New diffractive optics super telephoto lenses on the way, with a new twist….. [CR1]

Apr 3, 2018
129
40
Calgary
#81
All Canon has to do to create native super telephotos is build the converter into the existing EF and add an additional control ring. Presto, native RF.
So you are basically saying that Canon is lying about the advantages that come with the RF mount.

There's nothing optically wrong with the existing EF supertelephotos,...
Not at all, but does that mean that no improvements are possible? To take your statement to the logical conclusion - is Canon shouldn't be releasing any more improved versions?

... they're not going to get smaller, and they're not going to get lighter (due to a RF mount change).
I don't really know for a fact as there aren't enough RF lens to prove one way or another. Perhaps you can show us how you came to that conclusion.
 

Talys

Canon 6DII
Feb 16, 2017
1,927
172
Vancouver, BC
#82
So you are basically saying that Canon is lying about the advantages that come with the RF mount.
I'm saying that the biggest change in RF, the shorter FFD, is of little benefit to telephotos. If you look at Sony lenses, as the focal length gets longer, the lenses end up exactly the same as their longer DSLR lens counterparts + spacer. The other features, like control ring, aperture blade control , and additional communication pins are cool, but these lenses are a big investment, and if someone's going to replace one, they're going to be looking at AF speed, image quality and size/weight, none of which will dramatically change.

Not at all, but does that mean that no improvements are possible? To take your statement to the logical conclusion - is Canon shouldn't be releasing any more improved versions?
Not at all, but that's not what I said. I said that to get a native RF lens, all Canon has to do is build the converter into the EF lens, and that for the current generation supertelephotos, the optical image quality is excellent. Of course, if Canon can make a better optics, they should do so, but this has nothing to do as to whether it's an RF or EF mount.

I don't really know for a fact as there aren't enough RF lens to prove one way or another. Perhaps you can show us how you came to that conclusion.
I came to the conclusion that lenses for mirrorless FF aren't particularly smaller by looking at Sony and Canon's FF mirrorless lens portfolios. As focal lengths get longer, none of the lenses get smaller or lighter in a meaningful way. If you want a long focal length or a wide aperture, it's going to be a big, heavy lens, period. There are no free rides. Basically, if you want a lighter/smaller lens, you need a more efficient optical formula or lighter materials.

Anyways, we'll see in two years from now. If all the RF, FE, Z, and EF lenses of the same class are about the same size, then the size/weight thing will be moot.
 
Likes: pj1974

tron

EOS 5DS R
Nov 8, 2011
3,776
147
#83
All Canon has to do to create native super telephotos is build the converter into the existing EF and add an additional control ring. Presto, native RF. There's nothing optically wrong with the existing EF supertelephotos, they're not going to get smaller, and they're not going to get lighter (due to a RF mount change).

The real question is, who is going to rush out to buy an RF 200-400.

I hope everyone, so that I can buy a cheap EF 200-400 :D While they are at it, they can sell me their 1DX2 for cheap too :):)
I prefer they will introduce first 1DxIII and then its owners to become crazy for mirrorless cameras. I like my DSLRs up to date :):):)
 
Jul 30, 2018
9
6
55
#85
The competetion in this sector has been ramped up by Nikon's 500 f/5.6 DO (they call it Fresnell Prism) which for one extra stop disadvantage costs less than 50% of the Canon 400 DI II. As a serious hobbyist, I think twice about putting in $7000 in to a lens. I rent it and love the 400 DO. Was waiting for the 600 DO because I did not want to spend $12K for the 600 MkIII. Now Canon might have to deal with the price pressure for the longer DO or may be do a f/5.6 at the same price point as the Nikon offering. Folks wanting the f/4 DO can cough up $3000 more than the mid-$3000 f/5.6 DO offerings.
 

TAF

EOS M5
Feb 26, 2012
298
4
#86
Sure a couple pounds lighter might be nice, but put yourself on a diet and you just shaved a few pounds off...rant
What an interesting non-sequitur.

Take that 1D and 600 and track birds for a while. Unless you are a body builder, your hand-hold stability will begin to deteriorate within a few minutes. The same with a 5D and you'll have a few more minutes. And I rather suspect that with an EOR-R, you'll have even a few more minutes.

It is a rare person who wouldn't benefit from a somewhat lower weight for the equipment they are using.

No matter what they personally weigh.
 

Mt Spokane Photography

Spends too much time on this forum
Mar 25, 2011
14,743
229
#87
Wouldn't a 600mm DO lens for the RF mount practically the same size and weight as the equivalent EF 600mm DO lens with an EF-RF adapter? What would be the point of making RF-only supertelephoto lenses?
I do not think that from a size and weight standpoint, there would be a lot of difference, perhaps not from a IQ standpoint either, except perhaps at extreme edges due to the larger glass at the rear, and less chromatic abberation.

The major difference would be faster AF speed due to the faster lens communications, better tracking due to depth data being sent real time, and better balance for a R due to the lack of the adapter, the lens / camera combination could be shorter.
 

RGF

How you relate to the issue, is the issue.
Jul 13, 2012
2,778
25
#88
Good story. I doubt that they will have a 600 DO in an RF mount unless they have 1Dx M3 R announced long before the lens.

Might have both - have an adapter as part of the lens. Now that is a better idea!!
 

Mt Spokane Photography

Spends too much time on this forum
Mar 25, 2011
14,743
229
#89
So how good is the electronic viewfinder on the R? That would seem to be one important consideration for action photographers. Another major consideration is camera build quality. Action photographers (at least the pros) prefer water-resistant tanks. And why isn't 14 per second good enough for 99% of non-scientific uses involving high quality still photos?

A serious consideration is whether the video world will welcome a transition away from EF. People don't seem to realize that EF mount lenses (by Canon, Zeiss, etc) are a substantial part of the video lens market. I have no idea how often people use 600 mm lenses for 4K or 8K video.

I have no dog in this fight. I am not buying a USD $13,000.00 lens, and I don't expect that the EF mount cameras are going to disappear fast. When one has a lot invested in Canon EF lenses, why on earth would one want to switch? It's one thing if your kit is a 80D or a 6D original and a 24-105 mm f/4 lens and a 50 mm f/1.8 lens. It's entirely another thing if one has the triple threat f/2.8 zoom set or a few TS-E lenses. I am somewhere in the middle. I like the ergonomics of the DSLR. I need to get better at using what I have (though I can always be tempted by another macro lens). Pros especially are not keen to change for the sake of change - their question is "will it make me more money?".

You are assuming that the $20,000 lens would be intended for a R. I don't think so, it will be intended for a pro level camera. You could use one with a R, but if such a thing comes to pass, it will be for a pro level mirrorless.
 

Mt Spokane Photography

Spends too much time on this forum
Mar 25, 2011
14,743
229
#90
And after 2 years from the prototype display we have just a CR1 rumor. So let's wait 2 more years until we see .... a CR2 one :cool:
That's a subtle point, but significant. It takes Canon years to develop a new super telephoto lens, so unless they were already developing it for a R before they showed the prototype, its hard to believe that it could be developed and fully tested for a not as yet existent pro level mirrorless. Telephoto lenses that are about as perfect as a mortal could afford are not just popped off the designers desk and into production, years of test / redesign iterations.
 

tron

EOS 5DS R
Nov 8, 2011
3,776
147
#91
What an interesting non-sequitur.

Take that 1D and 600 and track birds for a while. Unless you are a body builder, your hand-hold stability will begin to deteriorate within a few minutes. The same with a 5D and you'll have a few more minutes. And I rather suspect that with an EOR-R, you'll have even a few more minutes.

It is a rare person who wouldn't benefit from a somewhat lower weight for the equipment they are using.

No matter what they personally weigh.
On par with the "logic" of EOS R lovers (I wonder if you have preordered one) you think it is too important to have a camera 200grams (=0.2KG) less but with obviously much worse handling (otherwise it would be bigger and heavier) when the total weight (lens + camera) is close to 4Kg! Congraculations! FYI I have used lenses of this class of weight (500mm, 400DOII) with 5 and 7 class cameras. Only 400DO II cuts it. Otherwise a few minutes or more with handholding the 500II (EOS R or 5DsR) would create the same issues. The solution for handholding is the DO technology and nothing else. Because in addition to the less weight the less length makes your holding increadibly easier. I have walked many hours with a 5DsR and a 400DOII with no issues and I am someone who takes the 500 only when in car or when using a tripod. When I used it on a 2 hour boat trip (obviously not holding it all the time) I had issues with my hand for 2 to 3 months. The next time I took it on a boat I also put a tripod with a Gimbal head in front :cool:
 

scyrene

EOS 6D Mark II
Dec 4, 2013
2,282
133
UK
www.flickr.com
#94
Wouldn't a 600mm DO lens for the RF mount practically the same size and weight as the equivalent EF 600mm DO lens with an EF-RF adapter? What would be the point of making RF-only supertelephoto lenses?
Presumably to tempt people across to the R series? (People who dislike adapters or really want the 600 DO).
 

scyrene

EOS 6D Mark II
Dec 4, 2013
2,282
133
UK
www.flickr.com
#95
Thankfully I have no need for supertelephotos (in fact I recently bought a cheap used 300 2.8L IS and am selling it after a few months because I don't need it). However if I did want a long lens there is almost no question I would sell my Canon gear and get the new Nikon 500 f5.6 PF. I think Canon is really going to have a hard time competing with that (and the previous 300 f4 PF).
With respect, as you don't use these lenses your comment is missing the point a little. A 500 5.6 is not competing with a 600 f/4, whether DO or otherwise. The former is for the budget end of the market, relatively speaking (or for those for whom size and weight reductions are paramount). Some people need the widest aperture possible at these long focal lengths, and are prepared to pay for it (or their employers are).
 
Likes: tron

Bob Howland

EOS Rebel T7
Mar 25, 2012
383
9
#96
When I look at the back of my Canon 300 f/2.8 IS and Sigma 150-600 S lenses, I see lots of space. In both lenses, the rear elements are recessed into the lens barrels by at least 25mm. So what is the advantage of making the supertelephoto lenses RF instead of EF? This is especially true if many of the potential buyers are still using EF cameras and are unable to use RF lenses?

Second, my guess is that some time before the 2020 Olympics, both Nikon and Canon (and maybe Panasonic) will introduce FF mirrorless bodies that make their current sports DSLRs look glacial in comparison. I'm thinking 18+ FPS, full frame images, with superb focusing of moving targets. From a marketing standpoint, anything else would be just plain stupid. By then, they will also have introduced the holy trinity of f/2.8 lenses.

I got to handle the EOS R with the 24-105 lens at the local Best Buy. The combination is much lighter than my 5D3 and 24-70 lens which is critically important to me, and the body is large enough. (The M5 body is too small.) I still want an RF 24-180 f/4 L lens to put on it. I could use my Tamron 28-300 lens with an adapter but I want something better, even if it costs $1500.
 
Jul 12, 2014
66
8
#97
I own a 600 f4 v2 and a 300 2.8v2, the new offerings give me nothing that I don’t already have, if a 600do comes out those of us with version 2’s and 3’s of the telephotos will not be rushing out to get rid of or replace our gear. Sure a couple pounds lighter might be nice, but put yourself on a diet and you just shaved a few pounds off. It always fascinates me when people talk about weight of a lens and camera and talk about a few pounds being heavy. I mean are you really that weak or just that much of a bourgeoisie? I know we all love tech but guess what, tech doesn’t always matter, a t5i and a 100-400 in the right hands will yield better results that a 1d and a 600 in the rookies hands. Yes this is a bit of a negative rant which a few will read but, at the end of the day I and many professionals will not be trading out our 1ds for a long time. If camera history has taught us anything the first few cycles of new bodies are not worth purchasing. I’ll take a heavier and more ergonomic friendly 1d series of that trash eosr with a ring on a lens and no joystick and one turn wheel and a apple Touch Bar and some goofy button layout any day. I love canon and I have given them lots of money and there are many DSLR users like me that will use the DSLR setup for many years to come. DSLR death will not be fast, and why replace what is near perfection. End of my rant
I would sell my 600 F4 II in a second if Canon produces the 600 F4 DO with same or better IQ. Precise handling makes a huge difference for many free-hand applications such as BIF. Convenience when shooting from a blind or car. Smaller size when packing for travel photography is a big advantage.
 
Likes: NorskHest

tron

EOS 5DS R
Nov 8, 2011
3,776
147
#98
I would sell my 600 F4 II in a second if Canon produces the 600 F4 DO with same or better IQ. Precise handling makes a huge difference for many free-hand applications such as BIF. Convenience when shooting from a blind or car. Smaller size when packing for travel photography is a big advantage.
I agree that all these are advantages and in fact I am quite fond of my 400DOII. But in contrast scenes the non DO white teles shine. I shot a bird with both 400DOII and a 500II from my balcony (quite rare I admit but it was staying so I had the chance after I took the first photos with my 400 to switch to tripod and 500 - that time!). It was late afternoon with the light behind the bird. The photos with 500 were obviously better. In all other cases the result is distant dependent but the 400's IQ is top.
 
Last edited:
Likes: NorskHest

AlanF

EOS 5DS R
Aug 16, 2012
4,135
335
#99
I agree that all these are advantages and in fact I am quite fond of my 400DOII. But in contrast scenes the non DO white teles shine. I shot a bid with both 400DOII and a 500II from my balcony (quite rare I admit but it was staying so I had the chance after I took the first photos with my 400 to switch to tripod and 500 - that time!). It was late afternoon with the light behind the bird. The photos with 500 were obviously better. In all other cases the result is distant dependent but the 400's IQ is top.
The DO is not at its best working against the light.
 
Likes: Jack Douglas

tron

EOS 5DS R
Nov 8, 2011
3,776
147
The DO is not at its best working against the light.
Indeed! Fortunately it could be corrected via Adobe's CR Haze removal. The results aren't 100% perfect but they are decent. For the rest of the cases this 400DOII - witch I know you like very much too - really shines. Its IS is very good. I just have to try it with teleconverters in the future although only for static themes and good light.
 
Last edited: