds the available real estate in the front lens group and gentle ramping begins. The lens speed slows to a still-reasonable T8.9 at 1000mm."

So, you could have a lens that is nominally 400mm f/5.6 with a 67mm front element, but the actual brightness of the image (governed by T-stop) would be equivalent to f/6 at best and dimmer in practice. The difference between f-number and T-stop becomes critical when entrance pupil exceeds physical diameter. I guess also that the effects of diffraction depend on the physical diameter and not effective entrance pupil. In practice, the effective entrance pupils of the lenses we use are equal to or less than the physical diameters of the front element and the manufacturers f-numbers never wider than the effective focal length/front element diameter.

 

[blackcoffee17]

Can't see how the R mount makes much difference for long telephotos as the different flange distance isn't very significant on these huge lenses .
If Canon did a clean sheet new design of the 400 f/2.8 and 600 f/4 for the R mount what would be different ?
The extra electrical contacts in the R mount would offer more options for the electronics though.
I hope Canon doesn't make any new RF telephoto zooms or primes which don't work properly with extenders like the RF100-500 (sorry only works at 300mm +) fiasco

Super telephotos could have built in TC's.

 

[Deleted member 381342]

Super telephotos could have built in TC's.

Supposedly the upcoming Nikon 400mm f/2.8 S has a built in 1.4x TC which would make it a very versatile lens. Your lens might be frozen to the camera in the snow and ice, but you can flick a switch to get closer to the subject.

 

[privatebydesign]

A 35 L would be a bit pedestrian for a body targeting wildlife, sports, and new vehicle AF.

And yet my EF 35 f2 IS almost lives. on my 1DX II whenever I am shooting for myself.

 

[privatebydesign]

Supposedly the upcoming Nikon 400mm f/2.8 S has a built in 1.4x TC which would make it a very versatile lens. Your lens might be frozen to the camera in the snow and ice, but you can flick a switch to get closer to the subject.

Canon lead the field in lenses that include TC's. Starting in the 1980's with an FD 1200 and now with the EF 200-400 f4 L, if they haven't put it in their 400 and 600 primes yet it is for a good reason.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

If it is indeed 24MP, I just hope it will give us the option to have 6K video and not just downsampled 4K.

Add Pre-record to both video and stills and I'm all in

Canon clearly states that R3 will shoot internal RAW video.
Canon has never had downsampled RAW video.
There is no reason to think they would start now.

 

[InchMetric]

I hope Canon doesn't make any new RF telephoto zooms or primes which don't work properly with extenders like the RF100-500 (sorry only works at 300mm +) fiasco

Designing a lens has tradeoffs. To satisfy a tiny minority who prioritizes extender compatibility on a certain lens will presumably make the lens less attractive in way that are more important to far more potential customers. It's not a "fiasco" - it's presumably a smart choice. I switched to Canon for great lens designs like the 70-200 2.8 and the 100-500, whose benefit is to get to 500 without an extender.

 

[danfaz]

Regarding the ST-E10...any ideas what this would do differently than the Version 2 ST-E3 that was created/updated to work with the EL-1?

 

[jeffa4444]

Given the R3 release date of September 14th it will definately appear at The Photographer Show in Birmingham, UK later in the month.

 

[Emyr Evans]

Canon clearly states that R3 will shoot internal RAW video.
Canon has never had downsampled RAW video.
There is no reason to think they would start now.

I know.
So 6K RAW at 16x9 off a 6000 x 4000 sensor would do me.
I'll downsample it myself or, indeed, upsample it to an 8K video timeline.

 

[HotPixels]

I thought so too, until I read this: "The EF 400mm F2.8L IS III USM and EF 600mm F4L IS III USM, which we released in 2018, were manufactured to an extremely high level of perfection in order to realize high image quality, light weight and high-performance IS. However, we did not develop these lenses with the intention of making them 'dual-mount.'"
Source: Go Tokura, Chief Executive, Image Communication Business Operations at Canon. https://www.dpreview.com/interviews...devices-supporting-8k-is-a-very-high-priority

According to Canon, they have yet to release any of their high quality supertelephoto primes designed from the ground up for RF. I, for one, am really looking forward to seeing what they come up with. In the meantime, the RF 400 and RF 600 are "optical masterpieces" as you say.

Thanks for the clarification. But to me and really any person thinking of buying one of these lenses, or using them already, the key point is that these are optical masterpieces. That's my whole point: that we get caught up in minutiae that doesn't really mean anything, and overlook the fact that these are two the finest lenses ever made.

Bryan at TDP wrote about the RF 400: " This is one of the most incredible lenses available, and it is the ultimate action sports photography lens."

Christopher Frost wrote "This is literally the highest quality camera lens I have ever handled - physically awesome, optically impeccable"

Discussion of gear always has its technical details, but one point someone else made on another discussion was that it seems with the rise of Sony and their army of trolls, that discussions of gear tend even more towards the details that do not matter to the neglect of those that do.

To me the major point when discussing these 400 and 600 lenses is that they simply are as close to optical perfection as one can get these days, and the rest is just fluff.

 

[Emyr Evans]

Given the R3 release date of September 14th it will definately appear at The Photographer Show in Birmingham, UK later in the month.

Will Canon be selling any of their products at these kind of shows, or are they just for exhibition etc?

 

[InchMetric]

Supposedly the upcoming Nikon 400mm f/2.8 S has a built in 1.4x TC which would make it a very versatile lens. Your lens might be frozen to the camera in the snow and ice, but you can flick a switch to get closer to the subject.

Switchable TCs are fine for an occasional model, but there's a reason most big lens buyers don't prefer to perpetually carry the size and weight of a TC everywhere the lens goes (not to mention the cost). I suspect it's those (like me) who don't own a single big white lens who imagine their first being unusually versatile to avoid making compromises. Owning a 100-500, I suspect the more versatile alternative is a 400 2.8 to gain speed with ample extendability.

 

[twoheadedboy]

Designing a lens has tradeoffs. To satisfy a tiny minority who prioritizes extender compatibility on a certain lens will presumably make the lens less attractive in way that are more important to far more potential customers. It's not a "fiasco" - it's presumably a smart choice. I switched to Canon for great lens designs like the 70-200 2.8 and the 100-500, whose benefit is to get to 500 without an extender.

Considering the following:

RF 70 - 200 f/2.8 - cannot add TC
100 - 500 - can apply TC 2.0 or 1.4, but only starting at 300mm

That means with a 1.4 you get 420 - 700mm, and with a 2.0 you get 600 - 100mm.

With the 1.4 on I have a hole in my bag from 200 - 420mm, I have to take the TC off to get there.

With the 2.0 on, I'd have to swap to the 1.4 to get 500 - 600mm, or take it off entirely to get 200 - 420mm.

I could carry the EF 70 - 200 f/2.8 IS III instead of the RF, which allows stacking a 2.0 and a 1.4 TC (MK II models only) for 196 - 560 f/8, but now I have to carry 4 TC's and an EF converter to maximize my options. At that point, I could leave the 2.0 on the 100 - 500 and my only "hole" is 560 - 600mm, which basically isn't one....but now I'm operating with sub-optimal setups IQ-wise on both lenses. And while I use the EF 70 - 200 f/2.8 + stacked TC's + EF converter setup today, it's very long and heavy, and doesn't give anything the 100 - 500 + 1.4 wouldn't if the full range was available (actually would provide less).

If I'm willing to carry (and buy) 3 lenses, I could do an RF 70 - 200, an EF with the stacked teleconverters, and a 100 - 500 with the 2.0 on it. Or, an RF 70 - 200, and two 100 - 500's, where I'd use the one defaulted to no TC's from 200 - 500 and add the 1.4 when 420 - 700 is needed, and the 2nd one would have the 2.0 on it all the time and be for the situations where 700+ is needed.

Another option would be if Canon made like a 200 - 400mm f/4 zoom. I suppose one could carry the forthcoming 100 - 400mm for that, but it's slower than I would like, especially considering a 2.0x-extended 70 - 200 f/2.8 gives a constant f/5.6 wide open.

None of this would be necessary if the RF 70 - 200 f/2.8 took TC's as one would expect, and/or the 100 - 500 got its full range when on a TC.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Bryan at TDP wrote about the RF 400: " This is one of the most incredible lenses available, and it is the ultimate action sports photography lens."

...and the rest is just fluff.

Most reviews have plenty of fluff. For example, Bryan at TDP wrote: "This is simply one of the most incredible lenses available and one of the ultimate action sports lenses." Sounds very much like the quote you posted above, except this one was about the 400/2.8 IS MkII. He also described the 400/2.8 IS MkI as the, "Ultimate Canon professional field/track sports lens." So it's very possible that a new 400/2.8 designed for the RF mount from the ground up would be a further improvement (which Bryan and other Canon-friendly reviewers would describe in similarly superlative language). Even if there is no benefit from the shorter flange distance (which is likely the case for a supertele design) it would effectively be a MkIV version of the lens.

If nothing else, I suspect a supertele lens designed for RF would have a dedicated control ring.

 

[dboris]

Telezoom don't directly benefit from RF mount so there's no reason to hope for better tele lenses design in the future.
With my enthusiast budget, I'll grab the 100-500 + TC + R3 and will never look back.
Having a 1000mm stabilised with autofocus and 6K raw probably, will make killer street photog videos.

 

[Deleted member 381342]

Switchable TCs are fine for an occasional model, but there's a reason most big lens buyers don't prefer to perpetually carry the size and weight of a TC everywhere the lens goes (not to mention the cost). I suspect it's those (like me) who don't own a single big white lens who imagine their first being unusually versatile to avoid making compromises. Owning a 100-500, I suspect the more versatile alternative is a 400 2.8 to gain speed with ample extendability.

A 400 f/2.8 with a built in 1.4x TC gives you a 560 f/4.0 at the flick of a switch which makes it compete more better with the 180/200-400 f/4.0 which is very popular for wildlife. The build in TC's add negligible weight to the lens and lots of convenience. An external TC means you have to take your body of the lens whenever you need the TC attached, which isn't all that fun on mirrorless bodies. The 100-500 is not even remotely a able to take over from a 400 f/2.8, frankly the 100-199mm part of that lens is useless for many shooters, I start at 200mm and that is as wide as I can go.

 

[Deleted member 381342]

Thanks for the clarification. But to me and really any person thinking of buying one of these lenses, or using them already, the key point is that these are optical masterpieces. That's my whole point: that we get caught up in minutiae that doesn't really mean anything, and overlook the fact that these are two the finest lenses ever made.

Bryan at TDP wrote about the RF 400: " This is one of the most incredible lenses available, and it is the ultimate action sports photography lens."

Christopher Frost wrote "This is literally the highest quality camera lens I have ever handled - physically awesome, optically impeccable"

Discussion of gear always has its technical details, but one point someone else made on another discussion was that it seems with the rise of Sony and their army of trolls, that discussions of gear tend even more towards the details that do not matter to the neglect of those that do.

To me the major point when discussing these 400 and 600 lenses is that they simply are as close to optical perfection as one can get these days, and the rest is just fluff.

The predecessors of these lenses are arguably sharper. The latest versions are lighter and there where tradeoffs to make them lighter. That the RF 400 and 600 are good or great or even fantastic if you want isn't in question, what we are waiting to see is a barrel and optics that are designed from the start for RF. That could mean the next 400 and 600 are DO or have extra buttons on them or even just the control ring. The closest we have is the 100-500 showing off engineering plastic for what to expect. The RF 400 and 600 aren't examples of RF super tele anymore than the folks that sent F lenses back to Canon to turn them into EF lenses.

 

[Rajinder Shukla]

For the kind attention of CANON:-
I have a keen desire and expectation from Canon to manufacture the following 3 lenses which are,
1. RF 12-35 mm f4L IS USM to RF standard plus all the specifications of EF 14-24 mm f4L IS USM.
2. RF 24-240mm f4L IS USM Zoom lens to RF standard. Instead of current 24-240 mm zoom lens.
3. RF 100-500 mm F4L IS USM Zoom lens to RF standard instead of current 100-500 mm zoom.
This will be a Canon Trinity of my dreams.
Opinions Welcome.