6 unreleased Canon lenses and the two teleconverters show up for certification

This was actually a CR2 in January. Sadly it is likely eclipsed by the 100-500. There goes Canon helping me save my money again...

Not in a million years will I buy an f/7.1 zoom, already f/6.3 is compromise but at least it's on a 600mm FL which makes it effectively 5/6 stop faster than a 500 f/7.1.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0

Stuart

Hi, Welcome from an ePhotozine fan, & 6D user.
Jul 22, 2010
390
128
London & Woking
www.ephotozine.com
not pleased with that 100-500, its just way too slow. I have the 100-400II and I'd rather keep that at this point. I'd rather it be a 200-500 5.6, 100-500 5.6, or 200-600 6.3. The other companies are making it, come on canon!
Can I ask, why too slow? With the good high ISO's and great low light focus ability of new cameras ir it just the DOF of 5 feet at 100 feet distance that bothers you?
 
Upvote 0
Dec 13, 2010
4,932
1,608
Can I ask, why too slow? With the good high ISO's and great low light focus ability of new cameras ir it just the DOF of 5 feet at 100 feet distance that bothers you?
80% of the year here there is no way too shot f7.1 and 1/1000s without skyhigh ISO... then going into the woods and needing 1/2000s to freeze birds and 7.1 is totally useless...
 
  • Like
  • Sad
Reactions: 2 users
Upvote 0

SecureGSM

2 x 5D IV
Feb 26, 2017
2,360
1,231
Well, it depends. The closest EF lens that I have to that is a 17-40L. I primarily use polarizing lenses. I do not use polarized filters on lenses generally wider than around 24 mm because of the uneven effect on blue skies.
10-24 / 4 would have to be a very large and heavy lens. with large bulbous front element. not an ideal travelling lens in my view.
 
Upvote 0
Aug 26, 2015
1,380
1,042
10-24 / 4 would have to be a very large and heavy lens. with large bulbous front element. not an ideal travelling lens in my view.
Not really, the Sigma 14-24/2.8 mirrorless version is only 795g vs DSLR 14-24/2.8 version 1150g (excluding the mount adapter) which, incidentally is almost what the Canon 11-24/4 weighs as well. With the extra 1mm at the wide end, the size and weight reduction should be a little less than 30%, but still very noticeable, mirrorless system have their benefits maximised for wide-angle lens designs.
 
Upvote 0

usern4cr

R5
CR Pro
Sep 2, 2018
1,376
2,308
Kentucky, USA
With two equal speed card slots, an option to alternate and write to both together with a further option to cross copy with idle time once the buffers are flushed. That'll give you 200% write speed at the expense of higher peak battery drain and a bit more demand on the processor.
Yes! That's a great idea! (doh - it never occurred to me). The bottom line is that you almost always have unused time now and then, so use it to the maximum benefit possible! I don't think it would affect battery drain much, if at all. Any slight battery difference would be negligible when compared with doubling (or greater) the maximum write speed while still (in delayed background) having a safe second copy so the users don't have anything to complain about!
 
Upvote 0
Jan 22, 2012
4,471
1,327
not pleased with that 100-500, its just way too slow. I have the 100-400II and I'd rather keep that at this point. I'd rather it be a 200-500 5.6, 100-500 5.6, or 200-600 6.3. The other companies are making it, come on canon!
It is Canon's attempt to make a decent size, decent cost telephoto zoom. It will be a best seller. For others, there is the 200-400 f4.
 
  • Sad
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

Doug7131

EOS R6 Mark II
Jul 21, 2019
60
195
Im guessing that the 100-500 f4.5-7.1 will have a very similar design to the exisiting 100-400 f4.5-5.6. In which case the lens will likley only switch to 7.1 after 400mm. So think of it as the 100-400 with an extra 100mm added on. Maybe 7.1 is too dark for some cases but any lens that is significatly faster at 500mm, Nikon 200-500 f5.6 for example, are much bigger and heavier than the 100-500 and also have a much more limited zoom range.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Upvote 0
Aug 9, 2016
360
429
Can I ask, why too slow? With the good high ISO's and great low light focus ability of new cameras ir it just the DOF of 5 feet at 100 feet distance that bothers you?

both actually, 7.1 is already pretty difficult for bokeh, unless you separate the subject from the background, but evening low light scenarios, you quickly run out of usable ISO quite fast already on a 5.6 lens, let alone a 7.1 lens.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
Aug 9, 2016
360
429
Depends where you live, for me in India that lens is useless in forests of western ghats but on grasslands of Deccan plateau and transition zone of two habitats that lens is more than sufficient.
agreed but don't forget about the bokeh, you'll have to work more to blow the background out as it limits your options. 5.6 for me is already difficult enough with low light evening shooting, you really lose it quite fast even at 5.6. Now to cope with a 7.1 lens? no thanks.
 
Upvote 0