Canon Introduces Three New Lenses, Enhancing Still Photography and Video Production for Any Skill Level

[Czardoom]

Is that massive tripod mount on the 200-800 really not removable? Definitely not a showstopper for me but I’d much prefer to have the option to take it off when not needed. Makes it much more bulky in a bag.

More bulky in the bag, but you might find that even if it were removable, you wouldn't. If you are like me and many others, you will rotate the tripod mount so it faces upward and use it to carry the lens. You will not want to carry this lens by holding the camera. Too heavy for that. My opinion anyway.

 

[Cochese]

This is about to be the most hater thing I\'ve ever posted on this website, but . . . Is it just me, or is the 24-105/2.8 just a touch ugly looking? Like, what is going on with the wide spacing of the marks on the focus ring? It looks like the EF 200/2.8 L II, released in 1996.

It looks just fine, what are you talking about?

 

[H. Jones]

More bulky in the bag, but you might find that even if it were removable, you wouldn't. If you are like me and many others, you will rotate the tripod mount so it faces upward and use it to carry the lens. You will not want to carry this lens by holding the camera. Too heavy for that. My opinion anyway.

Totally agree, it's also worth noting that the EF 100-400 F4.5-5.6L IS II caught some trouble over wobble in the tripod mount being removable. It can definitely be irritating to experience wobble at those extreme focal lengths, I'm sure the strongest way they could build this while making it affordable was to make it not removable.

Another note for the tripod ring is that there is a lens function button on the top of the ring itself, so there's at least one electrical contact in the tripod ring.

 

[Australisblue]

More bulky in the bag, but you might find that even if it were removable, you wouldn't. If you are like me and many others, you will rotate the tripod mount so it faces upward and use it to carry the lens. You will not want to carry this lens by holding the camera. Too heavy for that. My opinion anyway.

I do leave the mount on my RF 100-500 mostly as it is makes a good handle but the one on the 200-800 looks massive in a bag.. even if the foot could unclip quickly like I think I saw on the new RF 24-105 f/2.8 for storage.

 

[Eriknoteric]

It's not the first time they combined the 2 rings. Even the RF 50mm 1.8 has a combined ring.

I’ve never had the control ring / focus ring work properly on the 50 1.8. I always have to go into the camera settings and change it to manual focus in the menu. I really hope that the switch on the 200-800 works properly

 

[danfaz]

It looks just fine, what are you talking about?

Agreed, I think it looks great. Just an elongated version of the f/4...with some extra stuff.

 

[DhlcadR6]

With current firmware, does NOT work in still mode but DOES work in movie mode. Canon won't commit to whether a firmware upgrade for existing cameras would make it work in still mode, however it WILL work in still mode on future bodies.

There's still a multi-function customisable ring at the front of the lens...

Just rack up the iso and use decent RAW conversion that removes noise. Here are two shots from last weekend with the R5 + RF 100-500 at iso 10,000. These are tight crops, not reduced, which emphasise the effects of noise. I'll next post at ridiculously high iso.

Nice shots

 

[koenkooi]

I’ve never had the control ring / focus ring work properly on the 50 1.8. I always have to go into the camera settings and change it to manual focus in the menu. I really hope that the switch on the 200-800 works properly

That menu item can only be changed when you have a lens with a dual ring attached, I tend to get a nasty surprise when changing lenses and AF ‘suddenly’ doesn’t work anymore because 2 lens changes earlier I wanted to use MF.

 

[DhlcadR6]

Agreed, I think it looks great. Just an elongated version of the f/4...with some extra stuff.

View attachment 212672

Reminds me my old EF 80-200L f2.8...The father of all EF 70-200Ls

 

[Twinix]

Really missing an actual zoom rocker. That is what really makes zooming nice, not a preset speed (even though you can change the speed, I want to have it variable)

 

[MJ]

I'm sorry but the 200-800 to me does not appeal at all. It is yet another inexpensive smallish light RF telephoto lens with a pathetic narrow aperture.
Don't we already have enough of these? I mean RF 100-400, RF 600 and 800. And while not inexpensive, the RF 100-500 isn't exactly the brightest lens on the market (aperture wise).

Canon (and all other manufacturers) could definitely use some upper middle class priced small, light somewhat bright prime lenses. Nikon's PF lens approach is ingenious, featureing something handholdable, portable and usable for wildlife photographers, that is not cheap, but also not skyrocketing price wise. like the big telephoto primes.

It seems like Canon only focuses on great expensive lenses, or the really low end cheap and slow consumer lens "junk". Wheres the upper middle class? We used to have great inexpensive primes like EF 300mm f4l IS, 400mm f5.6L 200mm f2.8L etc.
They are still great, but not up to modern AF and IS standards, even on great cameras like the R5...

 

[Sigurd2]

I was thinking of pre-ordering an RF 200-800. But here in Norway this lens costs 46% more than in the US.

Right now the RF 100-500 L (after Cashback) is actually $95 USD cheaper than the RF 200-800 in this country.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Another note for the tripod ring is that there is a lens function button on the top of the ring itself, so there's at least one electrical contact in the tripod ring.

There is no button on the tripod ring that I can see. There is a knob to loosen the ring so it can rotate.

 

[[email protected]]

Here's a recent milky way shot - EF 16-35 f4. Sorry I couldn't upload the full sized one (8192x5464) as the forum couldn't digest it.

Dumb question: I've always had "peripheral exposure correction" unchecked because I like to do all the editing myself. Does this mean that I'm not getting the vignetting corrections from the lens? I've always assumed so. I've assumed that I've been free of those, but is there a correction layer I can't turn off?

 

[koenkooi]

Dumb question: I've always had "peripheral exposure correction" unchecked because I like to do all the editing myself. Does this mean that I'm not getting the vignetting corrections from the lens? I've always assumed so. I've assumed that I've been free of those, but is there a correction layer I can't turn off?

If you’re shooting RAW, those will only apply to the view in the EVF and the embedded JPEG thumbnail in the CR3.
Nothing will change the RAW, except for tv/av/iso.

 

[danfaz]

There is no button on the tripod ring that I can see. There is a knob to loosen the ring so it can rotate.

There is something on rhe other side of the ring, but i can't tell what it is.

 

[Czardoom]

I'm sorry but the 200-800 to me does not appeal at all. It is yet another inexpensive smallish light RF telephoto lens with a pathetic narrow aperture.
Don't we already have enough of these? I mean RF 100-400, RF 600 and 800. And while not inexpensive, the RF 100-500 isn't exactly the brightest lens on the market (aperture wise).

Canon (and all other manufacturers) could definitely use some upper middle class priced small, light somewhat bright prime lenses. Nikon's PF lens approach is ingenious, featureing something handholdable, portable and usable for wildlife photographers, that is not cheap, but also not skyrocketing price wise. like the big telephoto primes.

It seems like Canon only focuses on great expensive lenses, or the really low end cheap and slow consumer lens "junk". Wheres the upper middle class? We used to have great inexpensive primes like EF 300mm f4l IS, 400mm f5.6L 200mm f2.8L etc.
They are still great, but not up to modern AF and IS standards, even on great cameras like the R5...

Go buy a Nikon then. Simple solution. That pathetic narrow aperture is what makes this a less than $2000 lens and not a $6,000 to $10,000 lens (or more). The high ISO ability of new cameras makes these lenses totally usable in low light, and far more affordable to far more people. Sorry it doesn't include you.

 

[SwissFrank]

It's not an adequate solution because it's generally meaningless and not practical. In makes no sense in astro and it makes no sense when doing ETTR.

Thanks for the test image and while the center is also very noisy shadow, I agree the corners are even worse.

Still, why is it not an adequate solution? I've actually never tried shooting astro so maybe I'm just missing something. And what's ETTR?

Also part of my question is, is there some UWA lens that does NOT have significant vignetting? Does the alternative to software correction actually exist? I note you're using an EF 16-35/4 here, right? In fact I was thinking Canon's practice of "fixing" lenses in software was kind of new to the RF, and as it allows rear elements to practically kiss the sensor, it'd be expected to have more cos^4 vignetting than EF lenses. (That's when the angle from the exit pupil, which can be thought of as the rear element, but in fact optically can appear to be inside it, striking the sensor at a shallow angle, conveys much less force due to that angle.) In other words I thought people were arguing the RF reliance on software was worse than EF lenses, so I was surprised to see your example actually features an EF lens...

 

[SwissFrank]

AFAIK, there are 2 ways modern lenses / cameras deal with vignetting:

• traditionally the camera / software would brighten the corners to offset / mitigate vignetting. This could result in higher noise in the corners, and it would be more or less visible depending on exposure
• more recently, some lenses are made to be actually wider than declared fl, but with extremely dark corners. The camera / software crops / stretches the image eliminating the dark corners and increasing the fl to the declared fl of the lens. This will not affect noise but it will potentially reduce resolution in the corners due to stretching. Again, this may be very visible or very little. This approach is used with the RF 24-240 and 10-20 lenses, and possibly other wide zooms.

I think your description combines two different types of correction that aren't connected to each other.

Your first point is the only kind of vignetting correction, I think.

Your second point is not done for vignetting correction at all, but rather solely to fix distortion. On some lenses (16/2.8) you can't turn this off as the natural lens image doesn't even cover the whole sensor, I'd guess. But for other lenses that use this software distortion correction, I've never heard any discussion of using this correction not for the purpose of distortion but rather the purpose of getting rid of vignetting...

 

[roby17269]

I think your description combines two different types of correction that aren't connected to each other.

Your first point is the only kind of vignetting correction, I think.

Your second point is not done for vignetting correction at all, but rather solely to fix distortion. On some lenses (16/2.8) you can't turn this off as the natural lens image doesn't even cover the whole sensor, I'd guess. But for other lenses that use this software distortion correction, I've never heard any discussion of using this correction not for the purpose of distortion but rather the purpose of getting rid of vignetting...

Hmmm, having black corners because the lens' projected image circle does not fully cover the sensor is something I would call extreme vignetting.
Obviously in that case you cannot correct by brightening the corners since there is no data in there at all. Distortion correction is what you can do.
If that is not called vignetting, then you are right