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

SecureGSM

2 x 5D IV
Feb 26, 2017
1,321
315
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.




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.



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.


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)
That’s fair enough, Neuro. On the other hand Unfocused commented in a pretty direct manner which i thought was quite a bit disappointing to come across. Likely was having one of those days. Never mind.
And thanks for sharing that cute squirrel shot. :D
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
1,057
513
Really? Those Nikon shots don't look sharp to you? Personally I see no difference between the two, certainly not $900 difference.
I see significant differences when viewed on a 23" HD monitor. I probably wouldn't if I were viewing them on a 4-5" phone screen. But if the standard of quality is based on how it looks on a 4" phone screen, then both of these lenses are waaayyyy overkill.
 
  • Like
Reactions: motofotog

Jack Douglas

CR for the Humour
Apr 10, 2013
6,149
1,082
Alberta, Canada
I see significant differences when viewed on a 23" HD monitor. I probably wouldn't if I were viewing them on a 4-5" phone screen. But if the standard of quality is based on how it looks on a 4" phone screen, then both of these lenses are waaayyyy overkill.
That's why I just bought a 32 inch 4k monitor so I can fuss and fume about the poor quality of my shots!:)

Jack
 

privatebydesign

Would you take advice from a cartoons stuffed toy?
Jan 29, 2011
7,921
1,063
119
BenQ are due to release an update for the photography orientated SW320, if you aren't in a desperate hurry it might be worth waiting for. I am pretty sure I am going to get one as it will have the USB-C functionality I am looking for as well as being a great photography orientated monitor with plenty of useful features.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dcm

Jack Douglas

CR for the Humour
Apr 10, 2013
6,149
1,082
Alberta, Canada
I guess the obvious answer is the interplay of various factors - how many will they sell, how many fewer of the more expensive version will they sell, how much of their manufacturing will be tied up etc. I'm sure they have many discussions about such things and know better than us.
 

neonlight

EOS 80D
Jul 10, 2015
124
15
How many more 100-400 lenses does Canon want me to buy? I've already helped their business model with the Mk I and Mk II lenses. I probably won't be able to afford replacing all my EF stuff, but if my next body is an R I expect to be using the EF with an adapter for quite a while...
 

justaCanonuser

Grab your camera, go out and shoot!
Feb 12, 2014
457
266
Frankfurt, Germany
Wow, didn’t know that. I have had excellent reliability with all my gear and do trust it a bit better than I would with Nikon.
I learned from reading Roger Cicala's blog , that Canon obviously has invested a lot in its lens production lines and reached a very even level of high precision (at least for L lenses). But this is the sort of quality you never read about on most photo review sites - same with longterm durability, of course. In fact, I check the lens rental blog now frequently, before I invest in new gear. With their customers, they really have a perfect test bed for all the gear they rent. And it is always a pleasure to read their blog anyway.
 

SUNDOG04

EOS T7i
Mar 1, 2015
66
15
I learned from reading Roger Cicala's blog , that Canon obviously has invested a lot in its lens production lines and reached a very even level of high precision (at least for L lenses). But this is the sort of quality you never read about on most photo review sites - same with longterm durability, of course. In fact, I check the lens rental blog now frequently, before I invest in new gear. With their customers, they really have a perfect test bed for all the gear they rent. And it is always a pleasure to read their blog anyway.
Thank you for that info. I wii check into that blog.
 

Jack Douglas

CR for the Humour
Apr 10, 2013
6,149
1,082
Alberta, Canada
I learned from reading Roger Cicala's blog , that Canon obviously has invested a lot in its lens production lines and reached a very even level of high precision (at least for L lenses). But this is the sort of quality you never read about on most photo review sites - same with longterm durability, of course. In fact, I check the lens rental blog now frequently, before I invest in new gear. With their customers, they really have a perfect test bed for all the gear they rent. And it is always a pleasure to read their blog anyway.
I recall some time back expressing my thoughts about the 300 2.8 II, in particular how I loved the beautiful way the collar rotates. That's an example of something that doesn't show up very often in a lens test but can be very valuable. Overall, Canon lenses are great!

Jack
 
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.
I'm sure that SOME photographers would prefer the shorter and lighter 400mm length over a 500mm maximum focal length, but I'm not so sure that MOST feel that way.

I use and like the 100-400mm v.2 lens. It is a mainstay in my photography. But for a good portion of my use of the lens— particularly my migratory bird photography — I would find the longer range to be quite useful, even at the expense of the 100mm focal length.

YMMV.
 

AlanF

Canon 5DSR II
Aug 16, 2012
5,758
3,111
I'm sure that SOME photographers would prefer the shorter and lighter 400mm length over a 500mm maximum focal length, but I'm not so sure that MOST feel that way.

I use and like the 100-400mm v.2 lens. It is a mainstay in my photography. But for a good portion of my use of the lens— particularly my migratory bird photography — I would find the longer range to be quite useful, even at the expense of the 100mm focal length.

YMMV.
The Sony forums are debating their 100-400mm vs 200-600mm, and the bigger lens is gaining traction. My personal view is that the 100-400mm is more versatile and certainly much better suited for carrying around, but in a safari jeep or more sedentary photography I'd like a 200-600mm as well. The Sony 200-600mm is really nice but it is heavy, too much so in the front, and too large. A lighter Canon equivalent would be welcome if it outperforms a Sigma 150-600mm C.
 

Jack Douglas

CR for the Humour
Apr 10, 2013
6,149
1,082
Alberta, Canada
G Dan, I tend to agree that for me the short end can be handled by another lens in less critical circumstances, whereas when I need the long end I'm more often scrambling, dealing with a fleeting subject. Maybe this is just my perception. The problem I have with the longer lenses is simply weight that I can't handle when hiking and hand holding shots. While I certainly can appreciate the value of a zoom, my use scenario for the long end - 400 X1.4 but more often 400 X2 generally has me wishing for more FL not less. A second camera for shorter shooting is also and option for me since my wife is accommodating.;)

In other words I don't imagine I'd be wishing I could zoom out as much as zoom in.

Jack