This is likely Canon’s lens roadmap for 2020

[Michael Clark]

How you can sell a crap-ton of such a specialty focal length lens in such a stagnant, downward spiral market? 600/11, 800/11..
out of all non pro camera owners left Out there, what percentage of those will ever consider longer than 200mm PRIME lens?
Yeah, 100-400 zoom. May be. Only if compact and cheap. Take a look at Sigma and Tamron 100-400 lenses. F6.3 at the long end. Size of your stubby.
Yup, makes sense.
there is no market to sell tons of these cheap telephoto primes in volume.
Sell tons of RP / R6 bodies? Yup, with 24-105 STM as kit. 100-400 / xx -6.3 or 7?? Yup.

How many 150-600mm f/6.3 lenses has Sigma and Tamron sold to APS-C shooters?

It seems to me they've sold far more than Canon and the others combined have sold 100-400s since the 150-600 lenses came out. I used to see a TON of the first generation of 100-400s out and about. Now I see very few 100-400 IIs and a TON of 150-600/6.3 lenses where there were once first generation 100-400s.

That's who these f/11 lenses are for: Those who are currently shooting 150-600mm lenses on Rebels. It will draw them to FF RF.

These lenses are not for those who are willing to spend $2,200 on a Canon 100-400/6.3 and another $450 for a 1.4X III. They're for those who are willing to get a Canon 600/11 or 800/11 for half that.

 

[Kit.]

so does the 15 year old 5D but that’s not the point. We shouldn’t have to be using 24 year old lenses adapted on our brand new mirrorless cameras....

You don't have to. You can just use RF85 and crop to 135mm.

 

[stevelee]

Just use the "lunar 11" rule of thumb. It's only one stop slower than "sunny 16." The moon is illuminated by direct sunlight. But if you properly expose the moon, you won't have very many stars, if any, break through the noise floor. And nothing on the ground will be anything other than totally dark unless you have another source of illumination.

I usually start with looney 11 and back off from there for a couple of brackets. The main variation for the full moon is the haze in the sky. I shudder (shutter?) to think of what exposure it would take to get detail in the actual shadows. Usually several of the shots are usable when adjusted in ACR.

 

[Michael Clark]

so does the 15 year old 5D but that’s not the point. We shouldn’t have to be using 24 year old lenses adapted on our brand new mirrorless cameras....

If it gets the job done, why not?

Are there newer 135/2 lenses available that can shoot the edges of a flat test chart sharper when focus is set to be optimal on the center of the chart? Absolutely. You're free to buy one of them and use it on your new mirrorless camera. That is, if your biggest desire is to be remembered as the best shooter of flat test charts there ever was. Or maybe you need to do document reproduction. If so, knock yourself out (though you'd be better off using a medium format scan back for that).

But shooting a flat test chart is a different thing from shooting a three dimensional world. Design decisions that make a lens great for shooting flat test charts tend to make a lens less than great for some of the things we want out of lenses such as our 135/2s. Things such as buttery smooth bokeh.

Some of us would rather produce other kinds of images than really sharp flat test charts.



EOS 5D Mark III + EF 135mm f/2 L. ISO 5000, f/2.2, 1/80 (EV100 = 3 )



EOS 5D Mark III + EF 135mm f/2 L. ISO 200, f/3.2, 1/320 (EV100 = 11)



EOS 5D Mark III + EF 135mm f/2 L. ISO 3200, f/2.8, 1/160 (EV100 = 5)

 

[Michael Clark]

I usually start with looney 11 and back off from there for a couple of brackets. The main variation for the full moon is the haze in the sky. I shudder (shutter?) to think of what exposure it would take to get detail in the actual shadows. Usually several of the shots are usable when adjusted in ACR.

Well, it's not exactly detail in the shadows but most of the moon was not receiving sunshine in this one. It's Earthshine that is illuminating all but the sliver of New Moon at the bottom. The sky was quite a bit darker than this exposure makes it look. I shot it at EV = 0. It's been too long to remember what I did in post.


EOS 5D Mark II + EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II. ISO 400, f/3.2, 3.2 seconds (EV100 = 0)

 

[Joules]

Don't mistake diffraction limited aperture with the much narrower diffraction cutoff frequency. DLA is when diffraction begins to be significant enough to be detected at the single pixel level. You can go several stops beyond the DLA before the increased effect of diffraction becomes noticeable at typical display sizes and viewing distances.

Yes. But it is a limit. The post I replied to appeared to suggest things will improve indefinitely, so I wanted to bring it up as one area where we actually are pretty far off from the limit, but have a limit nonetheless.

My only point was that megapixels will continue to go up, but even those will reach a point where an increase is pointless for the vast majority of applications.

Good that you mentioned the role of diffraction though, it is indeed sometimes treated as a far greater evil than it usually is.

 

[BillB]

Good that you mentioned the role of diffraction though, it is indeed sometimes treated as a far greater evil than it usually is.

In photography, the importance of anything that involves magic numbers is often greatly exaggerated.

 

[Dexter75]

If it gets the job done, why not?

Are there newer 135/2 lenses available that can shoot the edges of a flat test chart sharper when focus is set to be optimal on the center of the chart? Absolutely. You're free to buy one of them and use it on your new mirrorless camera. That is, if your biggest desire is to be remembered as the best shooter of flat test charts there ever was. Or maybe you need to do document reproduction. If so, knock yourself out (though you'd be better off using a medium format scan back for that).

But shooting a flat test chart is a different thing from shooting a three dimensional world. Design decisions that make a lens great for shooting flat test charts tend to make a lens less than great for some of the things we want out of lenses such as our 135/2s. Things such as buttery smooth bokeh.

Some of us would rather produce other kinds of images than really sharp flat test charts.


View attachment 190779
EOS 5D Mark III + EF 135mm f/2 L. ISO 5000, f/2.2, 1/80 (EV100 = 3 )


View attachment 190780
EOS 5D Mark III + EF 135mm f/2 L. ISO 200, f/3.2, 1/320 (EV100 = 11)


View attachment 190782
EOS 5D Mark III + EF 135mm f/2 L. ISO 3200, f/2.8, 1/160 (EV100 = 5)

nothing spectacular about those images. Colors aren’t great either. 24 years is ancient in the photographhy world. sure, 24 year old camera can still take photos but newer technology is better, period.why is asking for an update on a 24 YEAR OLD lens such a big issue among you cupcakes? EF Mount is dead, we need new glass

 

[Aussie shooter]

How many 150-600mm f/6.3 lenses has Sigma and Tamron sold to APS-C shooters?

It seems to me they've sold far more than Canon and the others combined have sold 100-400s since the 150-600 lenses came out. I used to see a TON of the first generation of 100-400s out and about. Now I see very few 100-400 IIs and a TON of 150-600/6.3 lenses where there were once first generation 100-400s.

That's who these f/11 lenses are for: Those who are currently shooting 150-600mm lenses on Rebels. It will draw them to FF RF.

These lenses are not for those who are willing to spend $2,200 on a Canon 100-400/6.3 and another $450 for a 1.4X III. They're for those who are willing to get a Canon 600/11 or 800/11 for half that.

I shoot with a 150-600 on an apsc. I would still take the 150-600 on the full frame over these primes. Simply for versatility. IF however ones subjects do not require that versatility then you may be correct

 

[SecureGSM]

How many 150-600mm f/6.3 lenses has Sigma and Tamron sold to APS-C shooters?

It seems to me they've sold far more than Canon and the others combined have sold 100-400s since the 150-600 lenses came out. I used to see a TON of the first generation of 100-400s out and about. Now I see very few 100-400 IIs and a TON of 150-600/6.3 lenses where there were once first generation 100-400s.

That's who these f/11 lenses are for: Those who are currently shooting 150-600mm lenses on Rebels. It will draw them to FF RF.

These lenses are not for those who are willing to spend $2,200 on a Canon 100-400/6.3 and another $450 for a 1.4X III. They're for those who are willing to get a Canon 600/11 or 800/11 for half that.

+++ How many 150-600mm f/6.3 lenses has Sigma and Tamron sold to APS-C shooters?

A.M.: not that many in absolute numbers even back to 2012-2014, when market conditions were pretty amazing. its a zoom though, a much more useful lens. ans can be had in Australia for around US$600 a pop. Tony in his video is hinting at Canon 800/11 price to be around US$2,000. in his view, anyway.
now, in my view: I can obtain an excellent 100-400/5.6 lens + x2 TC for that much. and that gives me : 100-400 and 200-800 range at f/11 maximum?

with 2 cameras I am covering 24-400 or 24-800 zoom range if needed. and faster apertures..

this is exactly what I am going to do: get a x 1.4 and x2 TC to use with Canon 100-400/5.6 II L on R5.

 

[Aussie shooter]

+++ How many 150-600mm f/6.3 lenses has Sigma and Tamron sold to APS-C shooters?

A.M.: not that many in absolute numbers even back to 2012-2014, when market conditions were pretty amazing. its a zoom though, a much more useful lens. ans can be had in Australia for around US$600 a pop. Tony in his video is hinting at Canon 800/11 price to be around US$2,000. in his view, anyway.
now, in my view: I can obtain an excellent 100-400/5.6 lens + x2 TC for that much. and that gives me : 100-400 and 200-800 range at f/11 maximum?

with 2 cameras I am covering 24-400 or 24-800 zoom range if needed. and faster apertures..

this is exactly what I am going to do: get a x 1.4 and x2 TC to use with Canon 100-400/5.6 II L on R5.

Damn that sounds like a sweet kit. I wish I had the bucks for it.

 

[SecureGSM]

Damn that sounds like a sweet kit. I wish I had the bucks for it.

Canon 100-400 II L in an excellent condition - is around A$1,450.00 on Gumtree.
Canon x2 TC III - A$350-450 on Gumtree.

 

[Aussie shooter]

Canon 100-400 II L in w=excellent condition - is around A$1,450.00 on Gumtree.
Canon x2 TC III - A$350-450 on Gumtree.

Already have the 2x. Could get the 100-40 if I sold the 150-6-- and put in another grand. It is the R5 that would stop me. That will be pushing 6k and therefore off the list. Looking seriously at the R6 as a compliment to the 7d2 however but will wait to see reviews and then give it 6 months to find out what people real world experience is like

 

[SecureGSM]

Already have the 2x. Could get the 100-40 if I sold the 150-6-- and put in another grand. It is the R5 that would stop me. That will be pushing 6k and therefore off the list. Looking seriously at the R6 as a compliment to the 7d2 however but will wait to see reviews and then give it 6 months to find out what people real world experience is like

I am with you. I was able to find a mint 5D4 for around A$3,000.00 only 6 months following the official release in Australia with a remainder of the 3 years warranty. with 2500 clicks on it. I hope to pull this trick with R5 again. People buy and sell cameras all the time due to either personal circumstances have changed or going out of hobby...

 

[stevelee]

That's a common misconception. The problem is that the moon is made of rocks, that are less than fully reflective, and which at their brightest, once you have the averaging effect of a zillion kilometers' distance, will only be a mid-tone.

If you want your photo to have mid-tones as the maximum value, then sure, sunny 16 or 11 all night long, baby!

But most people shooting the moon want the brightest parts to be max or near-max exposure, values of 250, say if not 255. Go find some medium grey rocks, stand way back, and try to get high pixel values with sunny-16 (or -11). You can't.

I'm not sure how most people want their moon pictures to look. I think a lot of folks probably want it to look orange, judging from some of the shots I see. Even here, I find some moon pictures too jazzed up in terms of contrast or over-sharpening, for my tastes anyway. We have had threads in which people asked opinions on different versions of their moon pictures, and some people liked more sharpening, and some liked less. I tended to be in the latter category.

I just looked back at the raw files for some moon pictures I have shot. One of the best-detailed pictures was shot at sunny 16. The moon was almost full. As you say, it is a bunch of rocks, so none of them are pure bright white in real life. There was small enough dynamic range in the moon image itself in the Raw file that I could, if I wanted to, expand it from 0 to 255. I think it would look funny, but I could do it.

I also looked at some shots I took during a total eclipse of the moon. Even at the halfway point, a shot I took at looney 11 was fine if maybe not optimal.

 

[Aussie shooter]

I am with you. I was able to find a mint 5D4 for around A$3,000.00 only 6 months following the official release in Australia with a remainder of the 3 years warranty. with 2500 clicks on it. I hope to pull this trick with R5 again. People buy and sell cameras all the time due to either personal circumstances change or going out of hobby...

I am not to upset as despite only being pegged at 20mp the R6 is actually looking like a pretty good bit of kit for what i want. It has enough speed to act as a back up wildlife body for when it is low light conditions and the 7d2 starts to struggle. It will be a nice small and light body for travel purposes. Will be fine for aurora photography which is where i really struggle with the 7d2 and i have no issues with 20mp for landscapes and big prints.

 

[Czardoom]

nothing spectacular about those images. Colors aren’t great either. 24 years is ancient in the photographhy world. sure, 24 year old camera can still take photos but newer technology is better, period.why is asking for an update on a 24 YEAR OLD lens such a big issue among you cupcakes? EF Mount is dead, we need new glass

You sound like someone who is better suited to just buying a new smartphone every year. Although, even smartphones are at the point now where there isn't that much improvement from one generation to the next.

Optics are not a new technology. A 24 year old lens is not necessarily any worse than a lens made today - in fact there are probably some older lenses that are just as good if not better than what is made today. Which is why getting some used lenses are a huge bargain and why many folks with lenses 30-50 years old are always looking for adapters so they can use these lenses on today's cameras.

Of course, Canon and other lens makers love folks like you who can be so easily be convinced that newer is better! And believe that EF mount is dead. It means more lenses sold for them as you needlessly replace lenses that are perfectly fine.

 

[SteveC]

You sound like someone who is better suited to just buying a new smartphone every year. Although, even smartphones are at the point now where there isn't that much improvement from one generation to the next.

Optics are not a new technology. A 24 year old lens is not necessarily any worse than a lens made today - in fact there are probably some older lenses that are just as good if not better than what is made today. Which is why getting some used lenses are a huge bargain and why many folks with lenses 30-50 years old are always looking for adapters so they can use these lenses on today's cameras.

Of course, Canon and other lens makers love folks like you who can be so easily be convinced that newer is better! And believe that EF mount is dead. It means more lenses sold for them as you needlessly replace lenses that are perfectly fine.

But hey, I don't wanna use an adapter! They're horrible!!!

(/sarc)

 

[Canon-Chas]

We can all take shots at f11 or even f40, buts lets be serious these apertures on 600/800mm lenses are quite ridiculous for normal everyday action shots. I have never gone above f8 for action shots as shutter speed and or iso were unusable for a quality image. If you want to buy F11 600/800mm lens and shoot stationary objects , fine, but there are far better lenses for this type of shot. Yes, you can take bird in flight sky shots at f11 to give depth of field to a flock of birds but its a very limiting option

 

[stevelee]

Uh, yes it is. It's been utterly reinvented by computerized computation of lens formulae. CAD/CAM allows more complicated assemblies than previously possible. Camera makers and their prospective buyers continue to learn about the art. For instance in the 1980s people were so happy just to get an image that huge numbers of lenses had just five-bladed apertures, including not only the Canon 50mm/1.4, but even medium format 80mm's and so on. Now makers are much more concerned about aperture shape.

Thanks to these factors, the very sharpest lenses made today (Canon RF 50/1.2, Otus 50/1.4, Leica APO-Summicron 50/2) simply couldn't have been made a decade or two ago. The RF 50/1.2 is about 10x sharper than the EF 50/1.2 it replaces. You can see it's 30 lp/mm lines are higher than the old lens' 10 lp/mm lines; >3x sharper linearly is >9x sharper by area. If they could have done that 10 years ago they would have!

I got my first SLR about 1970. Zoom lenses were large, heavy, expensive, and not very good (or at least 3 of those 4). I never considered buying one. I was a grad student with some part-time jobs, so not much disposable income. I assembled a bunch of prime lenses instead. They seemed remarkable to me at the time, and I was able to take a lot of rather nice photos if I do say so myself.

Over time not just computer-aided design but also advances in rare earth glass, coatings, etc. have brought huge changes to what lenses, especially zoom lenses, can do. Profile-based computer adjustments work after the fact to smooth out much of the remaining faults. O Brave New World!