Canon Introduces Three New Lenses, Enhancing Still Photography and Video Production for Any Skill Level
- Thread starter Canon Rumors Guy
- Start date
I do not see how this is any better or worse than most of Canon's other choices.
They pretty much all have the same reasons.
Upvote
0
I do want more power, but builtin to the lens
Or a smart-shoe powered ringlight, that would be great for focussing and video.
Upvote
0
An 800mm prime with a 6m mfd is a niche lens that has restricted use. I hardly ever use mine but take the RF 100-500mm out daily. The 200-800mm is far more versatile. The only real drawbacks for me are the weight and size. I've ordered one but it is likely to be my second choice for routine use.
Upvote
0
As mentioned by others: a service port or maybe a Kensington lock port lid.
Upvote
0
The tripod ring on the EF 100-400 II is quite a piece of engineering. I picked up one that had the back barrel sections damaged in a fall for a few hundred dollars that I was able to repair into a working lens. The hardest part of the whole teardown and rebuild was transferring the tripod collar from the damaged section to the replacement. There are 6-8 nylon/poly bushings/bearings that lock the collar on from the inside along with several stainless shims to keep everything tight. All the bushings are screwed into the collar from little holes inside the barrel. Canon definitely puts some work into making sure the fixed rings are super stable while allowing fluid movement and remaining sealed to the elements.
Upvote
0
My money is on “service port”. On the EF 100-400 II there is an access hole sealed under the plate that the removable tripod foot attaches to. Gives it an additional layer of separation from the environment. I suspect it is located similarly on the 24-105 2.8 but needs to be on the collar of the 200-800 due to not having a removable foot.
Upvote
0
Yes, I wouldn’t only want to shoot 800mm with this lens. If I did, I’d already own the f/11 and stick with that. The giant zoom range and weather sealing for under $2k are definitely the selling points for anyone that is never going to spend the $ for super telephoto L glass.
Upvote
0
Indeed. I’m not sure if they have used that mounting plate on another lens before but it is much better than the 100-400. I like that is is a dovetail but also has the self centering, retaining pin in the center to keep the foot attached if the dovetail screw becomes loose. Not a lens I’m in the market for as I don’t carry a standard zoom (14-35, 50 1.2, 70-200 4), but it does look like a very well designed lens.
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
ETTR is expose-to-the-right technique, check, for example, this old but still relevant article https://www.dpreview.com/articles/6641165460/ettr-exposed
In terms of 'exposing for the corners' - I'm not sure how you'd even do it, in-camera metering modes can't expose for the corners.
I don't know. My question was whether this new lens will have stronger vignetting at 24mm f2.8.
Canon had it in 5D Mk IV and probably other DSLR cameras. Both peripheral illumination (vignette) correction and lens distortion corrosion. It was only applied to jpeg.
The only difference is that with the RF lenses, the lens distortion is very strong sometimes so that it's unusable without corrections.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
I would also love to see more high quality, mid-range lenses at prices that are affordable to hobbyists. Think of the many enthusiast-grade, non-L, EF USM lenses that Canon made in the 1990's and early 2000's (the film EOS heyday). Lenses like the 28-105 f/3.5-4.5 USM, 100-300 f/4.5-5.6 USM, 20-35 f/3.5-4.5 USM, and, more recently, the EF 75-300 f/4-5.6 IS USM. These were good optical and mechanical quality, full-frame lenses, that retailed for well below $1000 in 2023 dollars. (I owned all of those examples except the 20-35).
I don't follow financial trends in the camera industry as closely as others around here. But my impression is that there isn't much of a middle left in the market. At the high end, there will always be photographic professionals who need the build quality or IQ of the professional grade gear. Many enthusiasts go for the pro gear as well.
There's been a conventional wisdom over the past 8 years or so that phone cameras have eliminated the low end in the dedicated camera market, but there appears to still be enough of that market for Canon to have maintained the M series for as long as they did, and now to be aggressively going after it with cameras like the R50 and R100.
So where does that leave those of us who consider ourselves hobbyists or enthusiasts, i.e., the middle? I fear we're a relatively large and vocal group in online equipment forums, but not such a big factor when it comes to product strategy for a company like Canon. Modern cameras and lenses are very expensive to develop and manufacture, and all of the camera companies need to show a good return on investment.
I can't find it now, but I recall one of the photo sites featured an interview with the CEO of Sigma a few years ago, where he also said that the low end has been eroded, and they are going to devote more of their future efforts on the high end (fast Art-series primes). It's not just Canon being greedy.
Upvote
0
100% - a 500 5.6, a 600 f6.3 with high quality optics in the mid single digit £k would fit the bill nicely for weight and value but I don’t want to switch from canon unless I get forced too. Btw I already have a 600 f4 but the bulk and weight for me are getting a bit much but I don’t want to sacrifice too much with regard to quality. Push comes to shove I’ll look at Z8 and their 600 but I’ll hold on another year or two
Upvote
0
What about the MTF figures at 500 mm focal length for the RF 200-800?
It would be very interesting to be able to compare the 500mm MTF charts between the RF 100-500 and the 200-800, as a zoom-lens usually presents better figures a bit below the maximum aperture.
Is there anyone out there that knows where to find such a chart?
It would be very interesting to be able to compare the 500mm MTF charts between the RF 100-500 and the 200-800, as a zoom-lens usually presents better figures a bit below the maximum aperture.
Is there anyone out there that knows where to find such a chart?
Upvote
0
The lens makers—all of them, not just Canon—usually just publish charts for the limits of the zoom range, not in the middle.
An independent reviewer, with the right lab setup could probably produce one. But that would be a single lens sample, and there’s no knowing if it would be the same conditions that Canon uses. And I think Canon’s charts are computed, not measured, so they’re probably average or “typical” figures. YMMV, as they say.
(EDIT: LensRentals has published MTF measurements for multiple copies of a few of their lenses, and there was noticeable variation.)
IMO, the best way to evaluate a lens for your needs is to look at images that other users are producing and posting in online forums. Personally, I don’t think I would make a purchase decision based on a difference of 0.03 at 17 mm in the sagittal line, for example.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
There's a huge difference between vignetting and simply having a limited image circle. I do see your point that they're a little similar in that in both cases less light is arriving than is desired, but that's not enough common ground to actually make it a productive discussion.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
