Canon is developing more super-telephoto lenses [CR2]

Joules

doom
CR Pro
Jul 16, 2017
1,801
2,241
Hamburg, Germany

“ In statistics, mean, median, and mode are all known as measures of central tendency, and in colloquial usage any of these might be called an average value.”

I’m sure you will understand I was not, to my knowledge, addressing a group of statisticians.
Regardless of what Wikipedia thinks the colloquial term means, looking up average calculation gives a first page for ways and online calculators for the mean. And I would think even if there are people who associate average with anything other than the mean, they are in the minority. But it is good to know that there's ambiguity around the word average, so it should probably not be used at all when discussing numbers.

On a side node, why does the word 'mean' have so many meanings attached as well? To be mean, to mean something, the mean of something... :unsure:
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

privatebydesign

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jan 29, 2011
10,674
6,118
Regardless of what Wikipedia thinks the colloquial term means, looking up average calculation gives a first page for ways and online calculators for the mean. And I would think even if there are people who associate average with anything other than the mean, they are in the minority. But it is good to know that there's ambiguity around the word average, so it should probably not be used at all when discussing numbers.

On a side node, why does the word 'mean' have so many meanings attached as well? To be mean, to mean something, the mean of something... :unsure:
Regardless of what you think Merriam-Webster, the dictionary, defines the word as “a single value (such as mean, mode or median)......”


DB6C40DC-CAFA-4955-908A-94C1F60FAA1B.jpeg
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

Joules

doom
CR Pro
Jul 16, 2017
1,801
2,241
Hamburg, Germany
Regardless of what you think Merriam-Webster, the dictionary, defines the word as “a single value (such as mean, mode or median)......”


View attachment 197067
I'm simply a fan of clarity. I wasn't aware that average could be interpreted as anything other than the sum of values divided by the number of them. When it comes to definitions, mathematics beats natural languages by a long shot in terms of clarity and consistency. But for practical purposes of course Wikipedia or common dictionaries are the relevant sources of information. So it is easy to be misunderstood when using the term average with a specific mathematical meaning in mind, when everybody reading it can apparently just substitute their own meaning for the word.

There being any sort of ambiguity about the meaning of this word is enough reason for me to not use it. After all, if it is stated alongside a number, the calculation of that number should be clear. I'm glad you brought it up.
 
Upvote 0

privatebydesign

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jan 29, 2011
10,674
6,118
You guys can pontificate and prevaricate as much as you like, you were all still incorrect. My use of the word ‘average’ was entirely consistent with its dictionary definition.

But even then, in this instance, the difference between what value you are using for average is not really that relevant, even though I was using the value I was told I should be using! The point was ‘average’ people don’t earn enough disposable income to afford one big white lens a year. None of you disagree with the comment you are just pissing against the wind at my correct use of the word average!

Go take some pictures.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

john1970

EOS R3
CR Pro
Dec 27, 2015
572
732
Northeastern US
I'm not talking about EF-glass. With a surcharge the RF 200-500 (maybe without internal TC?) might cost 12-13k; RF 500 4.0 11.5k? This price gap wouldn't be so big...
Assuming that you are quoting USD I really hope the new RF 500 mm f4 cost ~$10K, which is $1000 increase over the EF version. Time will tell....
 
Upvote 0

Joules

doom
CR Pro
Jul 16, 2017
1,801
2,241
Hamburg, Germany
You guys can pontificate and prevaricate as much as you like, you were all still incorrect. My use of the word ‘average’ was entirely consistent with its dictionary definition.

But even then, in this instance, the difference between what value you are using for average is not really that relevant, even though I was using the value I was told I should be using! The point was ‘average’ people don’t earn enough disposable income to afford one big white lens a year. None of you disagree with the comment you are just pissing against the wind at my correct use of the word average!

Go take some pictures.
Never meant to say you're wrong. It's just that you being right in referring to a median by the word average is surprising to me, and probably a lot of people overall. Statistics don't lie, but people lie with statistics, and all that.

I'm all with you when it comes to how many big whites one typically buys in a year. Perhaps there's something wrong with the definition there as well, otherwise I don't see how that's even something to disagree with.

Anyway,I'll gladly adjust my average pissing direction elsewhere now, thanks.
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0

Bundu

EOS 90D
Nov 24, 2014
100
42
South Africa
Canon definitely made it hard for me to be excited about the 'new' 600. A 200-500 f/4 though, especially with Mr Flippy 1.4X, would definitely have my pre-order interest.
I have a 600 and 400 both on R5 bodies. But it really is a pain to swap one lens quickly for the other in a vehicle as most of my photography is from a vehicle. (Most parks in Africa you are not allowed to walk around, and most of the time you do not want to, big 5 territory) A 200-500 f4 with 1.4 tc will be my dream lens, even if it is a bit heavy and bulky. I have a 100-500 for the handheld stuff.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

subtraho

Birds and Macro
CR Pro
Nov 20, 2018
38
68
Maryland
twitter.com
Everyone seems fixated on the zoom (and for good reason, it sounds pretty sweet) but honestly as a bird photographer with back issues I'm more excited for that RF 400 f/4 DO. The current EF model is pretty lightweight, and if the RF maintains the weight and quality (plus takes a TC well) it seems like it could be decently-performing handholdable 560 f/5.6 or 800 f/8.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0

FrenchFry

Wildlife enthusiast!
Jun 14, 2020
463
583
Hi,

Do you have any sense of whether these two lenses (Canon RF 400mm f/4 DO IS USM & Canon RF 200-500mm f/4L IS USM) would be in addition to or instead of the previously rumored Canon RF 500mm f/4 and Canon RF 300mm f/2.8 (maybe zoom)?

Any sense of the relative timing of these lenses' announcements and/or when they would be hitting the market?

What makes the 500mm lens "roadmap-worthy" as compared to the other three lenses, which are not in the roadmap?

Thanks!
 
Upvote 0

Bundu

EOS 90D
Nov 24, 2014
100
42
South Africa
With all the new RF lenses on the way soon I had to check in on this thread quickly. Still lusting after a 200-500 f4 with 1.4 tc. Hope we hear some more news on this in 2021. I have the 200-400 but is not really convinced that image quality is better than my 100-500. Autofocus is definately slower. The only thing going for it is it's low light capabilities.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0