Wow so Canon maybe redesigning the TC's for the 100-300 and 200-500, OUTSTANDING!!! Hoping the TC is a Combo of both in one converter and below $2000 USD.
Upvote
0
That would be stretching weird to the extreme - they want us to buy RF lenses rather than have an adapter to make EF more versatile than RF.A third idea option may be weird but: what if they made a 1/1.4/2x TC that was an EF-RF adapter, and released new telephotos in EF mount!!?? Then the 1.0x position would not need any extra glass, and there'd be room for the mechanical complexities of moving the TC elements in and out. Mechanically and optically it'd be great. This TC adapter would work probably all EF glass. And you could add a few extra contacts to these new EF's that let them have the full bandwidth to the camera of the RF electrical contacts.
Didn't you buy the 100-400 f/4 then sell it because it wasn't useful enough or am I confusing you with someone else?Nice lens. However, I will have to give the price, weight and IQ a good hard look before thinking of replacing it with my current 100-500 rf. If the new lens costs close to the 400 f2.8, I will prefer to buy the 400 and keep my 100-500.
That’s because it’s a 400 f/2.8 with a 2x extender built into the lens. The minimum focus distance on the RF 800 f/5.6 and 1200 f/8 are identical to the RF 400 f/2.8 and 600 f/4 respectively.The RF 800 5.6 actually has a super impressive MFD of 8.5 feet, which is pretty surprising, since my EF 500 II is about 12 feet. The 600 III is closer to 14, though.
How many RF 100-500/4.5-7.1 lenses has Canon sold? It seems to be a rather popular lens. A 200-500/4 would be for the same subjects, right?But a 200-500/4? This seems useless even for a rich amateur's family photos. You'd get the 100-500 and the 135/1.8 for the kid's sports games and portraits of the wife; if you had a 200-500/4 it'd never leave the house. Only if the amateur were into nature photog would it make sense and even then not sure it's long enough (but yeah, TC). I might be wrong but I'd guess this is like 80% pro (sport and some nature), 20% amateur, or something.
Most likely these will only work on specific lenses like the 100-300 f2.8 and the 200-500 f4. Also, just looking at the rumored designs I can’t see these as walk-around teleconverters.They would introduce a new teleconverter just as I finally obtain both the existing RF ones!
TC 0 = Bypass like the EF 200-400 4,0 1,4Ext when you Switch ist off/out
See above post as well.Two steps: 0x and 1.7x. a 1.4x is not too much of help behind these zooms and 2x is less needed.
I am just not seeing that.I suspect one of their highest goals is to bring in more entry level customers and then to raise those to, if you will, "lower middle
They were discontinued so I reason they were not popular enough.I miss old affordable telelens with quality like 400 mm 5.6 L, where they are nowadays?
Such an argument will depend on the price difference between the zoom lenses.If you want to shoot around 200-500mm, arguably you're better off with the shorter zoom on a TC
Good question. We actually have the 600/11 and 800/11 lenses which are kind of in that family.I miss old affordable telelens with quality like 400 mm 5.6 L, where they are nowadays?
I imagine that it will focus relatively close on the wide end and a TC would even make the wide end fairly long.I do hope it will focus close,
No one has.Thanks, I've never seem anything like that before, wild.
The fact that I can use any EF lens with a rear drop-in filter puts them at an advantage for me.there will be many people who use these EF lenses for fun and experimentation