6 unreleased Canon lenses and the two teleconverters show up for certification

mpb001

EOS 80D
Sep 10, 2016
101
81
The 10-24f4 L would be perfect for my style of shooting (travel-landscapes). This lens, with the 24-105f4 L are basically all I need. Now all I need to see is an R6 body to complete this possible kit.
 

Stuart

Hi, Welcome from an ePhotozine fan, & 6D user.
Jul 22, 2010
330
83
London & Woking
www.ephotozine.com
not pleased with that 100-500, its just way too slow. I have the 100-400II and I'd rather keep that at this point. I'd rather it be a 200-500 5.6, 100-500 5.6, or 200-600 6.3. The other companies are making it, come on canon!
Can I ask, why too slow? With the good high ISO's and great low light focus ability of new cameras ir it just the DOF of 5 feet at 100 feet distance that bothers you?
 

mpb001

EOS 80D
Sep 10, 2016
101
81
but only if filterable. Agree?
Well, it depends. The closest EF lens that I have to that is a 17-40L. I primarily use polarizing lenses. I do not use polarized filters on lenses generally wider than around 24 mm because of the uneven effect on blue skies.
 

Viggo

EOS 5D SR
Dec 13, 2010
4,421
1,065
Can I ask, why too slow? With the good high ISO's and great low light focus ability of new cameras ir it just the DOF of 5 feet at 100 feet distance that bothers you?
80% of the year here there is no way too shot f7.1 and 1/1000s without skyhigh ISO... then going into the woods and needing 1/2000s to freeze birds and 7.1 is totally useless...
 

SecureGSM

2 x 5D IV
Feb 26, 2017
1,745
670
Well, it depends. The closest EF lens that I have to that is a 17-40L. I primarily use polarizing lenses. I do not use polarized filters on lenses generally wider than around 24 mm because of the uneven effect on blue skies.
10-24 / 4 would have to be a very large and heavy lens. with large bulbous front element. not an ideal travelling lens in my view.
 

padam

EOS 7D MK II
Aug 26, 2015
699
323
10-24 / 4 would have to be a very large and heavy lens. with large bulbous front element. not an ideal travelling lens in my view.
Not really, the Sigma 14-24/2.8 mirrorless version is only 795g vs DSLR 14-24/2.8 version 1150g (excluding the mount adapter) which, incidentally is almost what the Canon 11-24/4 weighs as well. With the extra 1mm at the wide end, the size and weight reduction should be a little less than 30%, but still very noticeable, mirrorless system have their benefits maximised for wide-angle lens designs.
 

mpb001

EOS 80D
Sep 10, 2016
101
81
10-24 / 4 would have to be a very large and heavy lens. with large bulbous front element. not an ideal travelling lens in my view.
I guess we will have to wait and see. Canon has shown some tremendous innovation in lenses lately like the size of the RF 70-200f2.8.
 

usern4cr

EOS M50
Sep 2, 2018
33
29
With two equal speed card slots, an option to alternate and write to both together with a further option to cross copy with idle time once the buffers are flushed. That'll give you 200% write speed at the expense of higher peak battery drain and a bit more demand on the processor.
Yes! That's a great idea! (doh - it never occurred to me). The bottom line is that you almost always have unused time now and then, so use it to the maximum benefit possible! I don't think it would affect battery drain much, if at all. Any slight battery difference would be negligible when compared with doubling (or greater) the maximum write speed while still (in delayed background) having a safe second copy so the users don't have anything to complain about!
 

sanj

EOS 5D MK IV
Jan 22, 2012
3,384
198
not pleased with that 100-500, its just way too slow. I have the 100-400II and I'd rather keep that at this point. I'd rather it be a 200-500 5.6, 100-500 5.6, or 200-600 6.3. The other companies are making it, come on canon!
It is Canon's attempt to make a decent size, decent cost telephoto zoom. It will be a best seller. For others, there is the 200-400 f4.
 
  • Sad
Reactions: HankMD

mpmark

EOS 80D
Aug 9, 2016
127
141
It is Canon's attempt to make a decent size, decent cost telephoto zoom. It will be a best seller. For others, there is the 200-400 f4.
I disagree about the for "others" part, the 200-400 F/4 is not even in the same category as the 2-3000k 600mm zooms available, apples to oranges.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HankMD

Doug7131

EOS 7D
Jul 21, 2019
7
7
Im guessing that the 100-500 f4.5-7.1 will have a very similar design to the exisiting 100-400 f4.5-5.6. In which case the lens will likley only switch to 7.1 after 400mm. So think of it as the 100-400 with an extra 100mm added on. Maybe 7.1 is too dark for some cases but any lens that is significatly faster at 500mm, Nikon 200-500 f5.6 for example, are much bigger and heavier than the 100-500 and also have a much more limited zoom range.
 

mpmark

EOS 80D
Aug 9, 2016
127
141
Can I ask, why too slow? With the good high ISO's and great low light focus ability of new cameras ir it just the DOF of 5 feet at 100 feet distance that bothers you?
both actually, 7.1 is already pretty difficult for bokeh, unless you separate the subject from the background, but evening low light scenarios, you quickly run out of usable ISO quite fast already on a 5.6 lens, let alone a 7.1 lens.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Stuart

mpmark

EOS 80D
Aug 9, 2016
127
141
Depends where you live, for me in India that lens is useless in forests of western ghats but on grasslands of Deccan plateau and transition zone of two habitats that lens is more than sufficient.
agreed but don't forget about the bokeh, you'll have to work more to blow the background out as it limits your options. 5.6 for me is already difficult enough with low light evening shooting, you really lose it quite fast even at 5.6. Now to cope with a 7.1 lens? no thanks.