Canon Attempts New Supertele Patents

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.

Do you see doughnut bokeh when you look at a scene? Or do software corrections removing such things actually get you closer to what you see?

I don’t know if they can or will do this, but it’s an interesting thought exercise. Lens corrections fixing optical flaws to get you closer to reality instead of the distorted view through the lens.
 
Upvote 0

entoman

wildlife photography
May 8, 2015
1,998
2,438
UK
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.
I hear you, but the 800mm F5.6 is a full professional lens, built like a tank and with the best optics, full weatherproofing, hood, tripod collar and handle, and I think it even comes with a flight case. That's a very different kettle of fish to a budget "telescopic" design such as the 600mm F11 and 800mm F11, and what I'm suggesting is a 800mm F8 based on the budget/telescopic concept. I think there would be a sizeable market among birders for such a lens, - a lens that would sell in thousands worldwide rather than hundreds, and I think it's feasible that it could sell for around £3000. Limited weather-sealing, no hood, no tripod collar, no flight case, no soft case, fixed F8 aperture, polycarbonate barrel.

It won't happen of course, and neither will my other dream lens a 180mm F5.6 1:2 macro with OIS, although I think there's plenty of demand for that too. Canon only has about 26 RF lenses at the moment, and my dream optics don't seem to be on the road map!
 
Upvote 0

Jethro

EOS R
CR Pro
Jul 14, 2018
998
1,042
I'm taking him at his explicit word that he is. HE SAID SO, and you're pissed off that my basic assumption is to believe people? Believing people makes me the bad guy?

He's posting it on a public forum but I'm not supposed to read it? Or I'm not supposed to say anything even if I think it may endanger the range of products we can enjoy in the future? Since I can't seem to figure out when someone who claims they're threatening my future access to groundbreaking products is worthy of having an opinion about or even stating such an opinion, what do you suggest, should I check with you and let you be the final arbiter of whether I voice an opinion or not?
You've supposedly been a member of this forum since 2018 - are you seriously saying you haven't been exposed to Harry's comments (and claims) in the past?

As Alan says, a lot (an extreme lot) of what Harry writes has to be taken with a kilogram of salt, but it is almost always thought-provoking, and generally amusing as well. The fact that you now choose to take moral offence at one his posts, as "threatening my future access to groundbreaking products" is hyperbole worthy of ... Harry himself! Although, from my experience, it's actually quite different, as Harry would never take such posts that seriously, or reply in such a cringeworthy fashion.
 
  • Love
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
Upvote 0

LogicExtremist

Lux pictor
Sep 26, 2021
501
352
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.
An increasing reliance on in-camera post-processing would be a start of a very bad trend in my view. A camera is an expensive optical device with a cheaper and releatively p**-weak, limited and dedicated microcontroller, while a smartphone is a very costly, powerful pocket personal computer with a less expensive camera.

Competing with smartphones in the post-processing game is a bad idea. Look at the tech in iPhones, and how far they've come in their photography and video in the last decade. As their sensors get bigger, and the processors get better, and AI improves, they produce higher quality images, which are good enough for most people, hence the reason they've swallowed most of the lower end camera market.

What distinguishes real cameras from smartphones is the bigger sensors, and better optics with superior light-gathering abilities (fast/wide apertures). Lowering consumer expectations by pushing optically darker lenses and releasing inferior software-corrected optics for a short-term profit is a step in the wrong direction in my mind.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0

koenkooi

CR Pro
Feb 25, 2015
3,609
4,190
The Netherlands
[..]
It won't happen of course, and neither will my other dream lens a 180mm F5.6 1:2 macro with OIS, although I think there's plenty of demand for that too. Canon only has about 26 RF lenses at the moment, and my dream optics don't seem to be on the road map!
1:2 or 2:1? I'm really liking the 1.4:1 on the RF100, I don't need to swap to the MP-E65mm as often. But having only half macro on a 180mm would be limiting, I'm mostly between 1:2 and 1:1, especially with the smaller butterflies and damselflies.

Having 2:1 on a 180mm with IS with be great, but likely far out of price range I'd be comfortable with :)
 
Upvote 0

LogicExtremist

Lux pictor
Sep 26, 2021
501
352
I hear you, but the 800mm F5.6 is a full professional lens, built like a tank and with the best optics, full weatherproofing, hood, tripod collar and handle, and I think it even comes with a flight case. That's a very different kettle of fish to a budget "telescopic" design such as the 600mm F11 and 800mm F11, and what I'm suggesting is a 800mm F8 based on the budget/telescopic concept. I think there would be a sizeable market among birders for such a lens, - a lens that would sell in thousands worldwide rather than hundreds, and I think it's feasible that it could sell for around £3000. Limited weather-sealing, no hood, no tripod collar, no flight case, no soft case, fixed F8 aperture, polycarbonate barrel.

It won't happen of course, and neither will my other dream lens a 180mm F5.6 1:2 macro with OIS, although I think there's plenty of demand for that too. Canon only has about 26 RF lenses at the moment, and my dream optics don't seem to be on the road map!
How about the Canon EF 100mm L Macro on a APSC (160mm equiv) with a Raynox DCR-250 2.5x lens on the front?
 
Upvote 0

Del Paso

M3 Singlestroke
CR Pro
Aug 9, 2018
3,355
4,265
Do you see doughnut bokeh when you look at a scene? Or do software corrections removing such things actually get you closer to what you see?

I don’t know if they can or will do this, but it’s an interesting thought exercise. Lens corrections fixing optical flaws to get you closer to reality instead of the distorted view through the lens.
No, I do not see donuts looking at the scene, but will see them looking through the viewfinder, and want to see them on my picture. I bought a catadioptric lens, knowing there will be donuts.
Just like I know some vintage lenses (Summilux 1,4/75) will have a particular glow at F1,4. Unsharp for many, just like the EF 1,2/85, a sought after effect for others...
I do not systematically reject software corrections, but they shouldn't disfigure a lens.
I do agree that it is "an interesting" exercise, but I start getting tired of IPhone- like software"sorcery"!
Give me a good lens, not a poor one electronically "optimized".
My 2 cents...
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

entoman

wildlife photography
May 8, 2015
1,998
2,438
UK
1:2 or 2:1? I'm really liking the 1.4:1 on the RF100, I don't need to swap to the MP-E65mm as often. But having only half macro on a 180mm would be limiting, I'm mostly between 1:2 and 1:1, especially with the smaller butterflies and damselflies.

Having 2:1 on a 180mm with IS with be great, but likely far out of price range I'd be comfortable with :)
1:2 (half life size) is enough for me, for butterflies, beetles, dragonflies, grasshoppers, small reptiles and amphibians etc.
1:1 would be fine though, as it doesn't add much to the cost/size/weight.
I hardly ever need or want to go closer than 1:1, and I have no need for the aspherical aberration control of the RF100, so I'm happy to stick with the EF 100mm for situations where a shorter working distance is needed.

180mm is my ideal f/l for field work with nervous insects. The depth of field characteristics are great for throwing distracting backgrounds out of focus. The EF 180mm macro is my most commonly used lens - I love the bokeh and the handling, it's one of Canon's finest lenses IMO. But I would like a stabilised version, and I rarely shoot wider than F5.6. The compact size and lighter weight of a F5.6 lens would be advantageous to me. With mirrorless cameras there's no need for wider apertures although on DSLRs F3.5 is beneficial in order to get a bright viewfinder.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

entoman

wildlife photography
May 8, 2015
1,998
2,438
UK
How about the Canon EF 100mm L Macro on a APSC (160mm equiv) with a Raynox DCR-250 2.5x lens on the front?
I don't have an APS-C body, although I'll probably jump on the "R7" if it lives up to expectations (for bird photography).

For macro, I've heard good reports about the Raynox, but I'm not convinced that using it on the EF 100mm macro would produce sharpness or bokeh equal to a prime 180mm.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

Dragon

EF 800L f/5.6, RF 800 f/11
May 29, 2019
1,235
1,740
Oregon
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.
True that you have to kick the ISO up if the target is moving, but the stabilizer is very good, so for non-moving targets, I find I can drop the shutter speed more than I expected and still get sharp images. I am using the lens on an R5, and the IBIS may be helping, but conventional wisdom suggests not that much. And, yes I noticed the elliptical bokeh balls, but bright highlight points are not all that common in 800mm scenes and I don't mind them in any case. At least no pentagons or onion rings.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

Dragon

EF 800L f/5.6, RF 800 f/11
May 29, 2019
1,235
1,740
Oregon
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 think an F/8 design would get some pushback if it didn't have an iris or an ND, so it would be substantially more expensive than the f/11, but I agree that it could be in the ballpark of the EF 100-400. I wonder how many folks would whine about $2grand + for an f/8 lens. Frankly, I think that 1200 f/8 mirror in the OP would be pretty cool with AF and IS. Once again, the DOF is so small at 1200 that you are not going to see doughnuts in that many images.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

AlanF

Desperately seeking birds
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
12,406
22,771
I think an F/8 design would get some pushback if it didn't have an iris or an ND, so it would be substantially more expensive than the f/11, but I agree that it could be in the ballpark of the 100-400. I wonder how many folks would whine about $2grand + for an f/8 lens. Frankly, I think that 1200 f/8 mirror in the OP would be pretty cool if AF and IS. Once again, the DOF is so small at 1200 that you are not going to see doughnuts in that many images.
I can't see any space for an 800/8 without high end quality if a smaller, lighter, cheaper only-one-stop-less-bright is already available. A high spec 400/4 would have the same front element diameter and be far more useful, and with a 2xTC give 800/8. 400mm is a nice lens for BIF and gives a generally useful field of view. I'd get one, especially if very light and close focussing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

entoman

wildlife photography
May 8, 2015
1,998
2,438
UK
I can't see any space for an 800/8 without high end quality if a smaller, lighter, cheaper only-one-stop-less-bright is already available. A high spec 400/4 would have the same front element diameter and be far more useful, and with a 2xTC give 800/8. 400mm is a nice lens for BIF and gives a generally useful field of view. I'd get one, especially if very light and close focussing.
Yes, a 400/4 and 2x would be a better and more versatile option, but that would be looking at a 5 figure sum, whereas a fixed aperture 800/8 (as described) would be feasible for less than 3K. All academic of course, because Canon are unlikely to prioritise such a design. A pity, because an extra stop of light over the 800/11, and a potentially affordable price, would I think make it very popular with birders. Not many of us can afford, or can justify, 5 figure optics.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0

AlanF

Desperately seeking birds
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
12,406
22,771
Yes, a 400/4 and 2x would be a better and more versatile option, but that would be looking at a 5 figure sum, whereas a fixed aperture 800/8 (as described) would be feasible for less than 3K. All academic of course, because Canon are unlikely to prioritise such a design. A pity, because an extra stop of light over the 800/11, and a potentially affordable price, would I think make it very popular with birders. Not many of us can afford, or can justify, 5 figure optics.
A 5-figure sum for a 400/4? That's more than £10,000. Nikon's 500/5.6, which is only marginally smaller is only £3000 or so.
 
Upvote 0

Dragon

EF 800L f/5.6, RF 800 f/11
May 29, 2019
1,235
1,740
Oregon
Yes, a 400/4 and 2x would be a better and more versatile option, but that would be looking at a 5 figure sum, whereas a fixed aperture 800/8 (as described) would be feasible for less than 3K. All academic of course, because Canon are unlikely to prioritise such a design. A pity, because an extra stop of light over the 800/11, and a potentially affordable price, would I think make it very popular with birders. Not many of us can afford, or can justify, 5 figure optics.
I think these new cats are about size and price. Note that the design appears to have flat glass at the front and not a doughnut lens, so the only large optic in the whole thing is the mirror and it appears that is spherical, so not hard to grind.
 
Upvote 0

unfocused

Photos/Photo Book Reviews: www.thecuriouseye.com
Jul 20, 2010
7,184
5,483
70
Springfield, IL
www.thecuriouseye.com
A 5-figure sum for a 400/4? That's more than £10,000. Nikon's 500/5.6, which is only marginally smaller is only £3000 or so.
Lens cost estimates from forum experts are useful only for their entertainment value.
 
Upvote 0

Dragon

EF 800L f/5.6, RF 800 f/11
May 29, 2019
1,235
1,740
Oregon
What makes you think so? They all have a secondary mirror right behind the front element.

View attachment 202886
The secondary mirror is typically glued to the back of the front element. In this case, the front element appears flat and the diagram shows the light rays coming straight in to a mirror of the same diameter. I did not mean that the lens would not have doughnut bokeh, but rather that the front element would not be ground lens of doughnut shape, which is typical of most cats (and the mirror is typically smaller than the front element).
 
Upvote 0

entoman

wildlife photography
May 8, 2015
1,998
2,438
UK
I think these new cats are about size and price. Note that the design appears to have flat glass at the front and not a doughnut lens, so the only large optic in the whole thing is the mirror and it appears that is spherical, so not hard to grind.
My suspicion is that these cats, if they actually get into production (which I doubt), would be rather more expensive than you think.
I don't think they'd be "budget" lenses in the same price band as e.g. the 600/11, 800/11 and 100-400/5.6-8, in fact it wouldn't surprise me if they were "L" standard weather-sealed lenses, with a hefty price tag to match.

I would envisage the primary target buyers as media agencies and paparazzi types, needing highly portable get powerful lenses to capture politicians, "celebrities" etc from a safe distance.

I may have misunderstood your final sentence, but having "donut" bokeh is inherent in the design. The reflector behind the middle of the front element will automatically produce a "hole" in the bokeh.

Having used mirror lenses in the past, I took an instant very strong dislike to the effect. Donut bokeh won't appear in *every* image, but it will be particularly prominent in highlights on out-of-focus marine backgrounds, and that renders it useless (to me) for photographing waders, herons, gulls and other birds that frequent rivers, ponds or shorelines.
 
Upvote 0