Five Canon RF lenses show up for certification

Optics Patent

Former Nikon (Changes to R5 upon delivery)
Nov 6, 2019
310
248
It’s possible that an RF tele with a RF/EF [adapter/]converter will out perform an RF/EF [adapter] with and EF tele. Don’t know why but I suppose there could be a reason.
it will also make it easier to stack Tele’ s and allow teleconverters on a couple EF lenses that can’t accept them now.
The notion of three bayonet joints between a $12,000 lens and a $3500 body makes me cringe.
 

Optics Patent

Former Nikon (Changes to R5 upon delivery)
Nov 6, 2019
310
248
I guess Canon could do a "me too" 500mm DO f/5.6 but where's the excitement in that?
The excitement is right here! Build to L standards, use superior DO (immersion fresnel) optics, optimise size and weight for RF, and paint that sucker white!
 

joestopper

Rrr...
Feb 4, 2020
173
156
Absolutely right. There is too much negativity and writing off in advance. And, it's happening in the Sony and Nikon forums as well.
Agree.

Funny to see that several posters complain solely on spec sheet numbers and do not appreciate actual advantages.
Example:The RF 100-500 is clearly a successor of the EF 100-400 II and it is almost certain it has at least the same quality. But the bonus we get i.e. 100mm more reach, is not acknowledged by them. Instead, the 7.1 aperture is heavily criticized.("this cannot be an L then...").
Shows to me: There are people in this forum who a) do serious photography work and know how to make money with it and appreciate innovations that improve their work/business and b) Spec sheet criticizers who want to make others believe that 1/2 stop is the key to superior photography (while not providing any evidence).

Very funny ...
 
Feb 19, 2020
4
7
f5,6 has always been an L-aperture, but 6.3 is low end Sigma, and 7.1? No thanks... no matter IS and this and that, that is super slow and unusable in a lot of scenarios.
I think they went with the 7.1 so that they could keep it lighter and smaller, which is supposed to be the norm with mirrorless cameras. Like how Tamron (I think) is releasing a 70-180 instead of a 70-200 to keep the lens size down.
 
Feb 19, 2020
4
7
Agree.

Funny to see that several posters complain solely on spec sheet numbers and do not appreciate actual advantages.
Example:The RF 100-500 is clearly a successor of the EF 100-400 II and it is almost certain it has at least the same quality. But the bonus we get i.e. 100mm more reach, is not acknowledged by them. Instead, the 7.1 aperture is heavily criticized.("this cannot be an L then...").
Shows to me: There are people in this forum who a) do serious photography work and know how to make money with it and appreciate innovations that improve their work/business and b) Spec sheet criticizers who want to make others believe that 1/2 stop is the key to superior photography (while not providing any evidence).

Very funny ...
I'm actually really excited for this lens. I think the move to make it go to 7.1 for weight's sake. It'll make it more manageable for gear bags and people who might need to hand hold it for extended periods of time.
 

privatebydesign

Would you take advice from a cartoons stuffed toy?
Jan 29, 2011
8,250
1,601
120
The max aperture at tele end of every EF L zoom that goes to 300mm or above: f/5.6

The max aperture at tele end of ever EF non-L lens that goes to 300mm or above: f/5.6.

Aperture is not what an L lens makes.
Whilst I agree aperture is not what makes an L lens I think the EF200-400 f4 L is honestly listed as an f4, even though with the built in extender it becomes a 560mm f5.6.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sharlin

Graphic.Artifacts

EOS 7D MK II
Aug 1, 2017
536
379
The notion of three bayonet joints between a $12,000 lens and a $3500 body makes me cringe.
Not for the faint of heart but for video, where I have to stop way down anyway, I use stacked teles sometimes. It won’t be perfectly sharp but that’s less of an issue for video. Three bayonets since I have to use an extension ring between the teles.
 

Czardoom

EOS M50
Jan 27, 2020
46
96
I am just guessing, but my guess is that all the folks complaining about 7.1 and how they make some shots impossible - or would never buy such a lens unless it was f/5.6 (or even 6.3) - have taken numerous shots in their life that are 2/3 stop underexposed and that they lighten slightly in post on the computer without even a second thought.
 
  • Like
Reactions: scyrene

Optics Patent

Former Nikon (Changes to R5 upon delivery)
Nov 6, 2019
310
248
The 100-500 is going to have to be cheap and light to make up for how slow it is.
The 100-500 is going to be just as good as the 100-400, with a bonus reach to 500. The laws of physics (shortly to be refined by experts here) tell us that with the 77mm filter size, you can't hold f5.6 much past 400, so the lens will be slightly slower in the bonus zoom range.

The above is made with certainty based on common sense physics, optical engieering, and marketing assumptions, and I'll bet the value of the lens with anyone who thinks it will be slower at 400 than the existing 100-400.
 
  • Like
Reactions: navastronia

Optics Patent

Former Nikon (Changes to R5 upon delivery)
Nov 6, 2019
310
248
Do we have a good reason to believe the 100-500 will be 5.6 at 400mm?
Because the 100-400 is, this lens is its replacement for the RF market, and Canon folks aren't insane enough to reduce performance in order to extend range.
 

AdmiralFwiffo

Terrible photographer
Feb 17, 2020
30
47
My experience with large organizations is that a group of sane, intelligent, rational people can come up with some pretty bananas ideas when making decisions collectively. :unsure:
 
  • Like
Reactions: Graphic.Artifacts

FramerMCB

Canon 40D & 7D
Sep 9, 2014
439
113
52
The 50 L is an L because Aperture and build, and it’s the worst L in terms of IQ so I half way agree. But it’s not the overall standard of L’s, it’s far below. Besides, it’s 14 years old and has been replaced in RF mount and REALLY shines now. That’s what I don’t get, why do RF lenses that are worse than the EF-version. Granted, there is no 100-500 in EF, but I think 5,6 is the slowest an L should be. Just my opinion. Fortunately there are and will be f2.8 zooms and even f2.0 zooms. Guess it’s just disappointing when they started off so epic with RF-L’s...
I think you are forgetting (or don't care) that Canon is in business to make a profit. Is it more profitable to sell limited quantities of high-end gear with more margin or to sell mass quantities of mid-tier gear to the masses? Unless one is a professional, or a well-heeled enthusiast, much of the RF glass, whilst amazing, is out of the practical price-range.

Canon needs to sell Mirrorless bodies/lenses in-mass - you can only do that if you also have lenses that an average consumer (that is into photography), or one who is considering getting into, would buy. And lenses that all exceed $2,000, and some by a wide margin, is not going to appeal to these consumers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SecureGSM

Chavim

EOS M50
Feb 11, 2019
26
23
dphacks.com
I'm just gonna throw it out there that the folks that say the EF 50 1.2 doesn't have good IQ chose the wrong lens to take pictures with.
 

SecureGSM

2 x 5D IV
Feb 26, 2017
1,752
678
I'm just gonna throw it out there that the folks that say the EF 50 1.2 doesn't have good IQ chose the wrong lens to take pictures with.
IQ is a subjective term. For some it is about artistic properties of the image and for others it is about ability to recognise mosquito nose in moonie shot. Hey, just look how sharp that thing is!
 

Billybob

Coming Back after visits to Nikon & Sony Land?
May 22, 2016
28
9
Because the 100-400 is, this lens is its replacement for the RF market, and Canon folks aren't insane enough to reduce performance in order to extend range.
I'm not nearly so sanguine about this lens staying at f/5.6 through 400mm. Except for the constant aperture Nikon 200-500, none of the consumer super zoom lenses maintain 5.6 at 400mm, and they go a 100mm longer and are 1/3 stop brighter at the longest focal length. So, you think that Canon has somehow managed to avoid this problem and then drop 2/3 of a stop in 100mm when all other zooms reach their slowest maximum aperture more than 100mm below their longest focal length?

I'm not saying that it can't be done--I don't have the expertise--but I'm extremely doubtful.