A Bit More About the New “Big White” Lenses Coming from Canon [CR3]

[NancyP]

Re: A Bit More About the New Big White Lenses That Are Coming

I think that there will be a good market for DSLRs for a while. I don't think that every new photographer is going to go immediately to high end mirrorless.
The obvious supertele in need of revision is the 800 f/5.6L

 

[Ozarker]

Re: A Bit More About the New Big White Lenses That Are Coming

Speaking for myself, I'm hoping I'm wrong, that EF will be the standard for years. But a pro FF body might be as good a justification as any to go with the next generation.

I think a pro body is a far smaller market than the EF picture as a whole. Far smaller. Change everything for one body? Nawwww. But we'll see soon enough.

Mirrorless is the future. Canon is going to redesign and optimize the mount for the new format, just like they did when they introduced EF in the first place. There's no way that they will limit their future by committing mirrorless to an old mount.

Wasn't EF designed to allow for auto-focus? Um... tell me how an EF mount holds Canon back in the mirrorless race? Please? What is it about an EF mount that is incompatible with Canon mirrorless (yet to be announced) cameras?

That's right. Sorry. I forgot that all mirrorless cameras have to be designed like a Sony... because it saves lots of room in the bag. : Not.

 

[Ozarker]

Re: A Bit More About the New Big White Lenses That Are Coming

I cannot see how the version II white super teles could be discontinued. I mean they can of course but it will not look very ethical on Canon.

From what I understand, it's standard procedure for Canon to discontinue parts & service for any lens seven years after a new version is released. Nothing to do with ethics, but rather the economics of making & stocking all those old parts. Having said that, I think ten years would be a bit more reasonable.

If the new versions are not really NEW design like the 70-200 ones then they make new versions as an excuse to stop supporting the current ones. This is HUGE Ethics issue. Now the 70-200 2.8L IS II is a new design of version I. Version III isn't. Hope you can see that!

It's not the case of an "excuse." Like most manufacturers, Canon stops servicing discontinued products once they run out of parts to perform that service. What no one here knows is whether or not the 70-200 III is simply a refresh with new lens coatings and body paint. If that's the case, it's likely that Canon would continue to provide service for the II version for many years if (and that is an important "if") the parts are interchangeable.

Since the new big whites haven't even been released yet, we don't know how different they will be from the existing versions. So speculating about how long they will service the current versions is way premature.

I don't see it as an ethical issue either. You bought the lens, Warranty is over. Eventually Canon decides it is time to move on. You didn't purchase a lifetime service guarantee for that lens and one wasn't offered.

 

[Etienne]

Re: A Bit More About the New Big White Lenses That Are Coming

Speaking for myself, I'm hoping I'm wrong, that EF will be the standard for years. But a pro FF body might be as good a justification as any to go with the next generation.

I think a pro body is a far smaller market than the EF picture as a whole. Far smaller. Change everything for one body? Nawwww. But we'll see soon enough.

Mirrorless is the future. Canon is going to redesign and optimize the mount for the new format, just like they did when they introduced EF in the first place. There's no way that they will limit their future by committing mirrorless to an old mount.

Wasn't EF designed to allow for auto-focus? Um... tell me how an EF mount holds Canon back in the mirrorless race? Please? What is it about an EF mount that is incompatible with Canon mirrorless (yet to be announced) cameras?

That's right. Sorry. I forgot that all mirrorless cameras have to be designed like a Sony... because it saves lots of room in the bag. : Not.

Your entire argument for Canon retaining the EF mount in a mirrorless body revolves around your personal desire to avoid buying new lenses.
Of course the EF was designed to optimize AF, but to spell it out for you, the lack of a mirror box also changes the engineering parameters for the lenses since they can be brought much closer to the sensor.
It's never been an issue that the EF mount is incompatible, it's just not optimal. The EF mount was designed to accommodate a mirror box. Clearly wide angle lenses, and probably normal lenses, can be made smaller and probably cheaper in a mirrorless optimized format. Sony has demonstrated so.
Your wishful thinking will, thankfully, be totally ignored by a company seeking to compete, or dominate, the emerging mirrorless camera market. Sorry, but you have absolutely no argument to support your dream. :

 

[Ozarker]

Re: A Bit More About the New Big White Lenses That Are Coming

Speaking for myself, I'm hoping I'm wrong, that EF will be the standard for years. But a pro FF body might be as good a justification as any to go with the next generation.

I think a pro body is a far smaller market than the EF picture as a whole. Far smaller. Change everything for one body? Nawwww. But we'll see soon enough.

Mirrorless is the future. Canon is going to redesign and optimize the mount for the new format, just like they did when they introduced EF in the first place. There's no way that they will limit their future by committing mirrorless to an old mount.

Wasn't EF designed to allow for auto-focus? Um... tell me how an EF mount holds Canon back in the mirrorless race? Please? What is it about an EF mount that is incompatible with Canon mirrorless (yet to be announced) cameras?

That's right. Sorry. I forgot that all mirrorless cameras have to be designed like a Sony... because it saves lots of room in the bag. : Not.

Your entire argument for Canon retaining the EF mount in a mirrorless body revolves around your personal desire to avoid buying new lenses.
Of course the EF was designed to optimize AF, but to spell it out for you, the lack of a mirror box also changes the engineering parameters for the lenses since they can be brought much closer to the sensor.
It's never been an issue that the EF mount is incompatible, it's just not optimal. The EF mount was designed to accommodate a mirror box. Clearly wide angle lenses, and probably normal lenses, can be made smaller and probably cheaper in a mirrorless optimized format. Sony has demonstrated so.
Your wishful thinking will, thankfully, be totally ignored by a company seeking to compete, or dominate, the emerging mirrorless camera market. Sorry, but you have absolutely no argument to support your dream. :

1. No, my argument (Not really an argument, but a rational) has nothing to do with my personal desires concerning new lenses. So there's that. I own 41 lenses already. I'm pretty much set. I also own a mirrorless camera and that is the root of my rational. The form factor presently sucks. Bad. Full frame or M43, it sucks.

2. Show me proof that lenses are less expensive to manufacture because they will be closer to the sensor. Some of Sony's lens prices are in the stratosphere compared to present Canon L glass. So there's that one. Saying the lenses will be less expensive is a purely manufactured fantasy on your part. Maybe Sony has something for less, I don't know... but since you brought it up and said it, prove that they cost less because they were built for mirrorless. Where did you get that idea from? A blogger? Vlogger?

3. EF wasn't designed to "optimise" the then current mount for auto-focus. There was no auto-focus. Canon had a reason to change the mount. While Canon may change the mount for mirrorless you cannot show me a reason why Canon must do so for mirrorless unless you, like many others, believe that a new mirrorless camera has to be built like a Sony.

4. My wishful thinking? I have none of that. I won't be going mirrorless so don't have a horse in this race. I put about 2,500 clicks a year on my 5D Mark III and don't shoot video at all. I've have had it for nearly 3 years. It will probably go another 10 years or more. Between now and then I will buy another EF mount DSLR to put away... so I'm probably set for life. There is absolutely nothing mirrorless can offer me above what I already have. If it could, then switching would not be a problem. Money is just money... not near as fun as what one can do with it.

5. Maybe the space saved by eliminating the mirrorbox will be used for heat sinks for really good 4k video instead of an excuse to make an ergonomic nightmare of a camera. A bigger battery would be better too. Mirrorless eats battery power up.

So my thoughts are based upon practicality in the current market atmosphere. EF ain't going away and there is absolutely no reason for it to go away. Mirrorless doesn't have to look like a skinny and awkward to hold Sony. It also doesn't have to leak water or overheat.

 

[Don Haines]

Re: A Bit More About the New Big White Lenses That Are Coming

Your entire argument for Canon retaining the EF mount in a mirrorless body revolves around your personal desire to avoid buying new lenses.
Of course the EF was designed to optimize AF, but to spell it out for you, the lack of a mirror box also changes the engineering parameters for the lenses since they can be brought much closer to the sensor.
It's never been an issue that the EF mount is incompatible, it's just not optimal. The EF mount was designed to accommodate a mirror box. Clearly wide angle lenses, and probably normal lenses, can be made smaller and probably cheaper in a mirrorless optimized format. Sony has demonstrated so.
Your wishful thinking will, thankfully, be totally ignored by a company seeking to compete, or dominate, the emerging mirrorless camera market. Sorry, but you have absolutely no argument to support your dream. :

A bit of history here...

The EF mount (EF stands for Electro Focus) came out in 1987. The primary design feature of the mount was that all communication to and from the lens be done through serial data streams (thus allowing auto-focus) and that there be no mechanical couplings such as levers... It replaced the FD mount, which had levers and a couple of dedicated pins. FD mount was not conducive to automatic focusing. Canon had realized that it was a dead end, and eventually Nikon also realized that mechanical linkages were passe….

Fast forward to today, where the EF mount is still in primary use.... The mount still works well, but as computing power and data communication speeds have increased, the slow communications between lens and body have started to limit system performance. Canon has patented a new version of this mount which will allow for the negotiation between camera and lens of higher data rates. How this works is you turn on the camera, it sends a query (using the slow EF link speed) to the lens asking what the max supported lens link speed is. If there is no answer (legacy EF glass), then it continues at the EF link speed. If it responds by saying it supports a faster speed, then both switch to that faster speed. We expect to see this very soon, be it on new EF bodies, or if it is a new mount... Canon has stated that there will be an "elegant" solution with a new mirrorless mount, and the odds are exceptionally high that this will be part of it....


As far as mount size goes, you can make the flange shorter, but as a result the lens will have to bend light from regular and telephoto lenses more, and the result will be more chromatic aberration and there will be more vignetting as a result of the light hitting the sensor at a greater angle. For wide angle lenses, you are better off as there will be less vignetting and less chromatic aberrations.... a classic example of trade-offs... There is no A is better than B, they both have their strengths and their weaknesses. You can not say that the current EF mount is not optimal without acknowledging that whatever any possible new mirrorless mount is, that it will also not be optimal. You can not cherry pick your conditions.

There are very good reasons to keep the existing EF mount, just as there are also very good reasons to create a new mount. A lot of people argue that size is the over-riding criteria, yet when you include fast or long lenses into the system, the system savings are negligible. If you want a small system that is still of good quality, Canon should look at releasing some F5.6 or F6.3 L glass in whatever mount they pick.... That's where the real size savings will come from.

 

[Etienne]

Re: A Bit More About the New Big White Lenses That Are Coming

Your entire argument for Canon retaining the EF mount in a mirrorless body revolves around your personal desire to avoid buying new lenses.
Of course the EF was designed to optimize AF, but to spell it out for you, the lack of a mirror box also changes the engineering parameters for the lenses since they can be brought much closer to the sensor.
It's never been an issue that the EF mount is incompatible, it's just not optimal. The EF mount was designed to accommodate a mirror box. Clearly wide angle lenses, and probably normal lenses, can be made smaller and probably cheaper in a mirrorless optimized format. Sony has demonstrated so.
Your wishful thinking will, thankfully, be totally ignored by a company seeking to compete, or dominate, the emerging mirrorless camera market. Sorry, but you have absolutely no argument to support your dream. :

A bit of history here...

The EF mount (EF stands for Electro Focus) came out in 1987. The primary design feature of the mount was that all communication to and from the lens be done through serial data streams and that there be no mechanical couplings such as levers... It replaced the FD mount, which had levers and a couple of dedicated pins. FD mount was not conducive to automatic focusing. Canon had realized that it was a dead end, and eventually Nikon also realized that mechanical linkages were passe….

Fast forward to today, where the EF mount is still in primary use.... The mount still works well, but as computing power and data communication speeds have increased, the slow communications between lens and body have started to limit system performance. Canon has patented a new version of this mount which will allow for the negotiation between camera and lens of higher data rates. How this works is you turn on the camera, it sends a query (using the slow EF link speed) to the lens asking what the max supported lens link speed is. If there is no answer (legacy EF glass), then it continues at the EF link speed. If it responds by saying it supports a faster speed, then both switch to that faster speed. We expect to see this very soon, be it on new EF bodies, or if it is a new mount... Canon has stated that there will be an "elegant" solution with a new mirrorless mount, and the odds are exceptionally high that this will be part of it....


As far as mount size goes, you can make the flange shorter, but as a result the lens will have to bend light from regular and telephoto lenses more, and the result will be more chromatic aberration and there will be more vignetting as a result of the light hitting the sensor at a greater angle. For wide angle lenses, you are better off as there will be less vignetting and less chromatic aberrations.... a classic example of trade-offs... There is no A is better than B, they both have their strengths and their weaknesses. You can not say that the current EF mount is not optimal without acknowledging that whatever any possible new mirrorless mount is, that it will also not be optimal. You can not cherry pick your conditions.

There are very good reasons to keep the existing EF mount, just as there are also very good reasons to create a new mount. A lot of people argue that size is the over-riding criteria, yet when you include fast or long lenses into the system, the system savings are negligible. If you want a small system that is still of good quality, Canon should look at releasing some F5.6 or F6.3 L glass in whatever mount they pick.... That's where the real size savings will come from.

From you own argument, you CAN have the best of both worlds with a new mount. You can use native mirrorless mount lenses for focal lengths less than 50mm, and use EF lenses with an adapter for telephoto lenses thus minimizing the bending you suggest is necessary.
In fact, Canon could choose to design longer focal length lenses by just adding extra space to the existing EF lens design and the new mount, therefor there is NO disadvantage to the shorter flange distance. ALL advantages point to a new mount with a shorter flange distance.

 

[Don Haines]

Re: A Bit More About the New Big White Lenses That Are Coming

Your entire argument for Canon retaining the EF mount in a mirrorless body revolves around your personal desire to avoid buying new lenses.
Of course the EF was designed to optimize AF, but to spell it out for you, the lack of a mirror box also changes the engineering parameters for the lenses since they can be brought much closer to the sensor.
It's never been an issue that the EF mount is incompatible, it's just not optimal. The EF mount was designed to accommodate a mirror box. Clearly wide angle lenses, and probably normal lenses, can be made smaller and probably cheaper in a mirrorless optimized format. Sony has demonstrated so.
Your wishful thinking will, thankfully, be totally ignored by a company seeking to compete, or dominate, the emerging mirrorless camera market. Sorry, but you have absolutely no argument to support your dream. :

A bit of history here...

The EF mount (EF stands for Electro Focus) came out in 1987. The primary design feature of the mount was that all communication to and from the lens be done through serial data streams and that there be no mechanical couplings such as levers... It replaced the FD mount, which had levers and a couple of dedicated pins. FD mount was not conducive to automatic focusing. Canon had realized that it was a dead end, and eventually Nikon also realized that mechanical linkages were passe….

Fast forward to today, where the EF mount is still in primary use.... The mount still works well, but as computing power and data communication speeds have increased, the slow communications between lens and body have started to limit system performance. Canon has patented a new version of this mount which will allow for the negotiation between camera and lens of higher data rates. How this works is you turn on the camera, it sends a query (using the slow EF link speed) to the lens asking what the max supported lens link speed is. If there is no answer (legacy EF glass), then it continues at the EF link speed. If it responds by saying it supports a faster speed, then both switch to that faster speed. We expect to see this very soon, be it on new EF bodies, or if it is a new mount... Canon has stated that there will be an "elegant" solution with a new mirrorless mount, and the odds are exceptionally high that this will be part of it....


As far as mount size goes, you can make the flange shorter, but as a result the lens will have to bend light from regular and telephoto lenses more, and the result will be more chromatic aberration and there will be more vignetting as a result of the light hitting the sensor at a greater angle. For wide angle lenses, you are better off as there will be less vignetting and less chromatic aberrations.... a classic example of trade-offs... There is no A is better than B, they both have their strengths and their weaknesses. You can not say that the current EF mount is not optimal without acknowledging that whatever any possible new mirrorless mount is, that it will also not be optimal. You can not cherry pick your conditions.

There are very good reasons to keep the existing EF mount, just as there are also very good reasons to create a new mount. A lot of people argue that size is the over-riding criteria, yet when you include fast or long lenses into the system, the system savings are negligible. If you want a small system that is still of good quality, Canon should look at releasing some F5.6 or F6.3 L glass in whatever mount they pick.... That's where the real size savings will come from.

From you own argument, you CAN have the best of both worlds with a new mount. You can use native mirrorless mount lenses for focal lengths less than 50mm, and use EF lenses with an adapter for telephoto lenses thus minimizing the bending you suggest is necessary.
In fact, Canon could choose to design longer focal length lenses by just adding extra space to the existing EF lens design and the new mount, therefor there is NO disadvantage to the shorter flange distance. ALL advantages point to a new mount with a shorter flange distance.

and where are the size savings? We need to think system, not components.....

I'm not suggesting that there will not be a mirrorless mount, what I am suggesting is that if there is a new tiny mount, that Canon is not going to abandon EF and redo all their lenses for that new mount because the overall reduction in size of the SYSTEM will be negligible.... If they create a tiny mount, then they will create some new (and slow) L lenses to give you a reduction in SYSTEM size....

 

[Ozarker]

Re: A Bit More About the New Big White Lenses That Are Coming

Your entire argument for Canon retaining the EF mount in a mirrorless body revolves around your personal desire to avoid buying new lenses.
Of course the EF was designed to optimize AF, but to spell it out for you, the lack of a mirror box also changes the engineering parameters for the lenses since they can be brought much closer to the sensor.
It's never been an issue that the EF mount is incompatible, it's just not optimal. The EF mount was designed to accommodate a mirror box. Clearly wide angle lenses, and probably normal lenses, can be made smaller and probably cheaper in a mirrorless optimized format. Sony has demonstrated so.
Your wishful thinking will, thankfully, be totally ignored by a company seeking to compete, or dominate, the emerging mirrorless camera market. Sorry, but you have absolutely no argument to support your dream. :

A bit of history here...

The EF mount (EF stands for Electro Focus) came out in 1987. The primary design feature of the mount was that all communication to and from the lens be done through serial data streams and that there be no mechanical couplings such as levers... It replaced the FD mount, which had levers and a couple of dedicated pins. FD mount was not conducive to automatic focusing. Canon had realized that it was a dead end, and eventually Nikon also realized that mechanical linkages were passe….

Fast forward to today, where the EF mount is still in primary use.... The mount still works well, but as computing power and data communication speeds have increased, the slow communications between lens and body have started to limit system performance. Canon has patented a new version of this mount which will allow for the negotiation between camera and lens of higher data rates. How this works is you turn on the camera, it sends a query (using the slow EF link speed) to the lens asking what the max supported lens link speed is. If there is no answer (legacy EF glass), then it continues at the EF link speed. If it responds by saying it supports a faster speed, then both switch to that faster speed. We expect to see this very soon, be it on new EF bodies, or if it is a new mount... Canon has stated that there will be an "elegant" solution with a new mirrorless mount, and the odds are exceptionally high that this will be part of it....


As far as mount size goes, you can make the flange shorter, but as a result the lens will have to bend light from regular and telephoto lenses more, and the result will be more chromatic aberration and there will be more vignetting as a result of the light hitting the sensor at a greater angle. For wide angle lenses, you are better off as there will be less vignetting and less chromatic aberrations.... a classic example of trade-offs... There is no A is better than B, they both have their strengths and their weaknesses. You can not say that the current EF mount is not optimal without acknowledging that whatever any possible new mirrorless mount is, that it will also not be optimal. You can not cherry pick your conditions.

There are very good reasons to keep the existing EF mount, just as there are also very good reasons to create a new mount. A lot of people argue that size is the over-riding criteria, yet when you include fast or long lenses into the system, the system savings are negligible. If you want a small system that is still of good quality, Canon should look at releasing some F5.6 or F6.3 L glass in whatever mount they pick.... That's where the real size savings will come from.

From you own argument, you CAN have the best of both worlds with a new mount. You can use native mirrorless mount lenses for focal lengths less than 50mm, and use EF lenses with an adapter for telephoto lenses thus minimizing the bending you suggest is necessary.
In fact, Canon could choose to design longer focal length lenses by just adding extra space to the existing EF lens design and the new mount, therefor there is NO disadvantage to the shorter flange distance. ALL advantages point to a new mount with a shorter flange distance.

and where are the size savings? We need to think system, not components.....

Isn't nice to get someone questioning their religion. ;D

Only native for less than 50mm? Wow. Why do we need a new mount? Because we shoot more wide angle than anything else? Wow.

Go ahead and build a new mount Canon. Don't even worry about native lenses longer than 40mm. An adapter will work for all of it. 50mm or less? Yeah, well, what you have already will work with the adapter too. No thanks. Now, where did I put that adapter?

Don, point taken on the electronics update.

 

[Etienne]

Re: A Bit More About the New Big White Lenses That Are Coming

Your entire argument for Canon retaining the EF mount in a mirrorless body revolves around your personal desire to avoid buying new lenses.
Of course the EF was designed to optimize AF, but to spell it out for you, the lack of a mirror box also changes the engineering parameters for the lenses since they can be brought much closer to the sensor.
It's never been an issue that the EF mount is incompatible, it's just not optimal. The EF mount was designed to accommodate a mirror box. Clearly wide angle lenses, and probably normal lenses, can be made smaller and probably cheaper in a mirrorless optimized format. Sony has demonstrated so.
Your wishful thinking will, thankfully, be totally ignored by a company seeking to compete, or dominate, the emerging mirrorless camera market. Sorry, but you have absolutely no argument to support your dream. :

A bit of history here...

The EF mount (EF stands for Electro Focus) came out in 1987. The primary design feature of the mount was that all communication to and from the lens be done through serial data streams and that there be no mechanical couplings such as levers... It replaced the FD mount, which had levers and a couple of dedicated pins. FD mount was not conducive to automatic focusing. Canon had realized that it was a dead end, and eventually Nikon also realized that mechanical linkages were passe….

Fast forward to today, where the EF mount is still in primary use.... The mount still works well, but as computing power and data communication speeds have increased, the slow communications between lens and body have started to limit system performance. Canon has patented a new version of this mount which will allow for the negotiation between camera and lens of higher data rates. How this works is you turn on the camera, it sends a query (using the slow EF link speed) to the lens asking what the max supported lens link speed is. If there is no answer (legacy EF glass), then it continues at the EF link speed. If it responds by saying it supports a faster speed, then both switch to that faster speed. We expect to see this very soon, be it on new EF bodies, or if it is a new mount... Canon has stated that there will be an "elegant" solution with a new mirrorless mount, and the odds are exceptionally high that this will be part of it....


As far as mount size goes, you can make the flange shorter, but as a result the lens will have to bend light from regular and telephoto lenses more, and the result will be more chromatic aberration and there will be more vignetting as a result of the light hitting the sensor at a greater angle. For wide angle lenses, you are better off as there will be less vignetting and less chromatic aberrations.... a classic example of trade-offs... There is no A is better than B, they both have their strengths and their weaknesses. You can not say that the current EF mount is not optimal without acknowledging that whatever any possible new mirrorless mount is, that it will also not be optimal. You can not cherry pick your conditions.

There are very good reasons to keep the existing EF mount, just as there are also very good reasons to create a new mount. A lot of people argue that size is the over-riding criteria, yet when you include fast or long lenses into the system, the system savings are negligible. If you want a small system that is still of good quality, Canon should look at releasing some F5.6 or F6.3 L glass in whatever mount they pick.... That's where the real size savings will come from.

From you own argument, you CAN have the best of both worlds with a new mount. You can use native mirrorless mount lenses for focal lengths less than 50mm, and use EF lenses with an adapter for telephoto lenses thus minimizing the bending you suggest is necessary.
In fact, Canon could choose to design longer focal length lenses by just adding extra space to the existing EF lens design and the new mount, therefor there is NO disadvantage to the shorter flange distance. ALL advantages point to a new mount with a shorter flange distance.

and where are the size savings? We need to think system, not components.....

Isn't nice to get someone questioning their religion. ;D

We'll just have to wait and see what the engineers do. Sonys system with wide and normal lenses are smaller and lighter ... if facts are a religion, then I'm religious.

Anyway, the religious zeolots on this forum are the ones who argue that Canon is always right and always the best. Closely followed by the act of faith in believing that the EF mount will reign forever, and that the engineers will not be able to take advantage of a short flange mount. Whatever helps you sleep at night boys.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Re: A Bit More About the New Big White Lenses That Are Coming

Sony recently came out with some big glass for sport photography. Together with their A7 gets about 20 fps in focus. Canon's and Nikon's best gig can only deliver 10 fps focused.

I guess you mean the a9. 20 fps with some lenses, 15 fps with others. The 1D X II does 14 fps. But hey, they're just numbers, right? Sure, unless your numbers are wrong.

 

[Mr Majestyk]

Re: A Bit More About the New Big White Lenses That Are Coming

What sort of upgrades should we expect from new super telephoto lenses? I think a big one will be weight reduction,

Worth pointing out that for the MkI to MkII updates, the 400 and 600 saw weight reductions of over 25%, while the 300 and 500 only dropped less than 10% of their weight. To me, that suggests we'll see updates to the 300 and 500.

True, but in the case of the 300 the body is a lot smaller to start with, the weight savings were always going to be proportionately a lot less. Also for the 500 we went from 3.8kg to 3.2kg that is clearly a lot more than 10% in fact it's about 19%. So these lenses weights fell by less but that was expected. I highly doubt Canon can get near Sony's weight for the 400 f/2.8 with their own 400 and 600 (almost same weight). They alluded to the fact they had a new lighter magnesium alloy for the mk III when news first broke about mk III's coming in time for 2020 Olympics, but will it be enough? I can only assume Sony managed such weight reduction by also making the lens body a bit thinner without affecting rigidity and also use of a lot of Fluorite lens elements. Also Sony moved the centre of mass way back in the lens making it balance a lot beter than the Canikon 400's and has 50% lower rotational inertia. Are these things Canon would have considered? IMO we might see 10% weight reductions, but not Sony's 24% effort.

 

[Don Haines]

Re: A Bit More About the New Big White Lenses That Are Coming

Isn't nice to get someone questioning their religion. ;D

Only native for less than 50mm? Wow. Why do we need a new mount? Because we shoot more wide angle than anything else? Wow.

Go ahead and build a new mount Canon. Don't even worry about native lenses longer than 40mm. An adapter will work for all of it. 50mm or less? Yeah, well, what you have already will work with the adapter too. No thanks. Now, where did I put that adapter?

Don, point taken on the electronics update.

My point is that everything has advantages and has disadvantages. It's the people who present small size bodies as the ultimate solution that get me going.... Yes, you can make bodies smaller, but without smaller (slower) lenses, where is the size gain? What percentage of people are going to give up ergonomics for INTERMITTENT size.... I'm not going to say small size, because no FF mirrorless camera/lenses will ever approach the size of the M series... If size is so important, why not go all the way to M.... but if quality is so important, why not go all the way to EF and balanced bodies with decent controls?

Yes, there is a middle ground, but how many are going to occupy it? We don't know and can only guess...


and as far as new mounts go: Some people say that Canon abandoned FD mount users when the EF mount came out, but the FD mount DID NOT SUPPORT DIGITAL CAMERAS!!!!! The EF mount was digital, and it brought AF systems into play and later allowed IS to be developed and because you could now ID a specific lens, we could bring lens profiles, corrections, and AFMA into the mix. Abandoning EF mount for a new mount brings ZERO new capabilities to the system and both runs the risk of alienating existing users, plus removes much of the incentive for existing users to stay in the Canon system because now rather than using thier existing glass, they would have to get new glass and bodies.... and if that is the case, why not jump ship? The cost is the same!

 

[Ozarker]

Re: A Bit More About the New Big White Lenses That Are Coming

Isn't nice to get someone questioning their religion. ;D

Only native for less than 50mm? Wow. Why do we need a new mount? Because we shoot more wide angle than anything else? Wow.

Go ahead and build a new mount Canon. Don't even worry about native lenses longer than 40mm. An adapter will work for all of it. 50mm or less? Yeah, well, what you have already will work with the adapter too. No thanks. Now, where did I put that adapter?

Don, point taken on the electronics update.

My point is that everything has advantages and has disadvantages. It's the people who present small size bodies as the ultimate solution that get me going.... Yes, you can make bodies smaller, but without smaller (slower) lenses, where is the size gain? What percentage of people are going to give up ergonomics for INTERMITTENT size.... I'm not going to say small size, because no FF mirrorless camera/lenses will ever approach the size of the M series... If size is so important, why not go all the way to M.... but if quality is so important, why not go all the way to EF and balanced bodies with decent controls?

Yes, there is a middle ground, but how many are going to occupy it? We don't know and can only guess...


and as far as new mounts go: Some people say that Canon abandoned FD mount users when the EF mount came out, but the FD mount DID NOT SUPPORT DIGITAL CAMERAS!!!!! The EF mount was digital, and it brought AF systems into play and later allowed IS to be developed and because you could now ID a specific lens, we could bring lens profiles, corrections, and AFMA into the mix. Abandoning EF mount for a new mount brings ZERO new capabilities to the system and both runs the risk of alienating existing users, plus removes much of the incentive for existing users to stay in the Canon system because now rather than using thier existing glass, they would have to get new glass and bodies.... and if that is the case, why not jump ship? The cost is the same!

Of course, you are absolutely correct.

 

[Durf]

Re: A Bit More About the New Big White Lenses That Are Coming

Isn't nice to get someone questioning their religion. ;D

Only native for less than 50mm? Wow. Why do we need a new mount? Because we shoot more wide angle than anything else? Wow.

Go ahead and build a new mount Canon. Don't even worry about native lenses longer than 40mm. An adapter will work for all of it. 50mm or less? Yeah, well, what you have already will work with the adapter too. No thanks. Now, where did I put that adapter?

Don, point taken on the electronics update.

My point is that everything has advantages and has disadvantages. It's the people who present small size bodies as the ultimate solution that get me going.... Yes, you can make bodies smaller, but without smaller (slower) lenses, where is the size gain? What percentage of people are going to give up ergonomics for INTERMITTENT size.... I'm not going to say small size, because no FF mirrorless camera/lenses will ever approach the size of the M series... If size is so important, why not go all the way to M.... but if quality is so important, why not go all the way to EF and balanced bodies with decent controls?

Yes, there is a middle ground, but how many are going to occupy it? We don't know and can only guess...


and as far as new mounts go: Some people say that Canon abandoned FD mount users when the EF mount came out, but the FD mount DID NOT SUPPORT DIGITAL CAMERAS!!!!! The EF mount was digital, and it brought AF systems into play and later allowed IS to be developed and because you could now ID a specific lens, we could bring lens profiles, corrections, and AFMA into the mix. Abandoning EF mount for a new mount brings ZERO new capabilities to the system and both runs the risk of alienating existing users, plus removes much of the incentive for existing users to stay in the Canon system because now rather than using thier existing glass, they would have to get new glass and bodies.... and if that is the case, why not jump ship? The cost is the same!

Perhaps why Canon has been updating most of their most famous and used EF Lenses over the last few years or so.....They're making sure all there top shelf L lenses will work like a charm on their new FF mirrorless cameras first before tossing mirrorless camera bodies on to the public with no good lenses for them like some other companies do/did....

 

[Ozarker]

Re: A Bit More About the New Big White Lenses That Are Coming

Your entire argument for Canon retaining the EF mount in a mirrorless body revolves around your personal desire to avoid buying new lenses.
Of course the EF was designed to optimize AF, but to spell it out for you, the lack of a mirror box also changes the engineering parameters for the lenses since they can be brought much closer to the sensor.
It's never been an issue that the EF mount is incompatible, it's just not optimal. The EF mount was designed to accommodate a mirror box. Clearly wide angle lenses, and probably normal lenses, can be made smaller and probably cheaper in a mirrorless optimized format. Sony has demonstrated so.
Your wishful thinking will, thankfully, be totally ignored by a company seeking to compete, or dominate, the emerging mirrorless camera market. Sorry, but you have absolutely no argument to support your dream. :

A bit of history here...

The EF mount (EF stands for Electro Focus) came out in 1987. The primary design feature of the mount was that all communication to and from the lens be done through serial data streams and that there be no mechanical couplings such as levers... It replaced the FD mount, which had levers and a couple of dedicated pins. FD mount was not conducive to automatic focusing. Canon had realized that it was a dead end, and eventually Nikon also realized that mechanical linkages were passe….

Fast forward to today, where the EF mount is still in primary use.... The mount still works well, but as computing power and data communication speeds have increased, the slow communications between lens and body have started to limit system performance. Canon has patented a new version of this mount which will allow for the negotiation between camera and lens of higher data rates. How this works is you turn on the camera, it sends a query (using the slow EF link speed) to the lens asking what the max supported lens link speed is. If there is no answer (legacy EF glass), then it continues at the EF link speed. If it responds by saying it supports a faster speed, then both switch to that faster speed. We expect to see this very soon, be it on new EF bodies, or if it is a new mount... Canon has stated that there will be an "elegant" solution with a new mirrorless mount, and the odds are exceptionally high that this will be part of it....


As far as mount size goes, you can make the flange shorter, but as a result the lens will have to bend light from regular and telephoto lenses more, and the result will be more chromatic aberration and there will be more vignetting as a result of the light hitting the sensor at a greater angle. For wide angle lenses, you are better off as there will be less vignetting and less chromatic aberrations.... a classic example of trade-offs... There is no A is better than B, they both have their strengths and their weaknesses. You can not say that the current EF mount is not optimal without acknowledging that whatever any possible new mirrorless mount is, that it will also not be optimal. You can not cherry pick your conditions.

There are very good reasons to keep the existing EF mount, just as there are also very good reasons to create a new mount. A lot of people argue that size is the over-riding criteria, yet when you include fast or long lenses into the system, the system savings are negligible. If you want a small system that is still of good quality, Canon should look at releasing some F5.6 or F6.3 L glass in whatever mount they pick.... That's where the real size savings will come from.

From you own argument, you CAN have the best of both worlds with a new mount. You can use native mirrorless mount lenses for focal lengths less than 50mm, and use EF lenses with an adapter for telephoto lenses thus minimizing the bending you suggest is necessary.
In fact, Canon could choose to design longer focal length lenses by just adding extra space to the existing EF lens design and the new mount, therefor there is NO disadvantage to the shorter flange distance. ALL advantages point to a new mount with a shorter flange distance.

and where are the size savings? We need to think system, not components.....

Isn't nice to get someone questioning their religion. ;D

We'll just have to wait and see what the engineers do. Sonys system with wide and normal lenses are smaller and lighter ... if facts are a religion, then I'm religious.

Anyway, the religious zeolots on this forum are the ones who argue that Canon is always right and always the best. Closely followed by the act of faith in believing that the EF mount will reign forever, and that the engineers will not be able to take advantage of a short flange mount. Whatever helps you sleep at night boys.

So now we've gone from smaller, lighter, and less expensive because they are for mirrorless to just smaller and lighter. They are also mostly slower and the IQ isn't as good as Canon's. Those are the facts.

I've never seen anyone say that Canon is always right or always the best. I have, though, run across inquisitors who accuse people of saying such things. Nobody has said that EF will reign forever, though no reason why not at this point.

Nobody has disparaged Canon engineers either... wait, except for the Canon must conform to Sony crowd.

It never fails that there are people in the crowd that think Canon should aspire to be just like Sony. Just buy a Sony. :

Canon will never make a deck of cards FF camera like that. Never.

And again, since you left it out of the quote, native only for less than 50mm lenses? Wow. How much money and weight does that save? Why a new mount?

 

[Talys]

Re: A Bit More About the New Big White Lenses That Are Coming

Sony recently came out with some big glass for sport photography. Together with their A7 gets about 20 fps in focus. Canon's and Nikon's best gig can only deliver 10 fps focused.

I guess you mean the a9. 20 fps with some lenses, 15 fps with others. The 1D X II does 14 fps. But hey, they're just numbers, right? Sure, unless your numbers are wrong.

Yeah, that... Except when you have a big lens on the 1DXII and a 1.4x or 2x extender on it, in a real life venue that matters, like, say, an Olympic figure skating rink, the 1DXII will give you 14 in-focus frames every second, while the a9 will look like it's having a seizure trying to focus on something. Though yes, you can force the shutter to whir 20 times every second with a massive buffer to give you 256GB of blurry photos

In trying out a 1DX2, what I was really most impressed with was its AF speed in imperfect conditions. It was truly amazing (keeping in mind that at the time my best camera was a 70D).

 

[M_S]

Re: A Bit More About the New Big White Lenses That Are Coming

My two cents for the mount:
I yet have to see an advantage for a shorter flange distance. Makes lenses more complicated (according to Zeiss) and ony WA lenses benefit. Lot's of other more used focal length don't see an improvement in size reduction. Weight reductions come mainly from using other materials.
If Canon would be clever, they would use the same dimensions and locking mechanism as the current EF mount. Electronic contacts would be in the same position. New optimized mirrorless lenses could have some extra pins, - capable of high speed data, new protocols etc. - enabling some other electronic stuff they want to put in the lens. These pins would have no effect on FF DSLRs, as the corresponding contacts would be missing on the camera body, and would enable the full potential on mirrorless, where these contacts are available.

 

[RGF]

Re: A Bit More About the New Big White Lenses That Are Coming

Will Canon put a drop in extender into their III super teles? This would allow them to raise their price point and give a real incentive for all current owners to upgrade.

Then a year from how introduce DO version of all the lenses w/o drop in extenders. Five years later, add the drop in extender to the DO versions (or perhaps make the drop in extender in 2 parts - 1.2, 1.4 so combined you get 1.7).

Lots of upgrades in our futures

 

[danimon]

Re: A Bit More About the New Big White Lenses That Are Coming

i think it could be 300 and 600, although i'm pretty sure the rest will follow sooner rather than later.. i can see a lot of room for improvement in image quality and technology whether it's about ultra high resolution, action stopper, or video shooter dslr .

but if i gonna make a 10k+ purchase, i would rather go with big zoom lens like 200-400 f4, and i would really love to pay more for a more compact and lighter lens.

having 600 f4 is always nice , but its something like 400-800 f5,6 that going to save you most of the time. mark my words ;D