I would love to see a RF 400mm f/2.0 @ the same size/weight as current model.
That would be a lens with around 200mm front element size (massive). 6-7kg is a very conservative weight gestimation. I mean it could be even heavier by mile.
Upvote
0
I would love to see a RF 400mm f/2.0 @ the same size/weight as current model.
No point in developing any DSLR further as the money is in mirrorless.No point in developing a new pro sports camera for release before 2020 Olympics?
What makes you think that there is no money for Canon in a new pro sports camera released before 2020 Olympics?No point in developing any DSLR further as the money is in mirrorless.
That's what the 16 months will indicate. There's nothing wrong with the D5 or 1DX2. You can still by them after 2020.What makes you think that there is no money for Canon in a new pro sports camera released before 2020 Olympics?
I'm not sure his statements qualify as 'thinking'. As has already been pointed out to him, DSLRs continue to outsell MILCs, and Canon expo;icitly stated that they are continuing to develop DSLRs.What makes you think that there is no money for Canon in a new pro sports camera released before 2020 Olympics?
The wildlife and sport career/industry is much narrower than wedding or lifestyle photogs. For every 1000 wedding photog, there's only 1 sport photogs. The sport career is all driven by talents while the wedding career is all in the camera specs or gadgets, so-to-speak. If canon come out w/ on in the next 9mos, it will still be in transition phase for the photogs. The risks of using new camera w/o much practice is career-damaging.ILC is sun setting.
No point in developing a new pro sports camera for release before 2020 Olympics?
Did Roger publish a blog post on 400mm f/2.8 RF lens design that can be scaled to f/2.0 design?But...Physics. For a telephoto design, the exit pupil is irrelevant in determining overall lens dimensions. So is the image circle (it’s always big, which is why there are no long telephoto EF-S lenses). A 24mm lens, the RF flange matters. A 400mm lens, it just doesn’t.
Seriously...Physics. You two should get acquainted. Roger Cicala published a series of blog posts on lens design. There are other online resources.
You're like a bull terrier, you just won't let this go. Tell you what...why don 't you go design and manufacture a 400mm f/2.0 pancake lens. We'd all love that! Physics be damned!Did Roger publish a blog post on 400mm f/2.8 RF lens design that can be scaled to f/2.0 design?
I quite agree, which is why I kept it when I switched to Sony bodies - which have the advantage of IBIS. To answer an earlier question, I find it effective on both this lens and 135mm (I've not tried anything longer), though I've not tried the 200mm with slower speeds than 1/60.I am happy to defend the 200 f2.8LII. I got one used a couple of months ago, and I love it. Reasonably small and light (just a little bit bigger than the 135L), fast to focus, sharp across the frame at f2.8, and beautiful bookeh! It made me sell the 70-200 f2.8LIII I got on sale on black friday last november without thinking twice.
The 200 f2.8LII is plenty sharp, but yes, when pixel peeping I admit that it could be sharper. In my opinion though, I find the lack of biting crisp details to provide a very pleasing and “organic” look. I’m not sure I would want it sharper if I could choose... The only thing I miss in it is IS.
The 135 f2 is showing its age, compared to the Sigma f1.8 and the Samyang f2 it's pretty lousy with softness and CA all over the place. It needed to be upgraded to a II about a decade ago.
Back in 1996 it was stunning. Even by 2009 it was still a good lens. Today it's just another old lens bypassed in Canon's obsession with new-shiny-sexy.
I wonder who works on Canon's assembly lines for lenses like that. It must be tough on their morale.
Great link!It's true that the Sigma f/1.8 and Samyang (and Zeiss f/2 and Zeiss Batis f/2.8) have less CA and are sharper (I expect the same will be true for the upcoming Sony 135 1.8). But depending on what you're shooting the differences (esp. sharpness) may be trivial and even work to Canon's advantage. (Either way, it's hardly "lousy with softness.") Have you not seen the beautiful photos that have been taken with the 135 f2? Elena Shumilova, for instance, uses one for most of her photos. https://www.boredpanda.com/animal-children-photography-elena-shumilova/ If I worked on a Canon assembly line for the 135 f/2 knowing that such photos could be taken with it, my morale would be rather good. Or are you being sarcastic?
Whilst I'm not taking anything away from Elena's images, which I have linked to before and think are beautiful, we have to acknowledge the fact that they are so heavily post processed that almost all the lens characteristics are buried.It's true that the Sigma f/1.8 and Samyang (and Zeiss f/2 and Zeiss Batis f/2.8) have less CA and are sharper (I expect the same will be true for the upcoming Sony 135 1.8). But depending on what you're shooting the differences (esp. sharpness) may be trivial and even work to Canon's advantage. (Either way, it's hardly "lousy with softness.") Have you not seen the beautiful photos that have been taken with the 135 f2? Elena Shumilova, for instance, uses one for most of her photos. https://www.boredpanda.com/animal-children-photography-elena-shumilova/ If I worked on a Canon assembly line for the 135 f/2 knowing that such photos could be taken with it, my morale would be rather good. Or are you being sarcastic?
A family moment from last month, with my ancient ef 135mm f/2L.
You're kidding right, basically all lenses are huge? It looks pretty small to me, close to Sony's smallest 35/2.8 native mirrorless lens. (Of course it is the R, but they are close)A proper pancake 35 or 40/2.8, similar to the current (EF) 40/2.8 - which also looks huge on the RP!
I believe that is what they do with the better compact cameras, the S and G series. Rather than adding a lot of optical correction, the internal software corrects the aberrations and distortions in the JPEGs and probably does some preprocessing for the RAW files, judging from how decent shots can look even before applying the profiles on the computer. The G7X II has a f/1.8-2.8 zoom lens. The pictures can turn out remarkably well. I have 13” x 19” prints hanging on my walls that show how well.I'm not too worried about CA given how easiiy it's fixed automatically in post-processing. In fact I've thought for 20 years they should make lenses with CA and distortion from hell, and just optimize everything else, on the grounds these two flaws are trivial to address.
Speak for yourself. It's a great tool and one with a unique look when used correctly. Age has nothing to do with it. It's a great design, timeless.
I agree! It’s not that I don’t appreciate sharp lenses, but I have a hard time understanding those who crave so much for more sharpness than you can have with the EF 135L, also at f2. When you reach a certain level of sharpness, “sharp enough“ (which the 135L is) getting sharper becomes meaningless, or at least a low priority, in my opinion. I’d rather have a smaller and lighter lens, rather than a sharper one than the 135L.
I don't think that's possible with a Z flange at 16mm and an RF flange at 20mm. At least not without adding glass.
But what if new one will be sharper AND maintain all the good qualities of the old 135 f2 or even improve them? Also there are some super-mega-pixel bodies these days and people who want to use them and make large prints.
So Canon has decided it's great to have a smaller mirrorless camera and then just release insanely expensive and massive lenses. Yeah megabuck primes will have sales skyrocketing.
It would great to use RF lenses on SLR but the mirror needs to move outside the optical path for the exposure and for
a single sheet mirror this is impossible: The RF lenses leave not enough room between sensor and last lens
element (except for future tele primes maybe).
But I like the idea too and maybe a split mirror might help: Use two semi transparent mirrors where DPAF
on the sensor can do its job. The upper half of the mirror swings upwards and the lower half swings downwards.
The mirror is split from left to right.
While you have two mirrors which must be adjustet you do not have to adjust a special PD AF sensor array because
the sensor plane is the (DPAF) plane.
Add an optional EVF and you have a DSLR + mirrorless combo-camera which works in bright daylight, allows
checking the scene while turned off but also gives you an EVF for night vision, video, exposure pre-check through
a viewfinder on brighter days.
Never owned a 135 f2 but shot with one once. Nice focal length and fast AF. But big dopey aperture leaves gave angular bokeh. 70-200 II had much nicer bokeh.
Sharp? It was in the film era, but is outclassed now:
Canon EF 135mm f/2L USM Lens Image Quality
View the image quality delivered by the Canon EF 135mm f/2L USM Lens using ISO 12233 Resolution Chart lab test results. Compare the image quality of this lens with other lenses.www.the-digital-picture.com
And close it down to 2.8 and guess what is just as good? The 70-200 II again.
Yes, there are some old sharp lenses; Canon 200 1.8 and 300 2.8 and the Mamiya 300 5.6 being examples. But the mid-tier mid-90s lenses like the 135 were designed down to a budget. It's a disgrace that they're still in the catalogue.
So who's next up to defend the 200 2.8 II? Canon will still take a grand of your cash for that dinosaur.
Whilst I'm not taking anything away from Elena's images, which I have linked to before and think are beautiful, we have to acknowledge the fact that they are so heavily post processed that almost all the lens characteristics are buried.