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

[neuroanatomist]

Nothing to worry about then, right?

I always worry when people find it acceptable to make stuff up and then call it a fact.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Neither would I but I'm definitely interested in the 24-240 on the RP. And how about a 15-125 f/4 introduced simultaneously with the M5-2?

FWIW, Canon has patented a 15-130mm f/3.5-6.3 lens for the M series. I’d definitely be interested in that over my current M18-150 (I personally find a 24-xx equivalent zoom far more useful than a 28-xx).

 

[neuroanatomist]

1. What does cyberbullying look like?

Your implication is that it looks like this:

If you recall an 85/1.2 IS lens available for the RF mount you may have suffered a head injury.

To recap: You stated that you don’t recall ever seeing a 85mm f/1.2 IS for the EF mount. I stated that IF you recalled a nonexistent lens, you MAY have had a head injury. In the same way that you presumably don’t recall ever seeing purple unicorns or flying pigs, you didn’t see a lens which doesn’t exist. That’s a good thing, regardless of the fact that you happen to have suffered a head injury. But you subsequently characterized my statement above as insulting, harassment, discrimination and now cyberbullying. You seriously need to get over yourself and cease these baseless accusations (which you’ve now managed to carry over into another thread, continuing the discussion you kept claiming you would end and further compounding your hypocrisy).

 

[Michael Clark]

I have the ef 85mm 1.4L IS but find it to be somewhat disappointing. I regret selling my 85mm 1.2L II, as the 1.4 is not as good for portraiture--for me.

Yep. Just because one lens is better at imaging flat test charts from relatively short distances (a/k/a "blows away the older, more expensive lens") does not mean it is better for every other use case!

 

[Michael Clark]

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...

The weight savings for the EF 400 and 600 IIIs over the IIs was accomplished by moving more of the glass to the rear of the lens. If the rear of the lens is 24mm further back...

As for bending light, the wider angle a lens is, the more light it bends. Telephoto lenses bend light less than shorter focal length lenses do. That's why optical power of a lens is the reciprocal of its focal length.

P=1/f

 

[[email protected]]

Very interesting. I've been using the 500 f/4 II IS L for a couple of years now, and was considering what move to make next. The EF 600 III is actually lighter than the II 500, and has more of the weight closer to the camera, for better balance. But it's a lot of money, like all the big whites. I'm wondering - if they make a super-tele prime in RF mount, they'd just about have to also manufacture a 1.4X and 2X teleconverter for it.

A RF 500mm DO L IS would be a good choice to have in lighter lens package - EOS R, RP and RP Pro cameras.

 

[Jack Douglas]

Well, there you go. My chuckle of the day from this thread. Now back to work.

Jack

 

[digito23]

I'm waiting for the 70-200 / 2.8, come on Canon!

 

[SecureGSM]

I always worry when people find it acceptable to make stuff up and then call it a fact.

Cyber bullying is illegal in USA and Canada. Talk to your legal advisor.
Can you please stop chasing me around forum bullying and kicking tantrums? Thank you. I see this happening too frequently lately too anyone who has guts to stand up to your self inflicted domination.
Now... can you stop chasing me around and engage in every single conversation I may have with other forum members, please?

I am not enjoying it.

Be civil, keep your anger in check.
Respect other forum members and stop being an annoyance.

Review clause #4 of forum posting rules. These are written for all yourself inclusive.

I repeat : leave me alone, please.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Cyber bullying is illegal in USA and Canada. Talk to your legal advisor.

AlanF has already pointed out that your statement is incorrect, and he provided documentation to support that. Please stop spreading misinformation, that does not benefit anyone.

Can you please stop chasing me around forum bullying and kicking tantrums? Thank you. I see this happening too frequently lately too anyone who has guts to stand up to your self inflicted domination.
Now... can you stop chasing me around and engage in every single conversation I may have with other forum members, please?

Oh, please. You are the one levying false accusations against me. Repeatedly and without justification.

Chasing you around? My contribution to this particular thread started with post #12. Your contribution to this particular thread started with post #29, which was a response to a post of mine. Who is chasing whom?

I am not enjoying it.

Your enjoyment or lack thereof is not my responsibility.

Be civil, keep your anger in check.
Respect other forum members and stop being an annoyance.

I am being quite civil, and I am not angry. Honestly, I’m a bit puzzled by your perseveration on this line of discussion. Once again, I am not the one levying false accusations repeatedly in post after post, you are.

Review clause #4 of forum posting rules. These are written for all yourself inclusive.

I suggest you do the same, as in all honesty your repeated false accusations are potentially a form of harassment.

I repeat : leave me alone, please.

This is an open forum, and I can reply when and to whom I choose. As I pointed out in the previous thread, you continue to respond to my posts with further false accusations and insults. Despite repeatedly claiming you were done with the conversation, you are continuing it.

You chose to bring the same accusations to this thread (in fact, you doubled down on them and added some insults to go with them), further extending the same line of conversation. If you want to know why it continues, you need look no further than your nearest mirror.

I would encourage you to look back over the entire history of this conversation, which thanks to you now spans two forum threads. It started with your overreaction to an innocuous comment, and has been followed since then by your ongoing stream of false accusations.

From your repeated failure to adhere to your commitment to end the discussion in the prior thread, and the fact that you chose to follow me here and continue with the accusations, it’s quite apparent that you lack the willpower to restrain yourself. Perhaps you should consider using the forum’s Ignore feature, it’s simple – just click/tap my username then the Ignore button.

 

[unfocused]

AlanF has already pointed out that your statement is incorrect, and he provided documentation to support that. Please stop spreading misinformation, that does not benefit anyone.


Oh, please. You are the one levying false accusations against me. Repeatedly and without justification.

Chasing you around? My contribution to this particular thread started with post #12. Your contribution to this particular thread started with post #29, which was a response to a post of mine. Who is chasing whom?


Your enjoyment or lack thereof is not my responsibility.


I am being quite civil, and I am not angry. Honestly, I’m a bit puzzled by your perseveration on this line of discussion. Once again, I am not the one levying false accusations repeatedly in post after post, you are.


I suggest you do the same, as in all honesty your repeated false accusations are potentially a form of harassment.


This is an open forum, and I can reply when and to whom I choose. As I pointed out in the previous thread, you continue to respond to my posts with further false accusations and insults. Despite repeatedly claiming you were done with the conversation, you are continuing it.

You chose to bring the same accusations to this thread (in fact, you doubled down on them and added some insults to go with them), further extending the same line of conversation. If you want to know why it continues, you need look no further than your nearest mirror.

I would encourage you to look back over the entire history of this conversation, which thanks to you now spans two form threads. It started with your overreaction to an innocuous comment, and has been followed since then by your ongoing stream of false accusations.

From your repeated failure to adhere to your commitment to end the discussion in the prior thread, and the fact that you chose to follow me here and continue with the accusations, it’s quite apparent that you lack the willpower to restrain yourself. Perhaps you should consider using the forum’s Ignore feature, it’s simple – just click/tap my username then the Ignore button.

Could we get a scorecard and a brief summary on this one? I forgot what the argument was about, but I'm kind of enjoying the bickering. I miss elementary school.

 

[neuroanatomist]

A RF 500mm DO L IS would be a good choice to have in lighter lens package - EOS R, RP and RP Pro cameras.

I agree that DO lenses for the RF mount make sense, although any supertele lens will result in ergonomic challenges for the R bodies, at least for some people (and when not on a tripod/gimbal). A 500mm f/6.3 DO lens would be an interesting choice – it could possibly be made to take a 77mm filter (assuming the typical rounding for lenses, e.g. 490mm and f/6.4 would mean a 76.7mm front element). With DO, it could possibly be slightly smaller than the EF 400/5.6.

 

[Jack Douglas]

"Perhaps you should consider using the forum’s Ignore feature, it’s simple – just click/tap my username then the Ignore button."

It's a great feature.

Canon should build it into their lenses/camera - you focus on the characteristic you want ignored such as some leaves in a tree or bark and hopefully then it helps it focus on the subject - assuming a bird here. Couldn't that be an advantage in accuracy and overall speed of the AF?

Jack

 

[Kit.]

Canon should build it into their lenses/camera - you focus on the characteristic you want ignored such as some leaves in a tree or bark and hopefully then it helps it focus on the subject - assuming a bird here. Couldn't that be an advantage in accuracy and overall speed of the AF?

I hope you haven't secretly patented this.

 

[Jack Douglas]

I hope you haven't secretly patented this.

Seems like a no brainer but I don't think anyone has it. Of course I'm usually single point spot so that is a factor as well. I can imagine designers going through complicated hoops to give the AF a "brain" when a bit of human interaction would eliminate the guess work to a large extent.

Jack

 

[AlanF]

I agree that DO lenses for the RF mount make sense, although any supertele lens will result in ergonomic challenges for the R bodies, at least for some people (and when not on a tripod/gimbal). A 500mm f/6.3 DO lens would be an interesting choice – it could possibly be made to take a 77mm filter (assuming the typical rounding for lenses, e.g. 490mm and f/6.4 would mean a 76.7mm front element). With DO, it could possibly be slightly smaller than the EF 400/5.6.

I wish Canon would be a bit quicker. Nikon already have the 300/4 and 500/5.6 PF out, the 600/5.6 is rumoured for this summer, and there is a patent for a 400/5.6 PF.

 

[Jack Douglas]

After shooting 3 weeks in jungle and cloud I'm not sure I would be pleased with slower lenses. F8 is not my idea of ideal and it seems teleconverters are always involved for reach. F11 would be rather useless a lot of the time ... for me. If only creatures didn't move, maybe ... or they'd tell you if they were going to move.

Jack

 

[AlanF]

After shooting 3 weeks in jungle and cloud I'm not sure I would be pleased with slower lenses. F8 is not my idea of ideal and it seems teleconverters are always involved for reach. F11 would be rather useless a lot of the time ... for me. If only creatures didn't move, maybe ... or they'd tell you if they were going to move.

Jack

Miss Piggy said never eat more than you can lift, and it's similar with lenses. We have to compromise between weight, aperture and focal length. The 400mm DO II is a good compromise for me, as much as I can lift and the f/4 is useful for low light and can be extended in brighter light. I suspect the Nikon 600/5.6 will lighter than the Canon 400 mm DO II, and it will have a larger front element and let in a little more light.

 

[Jack Douglas]

Miss Piggy said never eat more than you can lift, and it's similar with lenses. We have to compromise between weight, aperture and focal length. The 400mm DO II is a good compromise for me, as much as I can lift and the f/4 is useful for low light and can be extended in brighter light. I suspect the Nikon 600/5.6 will lighter than the Canon 400 mm DO II, and it will have a larger front element and let in a little more light.

Sure, we both know the trade-offs. For me personally, this was the first time I was frustrated by high ISOs. You'd think I would have been mentally prepared having read "cloud forest" in the literature. Also I didn't realize jungle trees were so tall and dense - duh.

Whatever negative thoughts I have about the 1DX2, high ISO performance isn't one of them, so that helped.

Sometimes it was my fault for not programming the camera to allow instantaneous flipping from faster to slower shutter, which I'm going to work on since I can have a completely full camera different case on the back button. What tended to happen is I'd hedge my bets going for a faster shutter since the bird often moves and so in some cases I could have shot 800mm at less than say 1/400 but one can get burned with blur, after all it doesn't take much movement when shooting 800mm. Probably, my biggest problem is my brain is slower than my lens!

Jack

 

[motofotog]

Why can’t Canon come with a cheaper 500mm f5.6 lens!