Canon Attempts New Supertele Patents

[Dragon]

For those who keep harping about lack of sharpness of cats, here is sample. 100% crop from a new FD 500mm f/8 mirror lens with FD 2X B TC attached and shot with an M6 II. That is 1000mm and a FF equivalent of 82 MP. Note the fine print at the bottom of the warning label. This was shot at around 70 yards distance. Also note that many scenes do not result in doughnut bokeh. The biggest issues with cats are nailing focus and stability, so in my view, a cat with IS and AF would be quite usable over a wide range of applications. The other issue with cats is that the airy disk has a hole in the middle, so the perceived depth of field is less than a refractor. That can be good or bad, depending on the scene, but if you understand it, you can work with it.

 

[toodamnice]

I am very much an amateur with an R5, but I have to ask why are they working on lenses like this? I know there are a lot of people looking for L quality native fast primes. Personally I'd love to see a 14 f1.8L and a 35 f1.2L. Wouldn't fast wide primes be more successful and profitable?

 

[MythPlayer]

Gregorian Secondary?

 

[JustUs7]

I am very much an amateur with an R5, but I have to ask why are they working on lenses like this? I know there are a lot of people looking for L quality native fast primes. Personally I'd love to see a 14 f1.8L and a 35 f1.2L. Wouldn't fast wide primes be more successful and profitable?

I’m curious how much of that crowd noise comes from spec chasers that want to brag about what’s available for their camera (“Sony doesn’t have one of these!”) vs actual buyers who would pay $2,500 for a 35mm lens.

 

[Dragon]

I’m curious how much of that crowd noise comes from spec chasers that want to brag about what’s available for their camera (“Sony doesn’t have one of these!”) vs actual buyers who would pay $2,500 for a 35mm lens.

Every manufacturer needs some genital envy lenses for marketing, but I think many of the less expensive lenses are where a lot of the money is made. Look up the 800mm f/11 on Flickr and you will see that there has been quite a bit of nice work done already. I suspect that lens has sold very well despite, shall we say, a guarded response from professional reviewers. I have one and it is quite remarkable. It is quite sharp for f/11 and the IS is very good, so you can handhold it at much lower ISOs than you would think. I also have an EF 800 f/5.6 L and it has better IQ, but it also weighs 10 lbs and that severely limits its utility. The 800 f/11 offers some insight into what mirror lenses with AF and IS would be capable of - quite a lot actually, and assuming that the prices may well be in the somewhat affordable range, they would likely sell in pretty large numbers.

 

[AlanF]

There's something to be said for halo lenses, though. Canon had the 1200/5.6, Nikon I think a 1200-1700 zoom and a huge 6mm fisheye that was a monster bubble of glass.

I think Canon should make the following lenses, even if they're rental-only or by-invitation-only or even if they have pretty poor IQ:

35/1.0
50/.07
135/1.0DS that makes perfect spherical highlights center to corner
1200/5.6

A 50/.07 would have a 714mm or more front element, which is a bit much.

 

[sanj]

Could those be for surveillance applications, where bokeh doesn't matter that much?

This is for photography.

 

[sanj]

I am very much an amateur with an R5, but I have to ask why are they working on lenses like this? I know there are a lot of people looking for L quality native fast primes. Personally I'd love to see a 14 f1.8L and a 35 f1.2L. Wouldn't fast wide primes be more successful and profitable?

I so want a 25mm RF. I would prefer 1.2 but 1.4 works.

 

[Alam]

Can't wait, I don't mind about donut bokeh

Glad traded my Tamron 150-600 G2 for RF 100-400, hope I can recover the missing 600 with 800 or 1200mm that lighter than hauling single 150-600

 

[AlanF]

This was a character transposition. It's hard to proof-read my comments due to cataracts. I don't really appreciate the mockery.

That wasn't mockery. This post of yours yesterday is real mockery, what you wrote about @HarryFilm

If they're trying to keep this under-the-radar as you keep repeating, you've probably sunk their first-mover advantage by blabbing about it in a widely-read public forum. I also can't believe they let such a loudmouth near their R&D without signing a non-disclosure form. So now it's a couple years later. Where are the fantastic products?

If you can't take a little joke, don't pour out abuse on a harmless poster here.

 

[Bonich]

Yes, it bother me too. I'm sure these will be better but mirror lenses are notoriously fragile, fixed aperture, and ugly donut bokeh.

They had the brilliant EF400mm f5.6L. Light, superb optics, and affordable. The closes they have now is the 100-500mm zoom, which I'd always use on the tele end, unnecessarily heavier, more expensive. And f7.1.

Really wish they come up with the something like the Sony 200-600mm. Serious stuff but not costing as much as a sedan.

Compare this with the Nikon lineup: ultralight 400 2.8 with switchable TC, 500 5,6 PF, 800 6.3 PF. Anything missing? (beside a 200-600 zoom)
Canon's long end is a joke these days beside this f11 lenses which are great budget options together with the 100-400.
The only lens I throw my money on is the 100 to 500 and go on using 200-400 and 600 II from the old EF times.

 

[cayenne]

Donut bokeh is liked by some people for "artistic effect" but to me it always looks just plain ugly.
It's inherent with catadioptric designs, AFAIK there's no way to hide or minimise the effect.

<snip>

I like soap bubble (Trioplan) and swirly bokeh (Petzval and M42-2)....if we're talking vintage looks.

Damn...I gotta get out and shoot some now that weather is getting really nice this weekend!!

cayenne

 

[entoman]

I like soap bubble (Trioplan) and swirly bokeh (Petzval and M42-2)....if we're talking vintage looks.

Damn...I gotta get out and shoot some now that weather is getting really nice this weekend!!

cayenne

Yeah, all these weird bokeh effects have their place and can be used to great effect for certain subjects. I only shoot nature and wildlife though, so for my stuff I prefer a more "natural" look. If I could get rid of those aperture polygons, onion rings and other "standard" artefacts, I'd be even happier!

 

[Del Paso]

Catadioptric teles? Why not.
But where are the needed WA, 50mm, short teles, macros (sans focus shift) primes?
I think I'm not the only one waiting for them, rather than for 1200mm catas...

 

[Dragon]

Yeah, all these weird bokeh effects have their place and can be used to great effect for certain subjects. I only shoot nature and wildlife though, so for my stuff I prefer a more "natural" look. If I could get rid of those aperture polygons, onion rings and other "standard" artefacts, I'd be even happier!

The 800 f/11 is about as "natural" as it gets for bokeh. perfectly round aperture and I don't see any onion rings .

 

[AlanF]

What is harmless about someone blabbing about apparently secretive business plans?

@HarryFilm is a genial member of CR who writes what many of us consider CR0 rated posts but are at the very worst amusing and often contain some scientifically correct facts, a sort of Baron Munchausen of CR, and he is never offensive to anyone. You have absolutely no idea of whether or not he is blabbing secret business plans, and neither do any of us, and even if he were, it's none of your business and no excuse to flame him.

 

[entoman]

The 800 f/11 is about as "natural" as it gets for bokeh. perfectly round aperture and I don't see any onion rings .

Bokeh is very good most of the time with the RF 800 F11, but there are some situations where I see pronounced elliptical bokeh at corners and edges. I'd be a very happy bunny if Canon brought out an F8 version with the same design. I'd guess that it would be about the same weight and cost as my EF 100-400mm. I find F11 is fine in sunlight, but it can be a bit restricting in duller conditions, when I have to bump up the iSO higher than I want to.

 

[justaCanonuser]

I wonder, if Canon can manage the typical trade offs of such a catadioptric design.
(bad contrast, low resolution to the edges, "halo" in the center, bad bokeh).

I am with you.

Maybe Canon plans to implement heavy postprocessing with a lot of algorithms included, like in smartphones, to "correct" the shortcomings of such a lens. Then, the resulting image would not have much in common with the original image projected by the optics on the sensor plane. Well, billions of smartphone users are happy with such an approach to photography.

 

[Del Paso]

I am with you.

Maybe Canon plans to implement heavy postprocessing with a lot of algorithms included, like in smartphones, to "correct" the shortcomings of such a lens. Then, the resulting image would not have much in common with the original image projected by the optics on the sensor plane. Well, billions of smartphone users are happy with such an approach to photography.

Maybe I'm old-fashioned, but I want my camera or lens to record what I do see, and not what the opto-electronic engineers want me to see.
Extreme synthetic embellishment of pictures is not what I'm looking for. If the catadioptrics generate donut -type bokeh, let them do so. Some photographers like this characteristic, just like many prefer the non-perfect vintage lenses over the clinically perfect ones...

 

[unfocused]

Bokeh is very good most of the time with the RF 800 F11, but there are some situations where I see pronounced elliptical bokeh at corners and edges. I'd be a very happy bunny if Canon brought out an F8 version with the same design. I'd guess that it would be about the same weight and cost as my EF 100-400mm. I find F11 is fine in sunlight, but it can be a bit restricting in duller conditions, when I have to bump up the iSO higher than I want to.

I have a hard time believing that an f8 800mm lens would be in the same price range as a 400 f5.6 zoom or even a 500mm f7.1 zoom. Especially when a 5.6 800mm is $17,000.