An RF super telephoto zoom on the way, likely in late 2020 [CR1]

tron

EOS 5D SR
Nov 8, 2011
3,979
290
To summarize: There is no free lunch. People want long, sharp, fast, light and cheap. You can get long, sharp and fast. You can get long, cheap and light. You can get sharp, fast and light. But you can't get them all. That's the birders dilemma.
Which reminds me a tripod may be any 2 out of the following 3:

Sturdy, Light, Cheap :D
 
  • Like
Reactions: Michael Clark

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
Jul 21, 2010
24,376
1,723
Yes definitely! What focal lengths are you referring to?
Any of them. 1/3-stop makes about a 10% difference in the DoF, which is essentially imperceptible.

A 1/3 stop difference example : 85/1.2 vs 85/1.4. From the bokeh quality wide open perspective.
Or...

High ISO 5D IV files at ISO 4800 (clean) vs ISO 6400 (quantifiable image quality degradation).
As above. Obviously there's a quantifiable difference, but a practical one? No.

From the bokeh quality wide open perspective, was this shot at f/1.2 or f/1.4?
Aperture.jpg


Which of the two images below was shot at ISO 4800, and which has the image quality degradation that is evident at ISO 6400? (Note: same camera for the two images.)
ISO A.jpg

ISO B.jpg


When you look at files from the EOS M5 and the EOS M100, can you tell that the M100 has 1/3-stop more DR at ISO 100? The 5DIV has a diffraction-limited aperture of f/8.6, if you take an image at f/9 vs. f/10, will you see the difference in sharpness?

These effects — bokeh, DoF, image noise, diffraction — change gradually, there is no 'cliff' at which the images transition from good to bad. The magnitude of change with 1/3 of a stop is just not that great.

About the only situation where I think 1/3-stop can make a practical difference is shutter speed, for example 1/2000 s may not be fast enough to freeze the wingtip motion of a bird in flight, whereas 1/2500 s may do so.

I'll post quiz answers tomorrow...
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
677
298
Just a brief internet access in the middle of our Galapagos - Ecuador trip. The 100-400mm II on the 5DSR was brilliant for the Galapagos as everything is so close. 200mm would have been too long for some shots and more limiting on scenery. 400mm was long enough for my birding and light enough for 2-3 hour hikes over boulders. Twice the wide angle is worth more than 25% extra on telephoto. I never needed the 1.4xTC.

The Nikon 200-500 is heavy, slow focussing, and soft above 300-400mm, although some claim to have sharp copies. AF OK for normal use but not in the same league as the 100-400mm II for BIF. Only the Sony competes with the Canon.
Yeah, but you're talking about actually taking photographs, not spec sheet wars.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Quirkz

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
677
298
The RF lenses have across the board been coming up shorter than their EF equivalents, because of the shorter rear focal distance, etc. Its the same reason that the EF-M lenses for the M series mirrorless cameras are so much smaller than the EF-S lenses for DSLRs, even though they need to project the same image circle.

Compare the EF70-200 f/2.8L to the preview of its RF equivalent, which stands about 1/3 shorter. Same goes for the RF 24-105 f/4.0L vs its EF counterpart. I think it's reasonable to expect that an RF 100-400 - if they go with the same basic performance specifications - will follow that same pattern.
You do realize the RF 70-200 is an extending barrel design that will be just as long as the EF 70-200/2.8 at 200mm?
 
  • Like
Reactions: edoorn

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
677
298
Interesting. Why not a 200-500mm lens, since many of us already have a 70-200mm...
Mostly because a lot of 100-400mm users don't see the need for 70-100mm in their bag, nor do they want to spend what 200-500 will cost for the same speed as the 100-400/4.5-5.6. 500/5.6 adds 18mm over 400/5.6 to the diameter of the front lens element. When that is figured into three dimensions for lens elements that require more correction to give the same image quality, that translates into a lot of extra weight and glass and cost.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jack Douglas

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
677
298
A 1/3 stop difference example : 85/1.2 vs 85/1.4. From the bokeh quality wide open perspective.
Or...

High ISO 5D IV files at ISO 4800 (clean) vs ISO 6400 (quantifiable image quality degradation).
The differences in bokeh (bokeh is defined as the way the out of focus highlights look, not how much is blurred) between the EF 85mm f/1.2L II and the EF 85mm f/1.4L IS are due to the difference in lens design, mostly those related to flat field correction, not the sizes of the respective maximum apertures.
 

SecureGSM

EOS 6D MK II
Feb 26, 2017
1,063
151
Any of them. 1/3-stop makes about a 10% difference in the DoF, which is essentially imperceptible.



As above. Obviously there's a quantifiable difference, but a practical one? No.

From the bokeh quality wide open perspective, was this shot at f/1.2 or f/1.4?
View attachment 185991

Which of the two images below was shot at ISO 4800, and which has the image quality degradation that is evident at ISO 6400? (Note: same camera for the two images.)
View attachment 185992
View attachment 185993

When you look at files from the EOS M5 and the EOS M100, can you tell that the M100 has 1/3-stop more DR at ISO 100? The 5DIV has a diffraction-limited aperture of f/8.6, if you take an image at f/9 vs. f/10, will you see the difference in sharpness?

These effects — bokeh, DoF, image noise, diffraction — change gradually, there is no 'cliff' at which the images transition from good to bad. The magnitude of change with 1/3 of a stop is just not that great.

About the only situation where I think 1/3-stop can make a practical difference is shutter speed, for example 1/2000 s may not be fast enough to freeze the wingtip motion of a bird in flight, whereas 1/2500 s may do so.

I'll post quiz answers tomorrow...
Wow... ok. :)

Are you able to send me a couple of RAW files out the same camera body, same lens, shot under identical lighting. Condition. Exposed to the same EV level, same F/Number with iso 4800 and iso 6400? 5D level body preferably. I will point out the difference.
I was referring to file coming out of camera not heavily manipulated.
You can make 6400 file look better, this is all relevant.
 

unfocused

EOS 5D SR
Wow... ok. :)

Are you able to send me a couple of RAW files out the same camera body, same lens, shot under identical lighting. Condition. Exposed to the same EV level, same F/Number with iso 4800 and iso 6400? 5D level body preferably. I will point out the difference.
I was referring to file coming out of camera not heavily manipulated.
You can make 6400 file look better, this is all relevant.
It might be worth circling back and remembering that the original comment referenced the difference between an f5.6 and f6.3 500mm zoom lens. The argument you are having has no relevance to this thread or even to the original comment. Two grown men getting into a measurebating contest over the internet is of interest only to the participants. Can we move on please?
 
  • Haha
Reactions: RGB86

SecureGSM

EOS 6D MK II
Feb 26, 2017
1,063
151
It might be worth circling back and remembering that the original comment referenced the difference between an f5.6 and f6.3 500mm zoom lens. The argument you are having has no relevance to this thread or even to the original comment. Two grown men getting into a measurebating contest over the internet is of interest only to the participants. Can we move on please?
Here is the original statement. Complete :

“Does 1/3-stop make that much practical difference? To me it doesn't...”

But sure... it never does. Why do they even build those silly f1.2 lenses. Should have stoped at F1.4. Silly people. There is no difference. Right?


There is no argument. But my comment is strictly on-topic and has clear relevance to the original comment. As per above.
 

Jack Douglas

CR for the Humour
Apr 10, 2013
6,063
964
Alberta, Canada
Without looking back, I suspect that there may be a context to consider in the original comment, but whatever.

Personally, I'm interested in knowing more about just how much difference there is visibly and if possible, seeing real life illustrations. After all, if I were spending big bucks on, for example, a 50 1.2 vs. a 1.4 I'd like to know what the money was going for other than my ego while in public.:)

Relative to a 500 lens I'd also be interested although it's more unlikely I'd be in the predicament of making the choice as originally commented on. I like the idea of learning practical stuff on CR.;) However, I also don't like it when personal conflicts enter the picture so am not pushing in that direction.

Jack
 

BroncosFan

I'm New Here
Oct 19, 2017
9
5
Boston
To me this is a dangerous game Canon is playing by releasing much desired EF lenses such as the 200-500 in RF mount instead. For a brand that has been perceived as not keeping up with technology and advancement that others have released, forcing people into mirrorless and having to purchase new lenses also makes it awfully easy to switch to another system at this time.
Despite the release of some lackluster bodies in recent years, Canon EF users have been loyal and now seem to be being left behind while the RF bodies offer no real improvements other than size.
 
Last edited:

Jack Douglas

CR for the Humour
Apr 10, 2013
6,063
964
Alberta, Canada
To me this is a dangerous game Canon is playing by releasing much desired EF lenses such as the 200-500 in RF mount instead. For a brand that has been perceived as not keeping up with technology and advancement that others have released, forcing people into mirrorless and having to purchase new lenses also makes it awfully easy to switch to another system at this time.
I don't feel forced at all. EF to R compatibility was taken care of nicely as I experienced when my daughter used my 70-200 on my, now her, R. And I get to use the filter adapter for my EF 11-24 by borrowing her camera. ;) Sure there are always some irritants in any moves such as this but I'm still a Canon fan.

Jack
 
  • Like
Reactions: Michael Clark

unfocused

EOS 5D SR
To me this is a dangerous game Canon is playing by releasing much desired EF lenses such as the 200-500 in RF mount instead. For a brand that has been perceived as not keeping up with technology and advancement that others have released, forcing people into mirrorless and having to purchase new lenses also makes it awfully easy to switch to another system at this time.
Despite the release of some lackluster bodies in recent years, Canon EF users have been loyal and now seem to be being left behind while the RF bodies offer no real improvements other than size.
First, never confuse rumors with fact. A rumor that Canon might release a 200-500 RF mount lens is just a rumor. It's too early for anyone to get their panties in a twist.

Second, don't believe what a handful of loudmouths on the internet scream. I'd like to see that survey of camera customers who believe Canon is not keeping up with technology.

Third, Canon is not forcing anyone into mirrorless, nor are they forcing anyone to purchase new lenses. All EF lenses work just fine with R cameras and the future of Canon's DSLR line is in the hands of consumers, not Canon. They are offering an option, and time will tell if the market moves to mirrorless over DSLRs.

Fourth, if a 200-500 RF lens materializes, that does not preclude Canon from offering a 200-500 EF lens in the future if there is a demand for it.

Fifth, size is the least important improvement of the R over DSLRs. The biggest improvement in my own personal experience is the ability to move autofocus points anywhere you want using a simple thumb swipe. There are other improvements, such as silent shutter, but the most significant one and the one that has me most enthusiastic about the R is the intuitive touchscreen focus.
 

ozturert

EOS T7i
Jan 16, 2019
86
68
Despite the release of some lackluster bodies in recent years, Canon EF users have been loyal and now seem to be being left behind while the RF bodies offer no real improvements other than size.
Here is one substantial improvement in RF bodies: Perfect single AF. Perfect. No back-front focus, the RF cameras just nail the focus every time. I can use 85mm f1.2L II without thinking twice on EOS R. I was trying to take several photos with 5D IV to make sure to get a sharp photo.
Here's another improvement: Much better shutter system (zero shutter shock due to mirror). Even though Canon introduced motorized shutter, the mirror still creates micro shakes. In EOS RF bodies I see no shake (at least Eos R).
 

tron

EOS 5D SR
Nov 8, 2011
3,979
290
Here is one substantial improvement in RF bodies: Perfect single AF. Perfect. No back-front focus, the RF cameras just nail the focus every time. I can use 85mm f1.2L II without thinking twice on EOS R. I was trying to take several photos with 5D IV to make sure to get a sharp photo.
Here's another improvement: Much better shutter system (zero shutter shock due to mirror). Even though Canon introduced motorized shutter, the mirror still creates micro shakes. In EOS RF bodies I see no shake (at least Eos R).
I had similar issues with my 85mm 1.2L II so I replaced it with 85mm 1.4L IS. Although I didn't have the chance to use it a lot I did not encounter any focusing issue with my 5DIV and 5DsR.
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
Jul 21, 2010
24,376
1,723
Here is the original statement. Complete :

“Does 1/3-stop make that much practical difference? To me it doesn't...”
There is no argument. But my comment is strictly on-topic and has clear relevance to the original comment. As per above.
Not complete. You ignored the fact that my response quoted an earlier post stating, “The real question is will [the rumored 100-400 / 200-500 telezoom] be f/5.6 or f/6.3 at the long end.” That is the context to which @unfocused was referring, and your reply was thus out of context.

Nevertheless, I opted to respond because 1/3-stop is...1/3-stop. It’s just not that significant, generally speaking.


But sure... it never does. Why do they even build those silly f1.2 lenses. Should have stoped at F1.4. Silly people. There is no difference. Right?
Yes, silly people who made a 50mm f/1.0, but then replaced it with a 50mm f/1.2. It’s such a tremendous difference those silly people who did that were likely summarily fired in disgrace.

It’s reasonably likely that Canon makes f/1.2 lenses because others didn’t. Marketing is powerful, for example it’s likely a big part of the reasons the 5Ds had 50 MP and the a7RIV has 61 MP.


Wow... ok. :)

Are you able to send me a couple of RAW files out the same camera body, same lens, shot under identical lighting. Condition. Exposed to the same EV level, same F/Number with iso 4800 and iso 6400? 5D level body preferably. I will point out the difference.
I was referring to file coming out of camera not heavily manipulated.
You can make 6400 file look better, this is all relevant.
Sorry, I don’t feel any need to share RAW files. By not answering, you’ve quite effectively supported my point – 1/3-stop is not significant from a practical standpoint.

I'll post quiz answers tomorrow...
For the curious, the bokehlicious shot was at f/1.4. The image of the squirrel was at ISO 6400, and although it appears to me that image has a bit more apparent noise, the blacksmith was shot at ISO 12,800. (Yes, I cheated. Sosumi. :p)
 

ozturert

EOS T7i
Jan 16, 2019
86
68
I had similar issues with my 85mm 1.2L II so I replaced it with 85mm 1.4L IS. Although I didn't have the chance to use it a lot I did not encounter any focusing issue with my 5DIV and 5DsR.
You may have issues if you try different 5D IV and 5Ds. Unfortunately body and lens must match to get perfect AF. I agree that newer bodies and lenses have less issues though.