The first supertelephoto for the RF mount to be an RF 500mm f/4L IS [CR1]

Jack Douglas

CR for the Humour
Apr 10, 2013
6,029
909
Alberta, Canada
I'd still contend that wifi or GPS have no place in a camera. As an add-on module, sure; that way it can be upgraded with new developments in protocols.

Baking it into the circuit board just introduces complexity, bugs, vulnerabilities and technological dead-ends. The camera should be an apparatus optimised for taking photos and storing them. Posting them to Instagram is a different process.
:whistle:

Too bad my daughter can't reply, after all she was recently using the feature to transfer photos to her phone and wasn't pooh poohing it. :)

And me I'm still depending on my wife for cell phone use so that kind of shows where I'm at on the subject.;) Still I think it was a no brainer for Canon to put the WiFi in the 6D. I did use it for remote shooting a bit but the range wasn't really enough for me.

Jack
 
Reactions: CanonFanBoy

Mr Majestyk

EOS 80D
Feb 20, 2016
128
39
How is the 500 II on the mc-11 adapter?

Been thinking of renting the A9 to see.
Actually very good on the A9 especially with the fw 5. I was even getting good results on the Sigma 150-600C, even on the A7RIII. If you can lock onto subject within central zone it will track it using all points, but it won't initiate tracking from the outer points. If you stick with centre or flexible spot large it'll track fine. With the 150-600C I was getting fairly good keeper rate ~ 50%, I epxect the 500 II to be better even with the 1.4x.
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
Jul 21, 2010
24,160
1,434
The 5D IV is great for portraiture, events, wildlife, and sports. It is a robust performer. While the R is attractive as a portrait, landscape, and still-life camera, I don't see the R being as good as the 5D IV in terms of build or ergonomics--especially ergonomics. I'm simply waiting for a better built RF mount camera before I start spending money on RF lenses. That's my choice, and I think I expressed it in straightforward, civil terms.
I don’t either, but the main reason is the small size of the R, and I don’t think Canon will release a FF MILC the size of the 5DIV, unless it’s a 1-series equivalent.

It is sad that you have to use words such as "fixate" and "bitter" when responding to others posting their opinions. In your reply, you have brought to my attention a spec I was unaware of, the RAW buffer size. Thanks for that, Neuro. But your tossing out of a red herring saying that 5D IV owners are "bitter" because the R costs less is beneath you. It's just plain silly.
It’s not silly at all. It’s a speculation, as I clearly stated. Maybe the answer to ‘how many people are bitter’ is none. Seems like I may have struck a nerve, though...sorry for that. I can honestly say that if I’d bought the 1DsIII two years before the 1D X came out, I’d be a bit bitter.

And you also claim that the "only significant advantage of the 5D IV is a second card slot..." In fact, many shooters, wrongly or rightly, see a real advantage in the optical viewfinder. If you say that it isn't "fair" to compare the optical to the EVF, fine, but don't ignore it has a significant advantage in sports and wildlife.
Sorry that it wasn’t clear to you, but that claim (my whole post, really) was directed at the idea of a ‘5DIV-like EOS R’ and my point was that the EOS R is already very 5DIV-like. I presume you’re aware that it’s impossible for a mirrorless camera to have a DSLR-like OVF, so your whole point above is moot.

Personally, I prefer an OVF to an EVF (but not so much that I want a rangefinder MILC).

Frame rate, for some, is also significantly better on the 5D IV. I see it that way.
Do you see that the EOS R shoots a max of 8 fps compared to the 5DIV’s max of 7 fps, or are you fixated on the frame rate in Servo AF?

Over and over, you respond to posts you don't like by denigrating the intelligence, mental state, and character of the person posting--sometimes bluntly, sometimes with a bit of subtlety. Such posts do not help make CR a friendly place.
My primary goal is to keep CR an accurate place, and of course to keep Jack coming here for the humor. If you’re looking for friends, I hear you can find some on Facebook.
 

Jack Douglas

CR for the Humour
Apr 10, 2013
6,029
909
Alberta, Canada
I won't leave even if Neuro offends me!:) Too much useful information from too many people (including Neuro).

Personally, I value accuracy and really like people being kept honest/accurate. Especially when it's good for a chuckle.;)
Jack
 
Last edited:
Reactions: YuengLinger

SecureGSM

EOS 6D MK II
Feb 26, 2017
982
88
What is the advantage of the RF mount for these lenses. Other than native mount and better communication i don't see any advantage. Surely not in size over the EF mount.
as per Canon engineers interview earlier this year, Canon RF mount allows for a considerably larger rear elements and smaller (lighter, not less diameter) front elements and lighter smaller front groups of a lens than with EF mount. This consequently allows for more of the lens elements (read: lens mass) to be distributed towards the rear end of a large and heavy telephoto lens. positions len's centre of gravity closer to shooter. better from handhold-ability point of view.
just what Canon engineers had to say.
 
Last edited:

Bob Howland

EOS 7D MK II
Mar 25, 2012
428
25
as per Canon engineers interview earlier this year, Canon RF mount allows for a considerably larger rear elements and smaller (lighter, not less diameter) front elements and lighter smaller front groups of a lens than with EF mount. This consequently allows for more of the lens elements (read: lens mass) to be distributed towards the rear end of a large and heavy telephoto lens. positions len's centre of gravity closer to shooter. better from handhold-ability point of view.
just what Canon engineers had to say.
I'm pretty sure they were talking about lenses shorter than 85mm. A 500 f/4 lens must have a front element that is at least 125mm in diameter or it can't be a 500 f/4.

So where is the 24-240 or, better yet, Canon's equivalent to the Olympus 12-100 f/4??
 
Last edited:
Reactions: ISO64

SecureGSM

EOS 6D MK II
Feb 26, 2017
982
88
I'm pretty sure they were talking about lenses shorter than 85mm. A 500 f/4 lens must have a front element that is at least 125mm in diameter or it can't be a 500 f/4.

So where is the 24-240 or, better yet, Canon's equivalent to the Olympus 12-100 f/4??
as per my post: lighter, rather then smaller in diameter front element and smaller front group, weight redistribution toward the rear end of the lens in result.
And they mentioned specifically telephoto lenses.
not sure what is the relevance of your 24-240 or Olympus equivalence 12-140 / 4 question. obviously FF equivalence will be large large and heavier than its M4/3 counterpart.
 

degos

EOS 80D
Mar 20, 2015
194
119
as per my post: lighter, rather then smaller in diameter front element and smaller front group, weight redistribution toward the rear end of the lens in result.
And they mentioned specifically telephoto lenses.
You'll only get lighter front elements in a telephoto if you don't have to bend the light as acutely.

I don't think we've seen any evidence of this alleged weight-saving in any RF lens. The 24-105 was the closest match yet but weighed between the EF mark I and II.

Instead the most notable examples of ligthening and rearwards weight-shift were the EF mark III 400 and 600...
 

SecureGSM

EOS 6D MK II
Feb 26, 2017
982
88
You'll only get lighter front elements in a telephoto if you don't have to bend the light as acutely.

I don't think we've seen any evidence of this alleged weight-saving in any RF lens. The 24-105 was the closest match yet but weighed between the EF mark I and II.

Instead the most notable examples of ligthening and rearwards weight-shift were the EF mark III 400 and 600...
Why wouldn’t you go and have a little argument with Canon engineers? We have not seen a single long telephoto in RF mount for starters.
Go read that interview or reach out to Canon engineering and clarify their standing if you see fit. I do not care. .
The question was: is there are ANY benefits to RF mount? Not weight, specifically or size.

Your 400 III example is largely irrelevant either. As there is nothing to compare that lens in RF mount with.
 

koenkooi

EOS RP
Feb 25, 2015
293
143
Why wouldn’t you go and have a little argument with Canon engineers? We have not seen a single long telephoto in RF mount for starters.
Go read that interview or reach out to Canon engineering and clarify their standing if you see fit. I do not care. .
The question was: are there ANY benefits to RF mount? Not weight, specifically or size.

Your 400 III example is largely irrelevant either. As there is nothing to compare that lens in RF mount with.
A big difference between EF and RF is the updated communication interface between lens and body.
With faster and more data channels available it is possible to move some processing to the body, like IS. The simple case seems to be already there on EF-M: lenses can send sensor data back to the body to make the software based IS more effictive ('dual sensing IS'). In interviews Canon has hinted at the possibility of the lens sending the sensor data to the body and have the body control the IS actuators in the lens.

Of course, we haven't heard of that actually being used in current and future RF lenses, so I can't say it's a real world benefit, but it does have potential.

And I like that my RP is a lot thinner than my 7D. So, personally, those 2 centimeters shaved of the flange are a real benefit.
 

Bob Howland

EOS 7D MK II
Mar 25, 2012
428
25
Why wouldn’t you go and have a little argument with Canon engineers? We have not seen a single long telephoto in RF mount for starters.
Go read that interview or reach out to Canon engineering and clarify their standing if you see fit. I do not care. .
The question was: is there are ANY benefits to RF mount? Not weight, specifically or size.

Your 400 III example is largely irrelevant either. As there is nothing to compare that lens in RF mount with.
Where is this interview that you're referring to?
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
Jul 21, 2010
24,160
1,434
Your 400 III example is largely irrelevant either. As there is nothing to compare that lens in RF mount with.
There is the RF 400/2.8 patent, which doesn’t address weight but does address length and lens group positioning. I haven’t overlaid that onthe EF 4002.8 III, but I did so for the RF 600/4 patent vs the EF MkIII, and they’re nearly identical.
 

SecureGSM

EOS 6D MK II
Feb 26, 2017
982
88
There is the RF 400/2.8 patent, which doesn’t address weight but does address length and lens group positioning. I haven’t overlaid that onthe EF 4002.8 III, but I did so for the RF 600/4 patent vs the EF MkIII, and they’re nearly identical.
Yes, correct. Weight redistribution towards the rear end of the lens. 400/2.8 III is light enough already
 

CanonFanBoy

EOS 5D MK IV
Jan 28, 2015
3,300
915
Irving, Texas
I'm pretty sure they were talking about lenses shorter than 85mm. A 500 f/4 lens must have a front element that is at least 125mm in diameter or it can't be a 500 f/4.

So where is the 24-240 or, better yet, Canon's equivalent to the Olympus 12-100 f/4??
Didn't realize Canon needs to match other manufacturers, especially from the Micro 4/3 realm. Where is the Olympus equivalent of Canon's RF 28-70 f/2, tilt shift lenses, or any number of other lenses? Where is Sony's 500mm, 600mm, and 800mm? ;) Though a 24-200 f/4 might be interesting, what would it take to match the bokeh from the Olympus? f/5.6? I don't know, but if so, then Canon probably has that covered in EF with the EF 70-300 f/4-5.6L. Maybe we should wait a couple of years to see what Canon does. R/RF is a brand new system. Micro 4/3 won't ever match FF in low light either.
 
Last edited:

degos

EOS 80D
Mar 20, 2015
194
119
Google search is your friend. Please do your research if in doubt.
No, you're the one that made the assertions. Prove your statements or retract your comments.

We've seen one RF telephoto zoom so far that has the same focal length and speed as an EF lens, and it was not significantly different in size or weight. What's your evidence to the contrary?
 

Ivan Muller

EOS RP
Oct 25, 2011
356
7
YuengLinger said:
Over and over, you respond to posts you don't like by denigrating the intelligence, mental state, and character of the person posting--sometimes bluntly, sometimes with a bit of subtlety. Such posts do not help make CR a friendly place.
My primary goal is to keep CR an accurate place, and of course to keep Jack coming here for the humor. If you’re looking for friends, I hear you can find some on Facebook.

I actually like Neuros precise and logical reasoning even though I can find him a bit 'prickly' at times...but generally I appreciate him for his setting us straight with the facts rather than the usual mere speculation based on emotion...
 
Reactions: Jack Douglas

Otara

EOS RP
Jul 16, 2012
246
33
Polite or civil are more accurate I suspect, and Facebook wouldnt be where I'd go looking for that either. Some people like to discuss things, some people want to win arguments. Just be clear which you're dealing with and remember the XKCD comic 'someone is wrong on the internet' meme when tempted to argue.