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

Jul 21, 2010
31,163
12,996
So what if it's incorrect? Neuro, you're just an obnoxious bully!
A large fraction of @Michael Clark’s posts are pedantic replies to others’ incorrect information. IMO, turnabout is fair play. Apparently you feel it’s cause to insult me. That’s your prerogative, although it says more about you than about me.
 
Upvote 0

mxwphoto

R6 and be there
Jun 20, 2013
207
285
Just want a cracking IQ wide angle prime for astro/aurora. I don't know why they can't bring that one to the table. Don't need AF. Don't need stabilization. Just awesome IQ at 20mm and 1.4
If you don't need AF then just get a samyang or laowa, or zeiss for premium quality. No need to wait for Canon to introduce one as they never will unless if you count cine prime, but for that price you can get anything else you want and then some.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

Aussie shooter

https://brettguyphotography.picfair.com/
Dec 6, 2016
1,184
1,829
brettguyphotography.picfair.com
If you don't need AF then just get a samyang or laowa, or zeiss for premium quality. No need to wait for Canon to introduce one as they never will unless if you count cine prime, but for that price you can get anything else you want and then some.
Yes, but I would prefer native mount as over time i want to offload all EF mount lenses and get rid of the adapter
 
Upvote 0

mxwphoto

R6 and be there
Jun 20, 2013
207
285
Yes, but I would prefer native mount as over time i want to offload all EF mount lenses and get rid of the adapter
Don't be so quick to drink the native mount cool-aid, especially if you are dealing with manual focus lenses. There are practical benefits to adapters ala only needing one drop in CPL/ND/astro filter that will mount to any EF lens (including previously unmountable lenses such as the Canon 11-24 and TS-E 17).

In fact unless if a lens specifically requires the mirrorless flange distance to produce superior results or a much smaller package, I personally prefer EF mount counterparts for the filter convenience as most multi mount lenses for mirrorless are just dslr lenses with built in adapters anyway.

Thus far the only benefit obtained by RF L lenses over EF counterparts has been peripheral sharpness, but at the expense of increased cost, weight, size and girth (the 70-200 being the exception, but if Canon made a retractable EF version I imagine it would be similiar in size).

Also, this is a matter of preference, but I feel the RF renderings are so clean now that it becomes a bit too clinical/sterile leading to lots of photographers manually adding back in imperfections in post for that special 'look'.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0

koenkooi

CR Pro
Feb 25, 2015
3,609
4,190
The Netherlands
Don't be so quick to drink the native mount cool-aid, especially if you are dealing with manual focus lenses. There are practical benefits to adapters ala only needing one drop in CPL/ND/astro filter that will mount to any EF lens (including previously unmountable lenses such as the Canon 11-24 and TS-E 17).

In fact unless if a lens specifically requires the mirrorless flange distance to produce superior results or a much smaller package, I personally prefer EF mount counterparts for the filter convenience as most multi mount lenses for mirrorless are just dslr lenses with built in adapters anyway.

Thus far the only benefit obtained by RF L lenses over EF counterparts has been peripheral sharpness, but at the expense of increased cost, weight, size and girth (the 70-200 being the exception, but if Canon made a retractable EF version I imagine it would be similiar in size).

[..]
I really like the convenience of the drop in CPL and miss that on the native 100mm. But I really disliked how the IS on ‘older’ EF lenses interacts with IBIS, both native Canon lenses as well as 3rd party.
So I don’t plan on replacing my non-IS lenses, but I am curious what Canon will come up with for RF versions of the MP-E and 180 macro.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

Aussie shooter

https://brettguyphotography.picfair.com/
Dec 6, 2016
1,184
1,829
brettguyphotography.picfair.com
Don't be so quick to drink the native mount cool-aid, especially if you are dealing with manual focus lenses. There are practical benefits to adapters ala only needing one drop in CPL/ND/astro filter that will mount to any EF lens (including previously unmountable lenses such as the Canon 11-24 and TS-E 17).

In fact unless if a lens specifically requires the mirrorless flange distance to produce superior results or a much smaller package, I personally prefer EF mount counterparts for the filter convenience as most multi mount lenses for mirrorless are just dslr lenses with built in adapters anyway.

Thus far the only benefit obtained by RF L lenses over EF counterparts has been peripheral sharpness, but at the expense of increased cost, weight, size and girth (the 70-200 being the exception, but if Canon made a retractable EF version I imagine it would be similiar in size).

Also, this is a matter of preference, but I feel the RF renderings are so clean now that it becomes a bit too clinical/sterile leading to lots of photographers manually adding back in imperfections in post for that special 'look'.
All valid arguments and certainly well thought out. And I am definitely not obsessive over going native in the immediate future. But I have no doubt canon could bring out a decently priced astro prime in RF mount and if they did it would be preferable to me than a third party offering. Whether they do it is another matter entirely as they have never done it before in EF mount.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
4,722
2,655
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).

You should have read the comment to which I was replying.
So what if it's incorrect? Neuro, you're just an obnoxious bully!

Like most bullies, he's terrified that he's not actually smarter than everyone else as he desires to be.
 
Upvote 0

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
4,722
2,655
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.

We weren't talking about the R7. We were discussing "L" lenses.

Please try and pay attention.
 
Upvote 0

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
4,722
2,655
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.

You can consult U.S. Labor Department statistics that include how many full time photographers are employed in the U.S. as their primary profession. The numbers have been steadily decreasing for over a decade. They've pretty much fallen off the cliff in the past five years, to the point there's no longer a separate category for still image photojournalists distinct from the one that includes TV camera operators. Since the U.S. buys an extremely disproportionate amount of the total number of interchangeable lens cameras sold worldwide (that's also a documented fact, you can look it up), as the U.S. goes, so goes the world in this case.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
4,722
2,655
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).

Thanks for making my point even stronger. 178.5714285714286mm is proportionally larger compared to 142.8571428571429mm than 180mm is to 150mm. I'm forever in your debt.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
4,722
2,655
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.

On the other hand, If you zoom out to the widest focal length first and set the Av to f/6.3, it will stay there no matter what focal length the lens is zoomed to, will it not? Unless Canon has changed their camera's programming since I stopped using variable aperture zooms over a decade ago, even if you're at the longest FL and set the Av to f/6.3 it will stay at f/6.3 at any FL will it not?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
4,722
2,655
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.

That's a bargain price for the Sigma Bigma. It's still listed at $25,999 USD for a new one here in the United States.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
Jul 21, 2010
31,163
12,996
You should have read the comment to which I was replying.
I did. You should re-read your reply. Let’s review, she’ll we?
A 500 f2.8! I'll hapilly hit the gym more to be able to carry it
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.
The part you should re-read is the second sentence of your two-sentence reply. Specifically, “That's larger than the the 150mm front element of the 800/5.6.

Does the 800/5.6 have a 150mm front element, either theoretically (based on calculating the entrance pupil at the position of the front element) or empirically? That’s a simple yes or no question for you to answer.

Like most bullies, he's terrified that he's not actually smarter than everyone else as he desires to be.
The complete inability to admit when one is wrong is a sign of pathological insecurity.
 
Upvote 0
Jul 21, 2010
31,163
12,996
We weren't talking about the R7. We were discussing "L" lenses.

Please try and pay attention.
You should have read the comment to which I was replying. Now, where have I heard that before? :rolleyes:

Again, let’s review, shall we?
With an R7 on the way (someday) I'd like to see an RF-S 15-50 F2.8 L IS. Just a little wider than the EF version with a bit of weather sealing, and some proof of commitment to the RF-S format from Canon by making an RF-S L lens. A few fast RF-S primes would be nice too.
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.
The discussion started off talking about the R7.

Please try to pay attention.
 
Upvote 0
Jul 21, 2010
31,163
12,996
Thanks for making my point even stronger. 178.5714285714286mm is proportionally larger compared to 142.8571428571429mm than 180mm is to 150mm. I'm forever in your debt.
Appending a ridiculous and mathematically inappropriate number of significant digits to numbers does not change the fact that you stated an 800/5.6 lens has a 150mm front element, which is wrong.

By the way, your ‘point’ was that a 500/2.8 lens would be expensive. Quite the pithy observation, there.

1655730122279.gif
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0
Jul 27, 2021
191
190
I agree, therefore a repost of a post I wrote a while ago:

I just don’t get why people still compare the RF 100-500mm to Sonys 200-600mm lense. Those lenses feature completely different designs for different purposes.

RF 100-500mm - 200-600mm
77mm Filter - 96mm filter thread
20 cm - 32 cm
1.45 kg - 2.1 kg
0,5 m - 2,4 m Minimum focus

If you look at the purposes intended, it is even clearer:
  • RF: possible walk-around lense
  • Sony: most „sit and wait“ lense… (birders e.g.)
  • RF: landscapes, sports, wildlife (77mm thread allows regular filters…)
  • Sony: almost exclusively wild-life
The narrower end and the exceptional minimum focus makes the RF 100-500mm a great sport lense for example for soccer, handball (huge in Germany) while the 200-600mm isn’t suitable here.

In addition, the RF 100-500mm is an L lense, the 200-600mm is not a G Master lense, a fact which a lot of users complained on the sonyalpharumors site when the lense was released. Since the 200-600mm features weather sealing and still is not a GMaster lense, it likely says that the image quality is not the best possible. (while it is still good IQ)

The Sony 200-600mm is a great option for wildlife photography. And yes, it is an offering Canon does not have. But Canon has a different, much more versatile and way more handy option. Comparing those lense just doesn’t make sense.

I don´t wanna trash the Sony 200-600mm lense here, because it great lense for what it is. But I’m sick and tired of people bitching and moaning about the fact, that the 200-600mm is one third of stop faster between 472-500mm and people literally comparing apples and melons. Furthermore, they only compare a single tiny fact…
Sony also have a 100-400mm GM which is probably the true comparison to be made to the RF but with Canon making their lens 100mm longer many people saw the 200-600 made that comparison instead.

For those few who are deciding which system to buy into lenses will be looked at side by side. Nikon have a 200-600 on their lens roadmap, and Sigma have a sport version of their 150-600 available for emount so getting to 600mm without spending thousands on a prime is clearly attractive to many shooters.

The 100-500 is a great lens there’s no doubt about it but Canon would do well have a 200-600 like option available as well maybe a 300-700 option that has excellent IQ and fast AF but perhaps is a bit bigger and heavier while being cheaper than the L.
 
Upvote 0
Jan 27, 2020
826
1,796
You should have read the comment to which I was replying.


Like most bullies, he's terrified that he's not actually smarter than everyone else as he desires to be.
Funny how someone who continually feels the need to make comment after comment in response to others posts, finding fault with every one (often totally minor) is calling someone else a bully. Practically nothing on this forum is more annoying than your string of post replies that talk down to everyone and try to make us think that you are somehow the "teacher" and we must be the lowly "pupils" and that we need correcting. If someone makes a factual error, sure, by all means, if you have the correct answer please share it, but that is not what you do. I used to work on an internet forum and if someone did what you do - correcting or disagreeing on a dozen or more posts in a row - we would have nicely asked you to refrain from that sort of bullying tactic. Just my opinion, of course, which I'm fairly certain you won't agree with.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Upvote 0

AlanF

Desperately seeking birds
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
12,406
22,768
Funny how someone who continually feels the need to make comment after comment in response to others posts, finding fault with every one (often totally minor) is calling someone else a bully. Practically nothing on this forum is more annoying than your string of post replies that talk down to everyone and try to make us think that you are somehow the "teacher" and we must be the lowly "pupils" and that we need correcting. If someone makes a factual error, sure, by all means, if you have the correct answer please share it, but that is not what you do. I used to work on an internet forum and if someone did what you do - correcting or disagreeing on a dozen or more posts in a row - we would have nicely asked you to refrain from that sort of bullying tactic. Just my opinion, of course, which I'm fairly certain you won't agree with.
Sayre's law: "In any dispute the intensity of feeling is inversely proportional to the value of the issues at stake." By way of corollary, it adds: "That is why academic politics are so bitter." Just change 'academic politics' to 'photo gear discussions'.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0