Patent: Canon 100-400mm f/5.6-7.1

[Cat_Interceptor]

Your comment is hardly worth replying to, but most likely it’s the exact opposite to what you think: the disappearance of the f/5.6 limitation lets engineers explore more of the space of plausible lens designs.

Sorry but 7.1 is too damn slow. Physics is a bitch and all that especially in lower light - I'm no Tony Northrup (who according to some turned his family into bokeh) but I do like to have SOME background seperation and not run larger ISO numbers. f5.6 is a compromise of size and speed I'm okay with) - 7.1? Just absolutely 100% no

 

[AlanF]

Sorry but 7.1 is too damn slow. Physics is a bitch and all that especially in lower light - I'm no Tony Northrup (who according to some turned his family into bokeh) but I do like to have SOME background seperation and not run larger ISO numbers. f5.6 is a compromise of size and speed I'm okay with) - 7.1? Just absolutely 100% no

Physics is not a bitch. For a start, the dof of a 500mm f/7.1 is pretty much the same as a 400mm f/5.6 (check it out on a dof calculator if you don't believe me) and as I keep pointing out the S/N in a cropped image viewed at the same size from a 400/5.6 and a 500/7.1 at a 2/3 stop higher iso is about the same.

 

[davo]

I am dreaming of a 16-35 f/4 - f7.1

 

[Czardoom]

Physics is not a bitch. For a start, the dof of a 500mm f/7.1 is pretty much the same as a 400mm f/5.6 (check it out on a dof calculator if you don't believe me) and as I keep pointing out the S/N in a cropped image viewed at the same size from a 400/5.6 and a 500/7.1 at a 2/3 stop higher iso is about the same.

I doubt actual information will stop the crybabies from crying. If the lenses were 5.6 and considerably heavier and more expensive, they would whine about that. I was curious when the 7.1 aperture was announced for some of these new lenses. So I took some shots with the same shutter speed and ISO and used 5.6 and 7.1 apertures, metering to have the 5.6 be as correct as possible. Obviously, the 7.1 was slightly darker. Not so dark that I couldn't have used the actual pic, but certainly within the range of pics that can easily be lightened in post by even the most simple program. As I mentioned in another thread, almost every photographer has probably lightened numerous photos that they have taken that were slightly underexposed the same amount and didn't give it a second thought.

What it comes down to is the usual whining from folks who will always find something to whine about no matter what.

 

[Richard CR]

I updated the article.

I guess I'll have to ask forgiveness from Craig afterward - But I know he's in Cartagena and surrounded by pretty Latinas so he's pretty distracted right now

I felt it needed to be changed.

 

[trounds]

Higher quality ("L") lens with "M" mount would be great. I would buy one or more in a heartbeat.

 

[Cat_Interceptor]

If the lenses were 5.6 and considerably heavier and more expensive, they would whine about that

Except I for one completely accept that and already said that. I'm being specific in that I know what conditions I can shoot in and f7.1 is not really going to work

 

[SteveC]

I for one like the M-series; I think it's the best APS-C out there, and I'd love to see it get some better lenses (even if they have to be a teeny bit fatter than 61 mm...which isn't the case here anyway).

 

[Dragon]

Ugh. So Canon lets it's engineers off the chain for camera bodies and the cripple hammer attack the lenses instead.

No sorry but 7.1 is just one big fat noooooooooooooooooooooooope

And a M6 mark II has the same DR at ISO 400 as a 7D at ISO 100. Seems like if you could get a good shot at f/5.6 with a 7D, then 7.1 gives you over a stop to play with in relative terms. This is about good pictures in a SMALL kit. Yes, you can do better with much bigger and heavier gear, but for most uses, most people won't be able to tell the difference. This lens will be measured in grams, not kilograms.

 

[brad-man]

I for one like the M-series; I think it's the best APS-C out there, and I'd love to see it get some better lenses (even if they have to be a teeny bit fatter than 61 mm...which isn't the case here anyway).

I'm a fan of the M as well, still hopefully waiting for an M5 mkll. The new question of the hour is will Canon introduce IBIS to the system? Inquiring minds want to know...

 

[slclick]

7.1 is the new 5.6!

 

[privatebydesign]

7.1 is the new 5.6!

it seems that way, but I will never buy one as I personally have zero use for anything that slow.

 

[slclick]

it seems that way, but I will never buy one as I personally have zero use for anything that slow.

We would expect nothing less of you but there are many who would. They just don't frequent photography forums.

 

[privatebydesign]

We would expect nothing less of you but there are many who would. They just don't frequent photography forums.

Agreed. And in truth improved iso has surpassed the slowing down of lenses so shutter speeds can still be fast enough in mot situations to get the shot, the 'problem' if there is one, is that you just don't get the DOF control with such slow lenses, but what do I know? I am an average photographer at best and a terrible businessman!

 

[Pape]

The DLA for a new iPhone is about f/2.4 and the various lenses vary from f/1.8 for the main to f/2.4 for the wide angle. The advantage of these very short focal lenses is that it is easy to get wide f-numbers to compensate for the small pixels of about 1.4 microns.

Thanks ,i counted it myself and must admit i am not good on math

 

[Dragon]

The DLA for a new iPhone is about f/2.4 and the various lenses vary from f/1.8 for the main to f/2.4 for the wide angle. The advantage of these very short focal lenses is that it is easy to get wide f-numbers to compensate for the small pixels of about 1.4 microns.

Not too hard to make those lenses fast, but wide, fast, and sharp all at once is not so easy. Funny thing is that with those small imagers, a telephoto is really hard because it will be slow enough to hit the DLA, so they just keep adding pixels and make the wide lens into a telephoto with the center of the imager because it is about a push with the slow telephoto they could fit in the phone. Maybe they can use an EUV imager for edge enhancement .

 

[Pape]

I would't consider a 120-360mm lens a "100-400". That stretches the concept of rounding a bit toooo much for my taste.

They wanted make 400mm but that darn 61mm made it imposible I guess there was someone who is bad loser or cant accept excuses like physic
Maybe stradegic boss announced other bosses they will be making 100-400mm M lense without asking engineers.

 

[Richard CR]

Sorry but 7.1 is too damn slow. Physics is a bitch and all that especially in lower light - I'm no Tony Northrup (who according to some turned his family into bokeh) but I do like to have SOME background seperation and not run larger ISO numbers. f5.6 is a compromise of size and speed I'm okay with) - 7.1? Just absolutely 100% no

it's 2/3's of a stop different than f/5.6

the difference of DOF at
50 feet = 1 ft versus 1.26 ft.
100 feet = 4.04ft versus 5.09ft
200 feet = 16.3 ft versus 20.6ft

.. while larger it's not exactly going to cause that much visual difference between the two for target separation

ISO.. 2/3's of a stop these days is pretty trival.

 

[Richard CR]

They wanted make 400mm but that darn 61mm made it imposible I guess there was someone who is bad loser or cant accept excuses like physic
Maybe stradegic boss announced other bosses they will be making 100-400mm M lense without asking engineers.

If they make it for the M's and it's 61mm x 160mm will be an interesting optic to carry around not to mention use. Not to mention most 100-400's use a generous rounding error at the long end anyways.

 

[Richard CR]

I'm a fan of the M as well, still hopefully waiting for an M5 mkll. The new question of the hour is will Canon introduce IBIS to the system? Inquiring minds want to know...

probably not. If they do, IMO it will be gimped and not have IBIS+IS, not because of crippling as I'm sure some will say just because of the communication differences between the EF and RF mounts.