except that patent application is the exact opposite of what you are wanting. they state they want a switchable teleconverter WITHOUT adding the bulk to each super telephoto.
Upvote
0
except that patent application is the exact opposite of what you are wanting. they state they want a switchable teleconverter WITHOUT adding the bulk to each super telephoto.
the new RF 2,8 300 has the problem, that it doesn`t fit on my EOS 1DX II - but my old EOS EF 2,8 300 fits on the new R-line with an adapter.So if I have a fail with the R-line body, I shoot my sports furthermore with my 1dxII and the old 2,8 300 - but this is impossible with a r-line lens...
You just told me but you needn't have. The issue is that right now it's EF to RF to use it, which I'm presently fine with.Hopefully it’s compatible with drop in filters like EF - RF adapter is. I can’t tell you how awesome that feature is.
the new RF 2,8 300 has the problem, that it doesn`t fit on my EOS 1DX II - but my old EOS EF 2,8 300 fits on the new R-line with an adapter.So if I have a fail with the R-line body, I shoot my sports furthermore with my 1dxII and the old 2,8 300 - but this is impossible with a r-line lens...
I understood such an adaptor was not physically possible.Maybe an RF->FE adapter will come along. I'm using my 300 f/2.8 on my Sony A9 with good success even with 2x TC.
It would be possible with incorporated lens elements, like a TC.I understood such an adaptor was not physically possible.
I understood such an adaptor was not physically possible.
Or...it will be painted black.a “new and unique” feature for super telephoto lenses
Cheap?
except that patent application is the exact opposite of what you are wanting. they state they want a switchable teleconverter WITHOUT adding the bulk to each super telephoto.
and on the other hand adding a built in teleconverter such as the 200-400 (read: Canon has already gone this path once) increases the bulk of the lens.
If they can make FE -> Z adapters with 2mm difference in flange distance, they can also make RF -> FE adapters. But not the other way round.
There's not a lot of bulk to the extender in the 200-400, just a bulge. It doesn't make it longer than it would have been without it because the 1.4x optics are inserted in the void ahead of the final mount elements:
How about drop-in teleconverters?Bulk isn't just length, its also the weight of the additional elements.
The 1.4xTC 225g and the 2xTC 325g.Bulk isn't just length, its also the weight of the additional elements.
Not denying any of it, plus its different use. I am just stating the facts that make it not practical for my needs. And true, if the same methods (embedded tele) were used in fixed teles the resulting weight would be more tolerable.zoom tubes got nearly half more lenses. 200-400 got lot of metal
View attachment 185308View attachment 185309