I agree and that is why I think Canon would make the rumored 500 mm DO f4.5 lens. Would be great if they combined it with a built in 1.4x TC.
That lens would be the perfect wildlife-travel lens.
Upvote
0
I agree and that is why I think Canon would make the rumored 500 mm DO f4.5 lens. Would be great if they combined it with a built in 1.4x TC.
I think it would sell well. People love the Nikon. When shooting in low light there’s a fair difference between f5.6 and f7.1.500 5.6 is only 1/2 stop brighter than the 100-500. I don't believe Canon would make that lens.
Barring magic or changes in the rules of physics, the front element would still be about 40 inches in diameter. That's what f/2 means.I would prefer to go long and I don't need the tilt shift and I like something to hold so skip the pancake part. Just a simple 2mm-2000mm f/2 will do nicely.
Folding optics. The front element unfolds like an umbrella. FO designation and a blue ring on the barrel.Barring magic or changes in the rules of physics, the front element would still be about 40 inches in diameter. That's what f/2 means.
I have the 14-35 f4, the 24-105 f4 and the 70-200 f4. The 24-105 sucks for aperture stars while the 14-35 and the 70-200 produce beautiful stars. My old EF 24-70 had beautiful aperture stars and I really miss them. As soon the RF 24-70 f4 comes out I will sell the 24-105....although I have nothing to complain about the sharpness.Why not just use the RF 24-105 f/4 L? I own the RF 24-70 2.8 and didn't see much of a drop in quality each time I've used the RF 24-105, and the extra reach is really nice...
I said it didn't need to be a pancake and besides, Craig asked for a list of impossible lenses that would never be build so bringing physics into the discussion is decidedly tacky .Barring magic or changes in the rules of physics, the front element would still be about 40 inches in diameter. That's what f/2 means.
If it unfolds like the James Webb telescope then the set up time and auto focus (before you can take an actual shot) might be a little long for most wildlife applications.Folding optics. The front element unfolds like an umbrella. FO designation and a blue ring on the barrel.
Maybe it would sell well. But, I sold my Nikon 500mm f/5.6 PF after getting the RF 100-500mm because it’s as near as dammit as sharp and has all the advantages of a close focussing zoom at the cost of 2/3rds of a stop.I think it would sell well. People love the Nikon. When shooting in low light there’s a fair difference between f5.6 and f7.1.
Besides, they had EF 400mm lenses at f/2.8, f/4, and f/5.6, so multiple models varying by a modest amount of aperture is entirely possible.I think it would sell well. People love the Nikon. When shooting in low light there’s a fair difference between f5.6 and f7.1.
Sorry! It's just me. I prefer to suggest lenses that are useful and possible.I said it didn't need to be a pancake and besides, Craig asked for a list of impossible lenses that would never be build so bringing physics into the discussion is decidedly tacky .
The Nikon 500 PF is more expensive than the RF 100-500mm, which as I wrote above, I find more useful and just about as sharp. The Sony 200-600mm is good value for money but it weighs 2.4kg, 0.8kg more, which is noticeable, and focusses down to only 2.4m, more than twice that of the RF 100-500mm. The grass may look greener but it isn't.Well, at Canon's prices, I'm not really looking forward to any lens to be honest.
Never owned a Nikon, but gee that 500mm f5.6 is a bargain compared to Canon. Oh and Sony's 200-600mm would be even better. Never in my 30+ years of shooting Canon felt so much envy for the other brands. Didn't even notice them.
Yet in exchange for longer reach, slightly brighter on the long end, heavier, internal zoom and and less MFD you pay here in the UK; £1599 for the Sony compared to £2979 for the Canon so a difference of nearly £1400. For some the extra cost will be worth it and for others absolutely not.The Nikon 500 PF is more expensive than the RF 100-500mm, which as I wrote above, I find more useful and just about as sharp. The Sony 200-600mm is good value for money but it weighs 2.4kg, 0.8kg more, which is noticeable, and focusses down to only 2.4m, more than twice that of the RF 100-500mm. The grass may look greener but it isn't.
14 years of EF-S with no L lens. Don’t hold your breath. APS-C is aimed at the consumer market. L-lenses aren’t.With an R7 on the way (someday) I'd like to see an RF-S 15-50 F2.8 L IS. Just a little wider than the EF version with a bit of weather sealing, and some proof of commitment to the RF-S format from Canon by making an RF-S L lens. A few fast RF-S primes would be nice too.
Such a lens would be no smaller or lighter than the same lens for RF, so I would not expect an RF-S version.RF-S 200-600 F4-5.6L IS or similar would be a dream for the R7...
That combined with a price tag around 3k,
But wouldn't that be fair? Lower aperature for same weight as the RF 100-500L - I'ld totally pay that .Such a lens would be no smaller or lighter than the same lens for RF, so I would not expect an RF-S version.