Are new dream lenses coming for the RF mount? [CR1]

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
4,218
2,396
The idea of an RF 70-300 L f/2-4 isn't as farfetched as you might think. I would just consider that it may take more effort to "suppress" the sub f/4 apertures at the wider end, than to just include them in the formal specification as a "bonus", as long as the image quality is adequate.

No one needs to "suppress" wider apertures at the wide end of constant aperture zoom lenses. The critical measure for f-number is entrance pupil size, not the physical size of the aperture diaphragm. If all of the additional magnification when zooming takes place between the physical diaphragm and the front of the lens, then the physical iris doesn't need to change size at all to maintain a constant f-number. The additional magnification due to repositioning of the lens elements between the aperture diaphragm and the front of the lens also enlarges the entrance pupil by the same amount. Thus the f-number remains constant.

Even variable aperture lenses do most of the additional magnification when zooming between the iris and the front of the lens. Consider a 70-300mm f/4-5.6. The entrance pupil for 70mm @ f/4 is 17.5mm. The entrance pupil for 300mm @ f/5.6 is 53.6mm. Thus the entrance pupil enlarges by a factor of 3X at the same time the focal length increases by a factor of 4.3X. This means that roughly 70% of the additional magnification when zooming from 70mm to 300mm occurs between the aperture diaphragm and the front of the lens. The remaining 30% occurs behind the diaphragm. The wide open diaphragm remains the same size throughout the zooming action.
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
4,218
2,396
I agree and that is why I think Canon would make the rumored 500 mm DO f4.5 lens. Would be great if they combined it with a built in 1.4x TC.

If the whole point of making a 500mm f/4.5 DO that is barely one stop faster than the RF 100-500L is to reduce weight significantly (which was the entire point of the EF 400/4 DO vs. the EF 400/2.8 series), then including a built-in TC that adds weight and length doesn't seem very likely to me.
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
4,218
2,396
The Nikon 500 PF is more expensive than the RF 100-500mm, which as I wrote above, I find more useful and just about as sharp. The Sony 200-600mm is good value for money but it weighs 2.4kg, 0.8kg more, which is noticeable, and focusses down to only 2.4m, more than twice that of the RF 100-500mm. The grass may look greener but it isn't.

The only green he's worried about is how much Sony is paying him to shill for them here.
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
4,218
2,396
14 years of EF-S with no L lens. Don’t hold your breath. APS-C is aimed at the consumer market. L-lenses aren’t.

There's not a whole lot of market left for upper tier gear other than the consumer market. That is, enthusiasts/amateurs/weekend warriors with lots of money to spend who aren't being paid much of anything for their work are the primary target of today's and tomorrow's top level gear, including L lenses.

The miniscule number of salaried professional shooters left who have top tier gear provided by their full-time employers are no longer driving product development at any of the camera manufacturers. Most working pros today have to buy their own gear and work freelance for pennies on the dollar compared to what they made 15-20 years ago and earlier. They're buying what used to be called "prosumer" gear because it can get the job done at a much lower cost.

Yeah, there are still a handful of high profile rock stars out there. There are still a handful of "world class" agencies with a much more limited number of full-time staffers compared to the past. But the bread and butter of the professional camera/lens market that provided the bulk of the sales numbers for Canon and others was always print media, including local and state/regional newspapers, national and regional magazines specializing in subjects like sports, outdoors, travel, politics, business, etc. Most of those publications no longer exist. The rare ones that did survive no longer have staff photographers. They pay for stock photo usage from Getty, et al. for $5 each and Getty pays the freelancer half of that.

That doesn't mean Canon will ever give a lens with an "-S" in the name an "L" in the name as well. They won't.

But make no mistake about it. The high end consumer market is what Canon, Nikon, and Sony are banking on to keep them in business. The true professional market doesn't have the number of buyers to do it any more.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Oct 24, 2018
171
63
Finland
Just bought Laowa 33 mm f 0.95…

I’ll be happy to upgrade, if canon would make the RF-s 33 mm F1.0 L …

Hopefully competition drives canon to make it..
If canon makes F1.0 lens, then hopefully it will come with Drop in filter possibility... Today I used Canon Drop-In Variable ND filter with EF lens , and now
I think should I continue buying EF lens and use it with Drop in filters/adapter ... or ... the really old way...
Drop-In Variable ND is really excellent ...
 
Oct 24, 2018
171
63
Finland
"That doesn't mean Canon will ever give a lens with an "-S" in the name an "L" in the name as well. They won't."

If Sony provides "G" ( Canon "L" equalent ) for APS-C sensors, then It'll be mater of time, when Canon starts to provide it too. What about Fuji? I am sure they have "L" equalent lens for APS-C. These are 33% to 50% cheaper, right?
 

Del Paso

M3 Singlestroke
CR Pro
Aug 9, 2018
1,625
1,875
"That doesn't mean Canon will ever give a lens with an "-S" in the name an "L" in the name as well. They won't."

If Sony provides "G" ( Canon "L" equalent ) for APS-C sensors, then It'll be mater of time, when Canon starts to provide it too. What about Fuji? I am sure they have "L" equalent lens for APS-C. These are 33% to 50% cheaper, right?
Why should Canon produce specific L APS lenses? For a small market?
They have more than enough FF L lenses for APS and FF, unlike Fuji (only APS). And, as been said before, in 15 APS years, there's never been a specific APS L lens, 7 DII birders simply used the EF FF L lenses.
 

scyrene

EOS R6
Dec 4, 2013
2,991
1,194
UK
www.flickr.com
Do you have any idea how much a lens with an 180mm front element would cost? That's larger than the the 150mm front element of the 800/5.6.
One 500mm f/2.8 lens exists, the infamous Sigma 200-500. It's still listed for £15k at various UK retailers. A prime would presumably be smaller/lighter/cheaper to produce, but Canon would surely charge more.
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
27,127
6,571
There's not a whole lot of market left for upper tier gear other than the consumer market. That is, enthusiasts/amateurs/weekend warriors with lots of money to spend who aren't being paid much of anything for their work are the primary target of today's and tomorrow's top level gear, including L lenses.

The miniscule number of salaried professional shooters left who have top tier gear provided by their full-time employers are no longer driving product development at any of the camera manufacturers. Most working pros today have to buy their own gear and work freelance for pennies on the dollar compared to what they made 15-20 years ago and earlier. They're buying what used to be called "prosumer" gear because it can get the job done at a much lower cost.

Yeah, there are still a handful of high profile rock stars out there. There are still a handful of "world class" agencies with a much more limited number of full-time staffers compared to the past. But the bread and butter of the professional camera/lens market that provided the bulk of the sales numbers for Canon and others was always print media, including local and state/regional newspapers, national and regional magazines specializing in subjects like sports, outdoors, travel, politics, business, etc. Most of those publications no longer exist. The rare ones that did survive no longer have staff photographers. They pay for stock photo usage from Getty, et al. for $5 each and Getty pays the freelancer half of that.

That doesn't mean Canon will ever give a lens with an "-S" in the name an "L" in the name as well. They won't.

But make no mistake about it. The high end consumer market is what Canon, Nikon, and Sony are banking on to keep them in business. The true professional market doesn't have the number of buyers to do it any more.
I don’t mean consumer as in non-professional. I mean consumer as in mass-market. Low cost. The R7 is not aimed at the high end of the market, either.

The fact that the R7 is not a high-end camera (mid-level weathersealing, no grip available) is evidence in support of the belief that we will not see crop L-series lenses.
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: 2 users
Oct 31, 2020
278
358
And, as been said before, in 15 APS years, there's never been a specific APS L lens...
True, but fortunately some things do change in time. There never was a F2 zoom, now there is.
Sony and Fujis offerings are reason enough to release a APS-C L lens. Furthermore, all Companys have to attract new customers or give current customers reasons to upgrade. I'm sure, everybody would like a RF 50mm F1.2, but many people can't pay the price. If an APS-C L prime would cost around 1.000-1.500 max, their will be buyers Canon has not yet addressed.

The price is imaginary just for casin`point.
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
27,127
6,571
Do you have any idea how much a lens with an 180mm front element would cost? That's larger than the the 150mm front element of the 800/5.6.
Perhaps you need a calculator. 800/5.6 = 143. You should have used the 600/4 as your example, because 600/4 = 150.

In fact, the measured diameter of the 600/4 II front element is around 144mm, because the lens is probably something like 593mm f/4.12. Similar rounding occurs for all lenses (it saves Canon money) and thus the front element of the 800/5.6 would be even smaller than that of the 600/4 (however, I don’t personally have one of the former to measure).
 
  • Haha
Reactions: 1 user

takesome1

EOS 5D Mark IV
Aug 23, 2013
1,659
282
101
None your business Alaska
But make no mistake about it. The high end consumer market is what Canon, Nikon, and Sony are banking on to keep them in business. The true professional market doesn't have the number of buyers to do it any more.
I am not saying you are wrong in your assessment, and I am not saying you are right. I am saying that you are stating a rambling opinion with no data or research to back this up and it really sounds like unsubstantiated hooey.
 

takesome1

EOS 5D Mark IV
Aug 23, 2013
1,659
282
101
None your business Alaska
I don’t mean consumer as in non-professional. I mean consumer as in mass-market. Low cost. The R7 is not aimed at the high end of the market, either.

The fact that the R7 is not a high-end camera (mid-level weathersealing, no grip available) is evidence in support of the belief that we will not see crop L-series lenses.

Well that and wouldn't it be nonsense to make a $2400 L lens for a $1400 camera. The price point of the R7 being lower than the 7D II ( released years before covid and run away inflation) speaks volumes to its placement in the product line. It is actually close to the price of the 50D in 2008.
 

Bob Howland

EOS RP
CR Pro
Mar 25, 2012
761
415
Isn't that what putting the camera's Av setting to f/4 does?
And that is something that most people don't seem to realize when they complain about variable aperture lenses. You're setting the aperture on the camera, the camera informs the lens what the aperture should be and the lens is responsible for setting that aperture. The only time that rule doesn't hold is, for example, an f/5-6.3 telephone zoom. If you set the aperture at f/5 on the short end, then zoom to the long end, the aperture will transition to f/6.3. Zooming back to the short end causes the aperture to go back to f/5. What the camera is telling the lens is "wide open". I have three variable aperture lenses: a 28-300 Tamron, 100-400 Canon and a 150-600 Sigma Sport and all behave that way.
 
Last edited:

Bob Howland

EOS RP
CR Pro
Mar 25, 2012
761
415
Perhaps you need a calculator. 800/5.6 = 143. You should have used the 600/4 as your example, because 600/4 = 150.

In fact, the measured diameter of the 600/4 II front element is around 144mm, because the lens is probably something like 593mm f/4.12. Similar rounding occurs for all lenses (it saves Canon money) and thus the front element of the 800/5.6 would be even smaller than that of the 600/4 (however, I don’t personally have one of the former to measure).

As I recall, the 200-500 f/2.8 Sigma cost about $25,000 and weighed about 35 pounds. They introduced that lens after the 120-300 f/2.8 and 300-800 f/5.6. If they had made a 200-500 f/4 instead, I think they would have sold a bunch.
 
Last edited: