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

AlanF

EOS 5DS R
Aug 16, 2012
4,135
335
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.
It's an incredible lens that sparkles with TCs. Native, the 100-400mm II gives it a run for its money, put a 1.4xTC on it and it is a league ahead on a 5DSR, and with a 2xTC is a killer on a 5DIV. Its AF with a 1.4xTC is also spectacular. It may be expensive, but it is far more versatile than a 500mm f/5.6.
 
Likes: tron

tron

EOS 5DS R
Nov 8, 2011
3,771
143
It's an incredible lens that sparkles with TCs. Native, the 100-400mm II gives it a run for its money, put a 1.4xTC on it and it is a league ahead on a 5DSR, and with a 2xTC is a killer on a 5DIV. Its AF with a 1.4xTC is also spectacular. It may be expensive, but it is far more versatile than a 500mm f/5.6.
I may need to AFMA it with 1.4XIII But I need ample space for that (20x to 40x the 560mm = 11.2 to 22.4 meters). I had some failures with 5DsR+1.4XIII with 5DsR and some with 7DII but with 7D2 I had also some successes.
 
Mar 20, 2015
52
4
I've never heard of a professional sports photographer (or, really, any photographer) complain about 14fps being insufficient to capture the magical moment. You hit a point of diminishing returns, where even if mirrorless doubled it to 28 frames per second, would anyone really care?
14fps gives an inter-frame interval of 71 milliseconds in which two aeroplanes with a closing speed of 1400km/h ( an opposition pass at an airshow ) move 28 metres. When you're tracking one during a pass that's the difference between getting the other one in-frame and not-in-frame; a cropper with a 600mm lens has a FoV of 17 metres at CAA airshow display-line distance.

So yes, more FPS is always welcome from that perspective; it's an example of how luck plays a part no matter how experienced you are. 28fps would guarantee the other aircraft in frame.
 
Aug 1, 2017
125
56
Cross-section of the new 4002.8L IS III with the ver. II in the background. Hard to see how much additional weight reduction benefit this lens could gain from DO as pretty much all of the glass is much further back in the lens. I had the chance to handle them side by side and the weight and handling are significantly better. Canon wouldn't let my try the 600mm but they claimed the improvements there were similar. If these lenses are as sharp as the version II's it's hard to imagine they would revise them again as DO. Maybe as an RF I suppose. This display case was in the RF exhibit at New York's Photo Plus Expo so I wasn't sure what to make of that. I'm no expert on lens design but those compound elements appear to be similar to Canon's DO tech to my eye.

400iii-001.jpg
 

AlanF

EOS 5DS R
Aug 16, 2012
4,135
335
A big difference the DO design makes is on length: the 400mm f/2.8 III is 343mm, 13.5" long whereas the 400mm DO II is 233mm, 9.2" long - a very significant difference. You don't have that huge void between the front element and the next.
 
Last edited:

AlanF

EOS 5DS R
Aug 16, 2012
4,135
335
No. Canon says the larger diameter r-mount allows them to reduce the diameter of the objective glass.
The diameter of the entrance pupil, which is usually the front element, cannot be less than that determined by the f-number of the lens, and that rule of optics cannot be changed by changing the diameter of the mount. The f-number = focal length divided by diameter of entrance pupil, and the lens mount diameter doesn’t come into the equation. A 600mm f/4 lens has to have a diameter of 150mm or more at its far end whatever the size of mount.

Short focal length lenses have some special problems in design and perhaps Canon can make some of those smaller with a larger mount and shorter flange to sensor distance, but the telephoto lenses are not going to become narrower with the R mount.
 
Last edited:

RGF

How you relate to the issue, is the issue.
Jul 13, 2012
2,778
25
Not in 2019. possible but unlikely in 2020. Do I hear 2021? Long time to wait not that Nikon has the 500P.

Wonder if this new twist will be worth a 2-3 year wait.
 
Jan 5, 2013
60
19
If that is the case, then we can surely expect a 1D-level EOS R body very shortly. It would also imply that Canon intend the EF-RF transition period to be much shorter than a lot of people have anticipated. Other than removing the need to use an adaptor, I can't see that an RF mount version of this lens would offer any substantial advantages over an EF mount version.
Unless the RF mount version could be much smaller, lighter, etc....
 

AlanF

EOS 5DS R
Aug 16, 2012
4,135
335
Unless the RF mount version could be much smaller, lighter, etc....
A supertelephoto cannot be made smaller and lighter for an RF rather than an EF mount. Please read some of the earlier posts. The width of a telephoto is determined primarily by the diameter of the front element needed to provide the desired f-number, not the mount, and the RF lens length will be a few mm greater to accommodate the need for a long focal length.
 
Jan 5, 2013
60
19
A supertelephoto cannot be made smaller and lighter for an RF rather than an EF mount. Please read some of the earlier posts. The width of a telephoto is determined primarily by the diameter of the front element needed to provide the desired f-number, not the mount, and the RF lens length will be a few mm greater to accommodate the need for a long focal length.
Interesting, so it appears there will be no smaller and lighter RF anything.
 
Jan 5, 2013
60
19
Wideangle and shorter focal length lenses could be smaller and lighter. But, with the big telephotos, the body is just a dongle on the end of a huge great lens.
Lovin all these new, albeit big RF lenses but they won't work for me on the trail while hiking, even as I drool over their specs and capabilities. Guess I'll just stick with my M50 for that purpose as we wait and see what Canon has up its sleeve for future EOS R series cameras and lenses, not to mention all the other mfgs. plethora of offerings. Exciting times.
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
236
42
The current super tele's are mostly air on the back end so It's hard to see what the benefit would be. I'd prefer an interchangeable bolt on mount than could be either native EF or RF but I don't expect that to happen. That being said, I don't think adapters are a good long term solution for the larger tele's so Canon will have to come up with some sort of native RF solution sooner rather than later if they intend to sell a lot of mirrorless sports/wildlife cameras. Big cameras and lenses put a lot of strain on the mount. A EF/RF converter coupled to a 1.4x or 2x teleconverter and you are starting dealing with a lot of strain/flex at the mount. Not the sort of thing you want to be worried about when you are trying to get out of the way of a 320lb defensive back who missed a sideline tackle.
320 lb DB?
 
Jul 10, 2015
98
2
Well, no surprise that the DO's are heading to RF, they've been so long in appearing.
Just typical. Bought a film camera in FD era. Four years later, EF.
Bought a 7DII a couple of years ago. Now RF. Thank you Canon. Didn't want to buy a third set of lenses, but at least RF bodies will take EF glass with an adapter.
Seems that Canon will try to entice people over to RF by introducing better-than-EF lenses.
Probably EF lenses will appear but after the RF intro, or maybe not. This is certainly the beginning of the end of EF.