This is likely Canon’s lens roadmap for 2020

stevelee

FT-QL
Jul 6, 2017
1,570
485
Davidson, NC
That's a common misconception. The problem is that the moon is made of rocks, that are less than fully reflective, and which at their brightest, once you have the averaging effect of a zillion kilometers' distance, will only be a mid-tone.

If you want your photo to have mid-tones as the maximum value, then sure, sunny 16 or 11 all night long, baby!

But most people shooting the moon want the brightest parts to be max or near-max exposure, values of 250, say if not 255. Go find some medium grey rocks, stand way back, and try to get high pixel values with sunny-16 (or -11). You can't.
I'm not sure how most people want their moon pictures to look. I think a lot of folks probably want it to look orange, judging from some of the shots I see. Even here, I find some moon pictures too jazzed up in terms of contrast or over-sharpening, for my tastes anyway. We have had threads in which people asked opinions on different versions of their moon pictures, and some people liked more sharpening, and some liked less. I tended to be in the latter category.

I just looked back at the raw files for some moon pictures I have shot. One of the best-detailed pictures was shot at sunny 16. The moon was almost full. As you say, it is a bunch of rocks, so none of them are pure bright white in real life. There was small enough dynamic range in the moon image itself in the Raw file that I could, if I wanted to, expand it from 0 to 255. I think it would look funny, but I could do it.

I also looked at some shots I took during a total eclipse of the moon. Even at the halfway point, a shot I took at looney 11 was fine if maybe not optimal.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Michael Clark

Aussie shooter

www.facebook.com/BrettGuyPhotography/
Dec 6, 2016
754
895
I am with you. I was able to find a mint 5D4 for around A$3,000.00 only 6 months following the official release in Australia with a remainder of the 3 years warranty. with 2500 clicks on it. I hope to pull this trick with R5 again. :) People buy and sell cameras all the time due to either personal circumstances change or going out of hobby...
I am not to upset as despite only being pegged at 20mp the R6 is actually looking like a pretty good bit of kit for what i want. It has enough speed to act as a back up wildlife body for when it is low light conditions and the 7d2 starts to struggle. It will be a nice small and light body for travel purposes. Will be fine for aurora photography which is where i really struggle with the 7d2 and i have no issues with 20mp for landscapes and big prints.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SecureGSM

Czardoom

EOS T7i
Jan 27, 2020
73
173
nothing spectacular about those images. Colors aren’t great either. 24 years is ancient in the photographhy world. sure, 24 year old camera can still take photos but newer technology is better, period.why is asking for an update on a 24 YEAR OLD lens such a big issue among you cupcakes? EF Mount is dead, we need new glass
You sound like someone who is better suited to just buying a new smartphone every year. Although, even smartphones are at the point now where there isn't that much improvement from one generation to the next.

Optics are not a new technology. A 24 year old lens is not necessarily any worse than a lens made today - in fact there are probably some older lenses that are just as good if not better than what is made today. Which is why getting some used lenses are a huge bargain and why many folks with lenses 30-50 years old are always looking for adapters so they can use these lenses on today's cameras.

Of course, Canon and other lens makers love folks like you who can be so easily be convinced that newer is better! And believe that EF mount is dead. It means more lenses sold for them as you needlessly replace lenses that are perfectly fine.
 

SteveC

M6 mk II
Sep 3, 2019
852
637
You sound like someone who is better suited to just buying a new smartphone every year. Although, even smartphones are at the point now where there isn't that much improvement from one generation to the next.

Optics are not a new technology. A 24 year old lens is not necessarily any worse than a lens made today - in fact there are probably some older lenses that are just as good if not better than what is made today. Which is why getting some used lenses are a huge bargain and why many folks with lenses 30-50 years old are always looking for adapters so they can use these lenses on today's cameras.

Of course, Canon and other lens makers love folks like you who can be so easily be convinced that newer is better! And believe that EF mount is dead. It means more lenses sold for them as you needlessly replace lenses that are perfectly fine.
But hey, I don't wanna use an adapter! They're horrible!!!

(/sarc)
 

SwissFrank

from EOS 1N to R
Dec 9, 2018
408
179
Optics are not a new technology.
Uh, yes it is. It's been utterly reinvented by computerized computation of lens formulae. CAD/CAM allows more complicated assemblies than previously possible. Camera makers and their prospective buyers continue to learn about the art. For instance in the 1980s people were so happy just to get an image that huge numbers of lenses had just five-bladed apertures, including not only the Canon 50mm/1.4, but even medium format 80mm's and so on. Now makers are much more concerned about aperture shape.

Thanks to these factors, the very sharpest lenses made today (Canon RF 50/1.2, Otus 50/1.4, Leica APO-Summicron 50/2) simply couldn't have been made a decade or two ago. The RF 50/1.2 is about 10x sharper than the EF 50/1.2 it replaces. You can see it's 30 lp/mm lines are higher than the old lens' 10 lp/mm lines; >3x sharper linearly is >9x sharper by area. If they could have done that 10 years ago they would have!
 
  • Like
Reactions: pj1974

Canon-Chas

EOS M50
Apr 16, 2017
35
41
We can all take shots at f11 or even f40, buts lets be serious these apertures on 600/800mm lenses are quite ridiculous for normal everyday action shots. I have never gone above f8 for action shots as shutter speed and or iso were unusable for a quality image. If you want to buy F11 600/800mm lens and shoot stationary objects , fine, but there are far better lenses for this type of shot. Yes, you can take bird in flight sky shots at f11 to give depth of field to a flock of birds but its a very limiting option
 
Last edited:
  • Haha
Reactions: SwissFrank

stevelee

FT-QL
Jul 6, 2017
1,570
485
Davidson, NC
Uh, yes it is. It's been utterly reinvented by computerized computation of lens formulae. CAD/CAM allows more complicated assemblies than previously possible. Camera makers and their prospective buyers continue to learn about the art. For instance in the 1980s people were so happy just to get an image that huge numbers of lenses had just five-bladed apertures, including not only the Canon 50mm/1.4, but even medium format 80mm's and so on. Now makers are much more concerned about aperture shape.

Thanks to these factors, the very sharpest lenses made today (Canon RF 50/1.2, Otus 50/1.4, Leica APO-Summicron 50/2) simply couldn't have been made a decade or two ago. The RF 50/1.2 is about 10x sharper than the EF 50/1.2 it replaces. You can see it's 30 lp/mm lines are higher than the old lens' 10 lp/mm lines; >3x sharper linearly is >9x sharper by area. If they could have done that 10 years ago they would have!
I got my first SLR about 1970. Zoom lenses were large, heavy, expensive, and not very good (or at least 3 of those 4). I never considered buying one. I was a grad student with some part-time jobs, so not much disposable income. I assembled a bunch of prime lenses instead. They seemed remarkable to me at the time, and I was able to take a lot of rather nice photos if I do say so myself.

Over time not just computer-aided design but also advances in rare earth glass, coatings, etc. have brought huge changes to what lenses, especially zoom lenses, can do. Profile-based computer adjustments work after the fact to smooth out much of the remaining faults. O Brave New World!
 

SwissFrank

from EOS 1N to R
Dec 9, 2018
408
179
advances in rare earth glass
Actually, one or two of the classic Leica lenses used a rare earth glass with a half-life measured in perhaps decades. Not enough to be a health threat, but enough to physically change the chemical composition and thus optics of the lens. These probably make quite different images now as element A changes to B over time. (And the reason I can be sure the optical result is different is that if the elements were the same or even similar optically, Leica would have simply used stable product B to start out with...)

And the one factor (now to argue against my broader point) that might possibly make older lenses a bit better in some cases is that nowadays, some lens materials like I believe lead are restricted, on grounds that normal disposal would put them into the environment. While I'm totally behind the safety factor, I think photography as a community would be willing to promise to throw away broken lenses as a special trash item, if it means that we get better lenses in compensation. I mean, write in an 8pt font right on the barrel: "contains leaded glass and requires special disposal to avoid health issues in your community".

But that's just one factor, and in practice the stellar results we're seeing now tell us that this worry is more academic than not.
 

SwissFrank

from EOS 1N to R
Dec 9, 2018
408
179
We can all take shots at f11 or even f40, buts lets be serious these apertures on 600/800mm lenses are quite ridiculous for normal everyday action shots. I have never gone above f8 for action shots as shutter speed and or iso were unusable for a quality image. If you want to buy F11 600/800mm lens and shoot stationary objects , fine, but there are far better lenses for this type of shot. Yes, you can take bird in flight sky shots at f11 to give depth of field to a flock of birds but its a very limiting option
Even at f/8, is your camera capable of autofocus? Is it at f/11? Perhaps the wall keeping you to bigger apertures is the SLR AF's requirement for f/8 or wider? Perhaps with a MILFF focusing quickly and accurately even at f/11, you could actually get shots you like? Further, technology continues to improve so perhaps the sensors these lenses will be paired with, either starting with the R5/R6, or at some later date, will get better images at f/11 than you're used to at even say f/5.6?

I mean it's not as if there is some kind of chasm of quality between any two ISOs a stop apart. If you're able to shoot f/8 for some shots, and get a usable result, then there will be some shots you can shoot at f/11 and also get a usable result. I challenge you to explain a scenario and image where one would be acceptable and the other dismissed out of hand.

Further the smaller optics will surely sell 10x or more and be used 10x or more than the elephant-leg primes. I happen to have budgeted for a 600/4IS but give the 600/11 to ten guys with equal talent and I'm sure they'll be getting better shots, simply from the shotgun effect, than I will, and the better composition and timing and what have you will overrule any technical demerit of running just a couple stops higher ISO than me.

> If you want to buy F11 600/800mm lens and shoot stationary objects , fine, but there are far better lenses for this type of shot

I can't imagine what they'd be?? Zooms with teleconverters perhaps? Have you gone from being so insistent upon quality that the ISO required for f/11 is simply out of the question, to blithely arguing that some solution jerry-rigged out existing optics is going to be so unquestionably better that you don't even want to see the actual specs for these lenses before locking in your opinion for the world to see? Were you equally sure that the RF 50/1.2 couldn't possibly be so much better than the EF 50/1.2 and therefore no-one should bother with it?

Personally I don't think Canon's gotten where it is by making stupid lenses. They've surely identified buyers for these even if you and I don't know who they are. Mountain climbers? Students? Maybe they're so sharp that they really are useful for professional wildlife and sports? The idea that they wouldn't blur backgrounds artistically is bollocks: even the 600/11 would have the bokeh of a 50/1.0 wide open, and an 800/11 the same as a 85/1.2, 135/2 or 200/2.8 wide open. So not only bokeh city, but the background is far more magnified as well and thus less identifiable.
 

SteveC

M6 mk II
Sep 3, 2019
852
637
<blockquote>
rare earth glass with a half-life measured in perhaps decades.
</blockquote>

You mean to say the glass contains a radioisotope?

That would suggest to me it has (or rather, had) promethium in it, as no other rare earth would have to have a radioisotope used--the others all have stable isotopes. (Optical properties depend on the electron configuration, not the number of neutrons in the nucleus.)
 

Cat_Interceptor

M6 II fanboy
Oct 20, 2019
69
103
alliancemotorsport.org
Well I cant say I *like* the idea of an F11 but if I use a EF 2x mk1 and a 100 - 400 II I could get an equivalent to it so... see what I get?

DSLR (7D mk II) - manual focus only, as expected. Not enough ligt for it to really work well. No tracking etc

M6 mk II with EF adapter - Autofcus was slow to do the initial accquire but WTF it not only GETS focus but also reliably tracks say people running - ALL tracking modes unhindered. Maximum aperature was indeed f11 and this is what.... 960 equivalent? Sharper than I expected and I think more limited by the old teleconverter so ifI was using a EF 2x Mk III I would have seen better images. I also was silly and tried the same combination at night ..... notonly didit work but it wasnt entirely just noise.

I was also surprised by the amount the background blew out. Even targeting a tree a km away, very distinct background and front of focus pane blowout - not exactly pleasing Toneh but with that setup I wasn't expecting much.

So while I think a Toneh f11 600 isnt a great idea still, a f11 800 on a MILC I now think is actually a unexpectedly good and workable idea. The fact all tracking modes were still there and worked as fast as with no extender was a pleasent surprise so that bodes well for that proposed lens - it's pretty obvious such a lens is not possible to work on a DLSR but MILC? Yeah. I can see it actually see it as useful and with a ISO invariant sensor this'll be much better in low light than some people seem to presume.

I still would prefer to have a max f of 5.6 on 100-500 but if the R5/R6 are really ISO invariant f7.1 will work fine.
 

Mt Spokane Photography

I post too Much on Here!!
Mar 25, 2011
15,913
1,031
Well I cant say I *like* the idea of an F11 but if I use a EF 2x mk1 and a 100 - 400 II I could get an equivalent to it so... see what I get?

DSLR (7D mk II) - manual focus only, as expected. Not enough ligt for it to really work well. No tracking etc

M6 mk II with EF adapter - Autofcus was slow to do the initial accquire but WTF it not only GETS focus but also reliably tracks say people running - ALL tracking modes unhindered. Maximum aperature was indeed f11 and this is what.... 960 equivalent? Sharper than I expected and I think more limited by the old teleconverter so ifI was using a EF 2x Mk III I would have seen better images. I also was silly and tried the same combination at night ..... notonly didit work but it wasnt entirely just noise.

I was also surprised by the amount the background blew out. Even targeting a tree a km away, very distinct background and front of focus pane blowout - not exactly pleasing Toneh but with that setup I wasn't expecting much.

So while I think a Toneh f11 600 isnt a great idea still, a f11 800 on a MILC I now think is actually a unexpectedly good and workable idea. The fact all tracking modes were still there and worked as fast as with no extender was a pleasent surprise so that bodes well for that proposed lens - it's pretty obvious such a lens is not possible to work on a DLSR but MILC? Yeah. I can see it actually see it as useful and with a ISO invariant sensor this'll be much better in low light than some people seem to presume.

I still would prefer to have a max f of 5.6 on 100-500 but if the R5/R6 are really ISO invariant f7.1 will work fine.
The new lens is a RF lens for full frame mirrorless. Its a more direct comparison to try it on a "R" or a 5D MK IV in liveview,, I also think some of Canon's recent patents improving autofocus on DPAF sensors may be coming.

I can stack my 2X II and 1.4X III and get limited autofocus on my R, but only if focus is already in the general distance.
 

SecureGSM

2 x 5D IV
Feb 26, 2017
2,029
940
Well I cant say I *like* the idea of an F11 but if I use a EF 2x mk1 and a 100 - 400 II I could get an equivalent to it so... see what I get?

DSLR (7D mk II) - manual focus only, as expected. Not enough ligt for it to really work well. No tracking etc

M6 mk II with EF adapter - Autofcus was slow to do the initial accquire but WTF it not only GETS focus but also reliably tracks say people running - ALL tracking modes unhindered. Maximum aperature was indeed f11 and this is what.... 960 equivalent? Sharper than I expected and I think more limited by the old teleconverter so ifI was using a EF 2x Mk III I would have seen better images. I also was silly and tried the same combination at night ..... notonly didit work but it wasnt entirely just noise.

I was also surprised by the amount the background blew out. Even targeting a tree a km away, very distinct background and front of focus pane blowout - not exactly pleasing Toneh but with that setup I wasn't expecting much.

So while I think a Toneh f11 600 isnt a great idea still, a f11 800 on a MILC I now think is actually a unexpectedly good and workable idea. The fact all tracking modes were still there and worked as fast as with no extender was a pleasent surprise so that bodes well for that proposed lens - it's pretty obvious such a lens is not possible to work on a DLSR but MILC? Yeah. I can see it actually see it as useful and with a ISO invariant sensor this'll be much better in low light than some people seem to presume.

I still would prefer to have a max f of 5.6 on 100-500 but if the R5/R6 are really ISO invariant f7.1 will work fine.
ISO invariant up to ISO 1600 apparently. Not much help with higher ISOs around 6400 or so.
 

Canon-Chas

EOS M50
Apr 16, 2017
35
41
Even at f/8, is your camera capable of autofocus? Is it at f/11? Perhaps the wall keeping you to bigger apertures is the SLR AF's requirement for f/8 or wider? Perhaps with a MILFF focusing quickly and accurately even at f/11, you could actually get shots you like? Further, technology continues to improve so perhaps the sensors these lenses will be paired with, either starting with the R5/R6, or at some later date, will get better images at f/11 than you're used to at even say f/5.6?

I mean it's not as if there is some kind of chasm of quality between any two ISOs a stop apart. If you're able to shoot f/8 for some shots, and get a usable result, then there will be some shots you can shoot at f/11 and also get a usable result. I challenge you to explain a scenario and image where one would be acceptable and the other dismissed out of hand.

Further the smaller optics will surely sell 10x or more and be used 10x or more than the elephant-leg primes. I happen to have budgeted for a 600/4IS but give the 600/11 to ten guys with equal talent and I'm sure they'll be getting better shots, simply from the shotgun effect, than I will, and the better composition and timing and what have you will overrule any technical demerit of running just a couple stops higher ISO than me.

> If you want to buy F11 600/800mm lens and shoot stationary objects , fine, but there are far better lenses for this type of shot

I can't imagine what they'd be?? Zooms with teleconverters perhaps? Have you gone from being so insistent upon quality that the ISO required for f/11 is simply out of the question, to blithely arguing that some solution jerry-rigged out existing optics is going to be so unquestionably better that you don't even want to see the actual specs for these lenses before locking in your opinion for the world to see? Were you equally sure that the RF 50/1.2 couldn't possibly be so much better than the EF 50/1.2 and therefore no-one should bother with it?

Personally I don't think Canon's gotten where it is by making stupid lenses. They've surely identified buyers for these even if you and I don't know who they are. Mountain climbers? Students? Maybe they're so sharp that they really are useful for professional wildlife and sports? The idea that they wouldn't blur backgrounds artistically is bollocks: even the 600/11 would have the bokeh of a 50/1.0 wide open, and an 800/11 the same as a 85/1.2, 135/2 or 200/2.8 wide open. So not only bokeh city, but the background is far more magnified as well and thus less identifiable.
I'm a wildlife tog and there is rarely sufficient light to allow more than f8. I can't see any wildlife or action togs queuing up to buy and a f11 600/800 lens! Let's wait and see what Canon actually come up with, F11 is a rumour , maybe it's f7.1 so wait and see :unsure:

"I mean it's not as if there is some kind of chasm of quality between any two ISOs a stop apart. If you're able to shoot f/8 for some shots, and get a usable result, then there will be some shots you can shoot at f/11 and also get a usable result. I challenge you to explain a scenario and image where one would be acceptable and the other dismissed out of hand."

I could list any number of scenarios where iso or shutter speed would be unacceptable ( to me anyway, you may have different standards ? ) at F11 too noisy or blurry . I prefer my f2.8 or f4 lenses, there is a good reason why they are more expensive otherwise we would all buy F11 lenses :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: SwissFrank

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
2,511
1,438
+++ How many 150-600mm f/6.3 lenses has Sigma and Tamron sold to APS-C shooters?

A.M.: not that many in absolute numbers even back to 2012-2014, when market conditions were pretty amazing. its a zoom though, a much more useful lens. ans can be had in Australia for around US$600 a pop. Tony in his video is hinting at Canon 800/11 price to be around US$2,000. in his view, anyway.
now, in my view: I can obtain an excellent 100-400/5.6 lens + x2 TC for that much. and that gives me : 100-400 and 200-800 range at f/11 maximum?

with 2 cameras I am covering 24-400 or 24-800 zoom range if needed. and faster apertures..

this is exactly what I am going to do: get a x 1.4 and x2 TC to use with Canon 100-400/5.6 II L on R5.
I think Tony is overestimating the prices of those lenses. They're not "L" lenses.


I shoot with a 150-600 on an apsc. I would still take the 150-600 on the full frame over these primes. Simply for versatility. IF however ones subjects do not require that versatility then you may be correct

IMHO the crowd that Canon is aiming for with the EOS R5 and the 600/800mm f/11 lenses are not those who follow Canon rumors. I think for them the lure of an affordable 800mm lens will be irresistible. I also think the 600/11 is going to be smaller and much lighter than the 150-600mm lenses are in the same way that the RF 70-200/2.8 is smaller (when collapsed) and lighter than the EF 70-200/2.8s are. Don't forget, there's talk that even tough they are primes, they will collapse when stored.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Joules

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
2,511
1,438
That's a common misconception. The problem is that the moon is made of rocks, that are less than fully reflective, and which at their brightest, once you have the averaging effect of a zillion kilometers' distance, will only be a mid-tone.

If you want your photo to have mid-tones as the maximum value, then sure, sunny 16 or 11 all night long, baby!

But most people shooting the moon want the brightest parts to be max or near-max exposure, values of 250, say if not 255. Go find some medium grey rocks, stand way back, and try to get high pixel values with sunny-16 (or -11). You can't.
Yes, the moon's average albedo is only about 12% (0.12). But not everyone wants to push it all the way to the verge of blowing out.

I guess it all depends upon what you want. This one was exposed 1 2/3 stops brighter than looney 11 because I was more concerned with getting Jupiter's bands, and the highlights of the moon are brighter than I prefer. To each his own.

[https://flic.kr/p/dUFBPu]
Jupiter and Luna by Michael Clark, on Flickr
 
Last edited:

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
2,511
1,438
Uh, yes it is. It's been utterly reinvented by computerized computation of lens formulae. CAD/CAM allows more complicated assemblies than previously possible. Camera makers and their prospective buyers continue to learn about the art. For instance in the 1980s people were so happy just to get an image that huge numbers of lenses had just five-bladed apertures, including not only the Canon 50mm/1.4, but even medium format 80mm's and so on. Now makers are much more concerned about aperture shape.

Thanks to these factors, the very sharpest lenses made today (Canon RF 50/1.2, Otus 50/1.4, Leica APO-Summicron 50/2) simply couldn't have been made a decade or two ago. The RF 50/1.2 is about 10x sharper than the EF 50/1.2 it replaces. You can see it's 30 lp/mm lines are higher than the old lens' 10 lp/mm lines; >3x sharper linearly is >9x sharper by area. If they could have done that 10 years ago they would have!
The EF 50mm f/1.2 was not primarily designed to be the sharpest lens around. It was designed to do other things, because back then most folks cared more about how the actual photos they took looked than how sharp they could take a photo of a flat test chart. Some of us still do, but the flat test chart lenses are what sell now, even if the out of focus areas don't look near as good as some of the older lenses do.
 

SecureGSM

2 x 5D IV
Feb 26, 2017
2,029
940
The EF 50mm f/1.2 was not primarily designed to be the sharpest lens around. It was designed to do other things, because back then most folks cared more about how the actual photos they took looked than how sharp they could take a photo of a flat test chart. Some of us still do, but the flat test chart lenses are what sell now, even if the out of focus areas don't look near as good as some of the older lenses do.
So true with an exception of some modern lenses that are sharp and also “pleasing”
I thoroughly regret selling this puppy here. It was way to large to be practical. In fact some of my subjects felt intimidated in front of this lens. I had to use something else instead.
I am thinking of buying the lens back in 2021 though.

https://www.myclickmagazine.com/click-pro-review-sigma-art-105mm-lens-magic-of-childhood/
 
  • Like
Reactions: CanonFanBoy

CanonFanBoy

Really O.K. Boomer
Jan 28, 2015
4,962
2,969
Irving, Texas
So true with an exception of some modern lenses that are sharp and also “pleasing”
I thoroughly regret selling this puppy here. It was way to large to be practical. In fact some of my subjects felt intimidated in front of this lens. I had to use something else instead.
I am thinking of buying the lens back in 2021 though.

https://www.myclickmagazine.com/click-pro-review-sigma-art-105mm-lens-magic-of-childhood/
I really do love the style in the processing of those images. I would love to learn how to do that. I can never get it quite right.