# Canon is developing more super-telephoto lenses [CR2]

#### pape2

##### EOS 90D
Big whites might be good investement ,this could be last generation never made. High megapixel fast fps cameras kill professional sport photographing fast.

#### Joules

##### doom
CR Pro

“ 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...

JohnC

#### privatebydesign

##### I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
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...
Regardless of what you think Merriam-Webster, the dictionary, defines the word as “a single value (such as mean, mode or median)......”

Joules

#### unfocused

##### EOS-1D X Mark III
In a forum dominated by pedantic debates, this is one of the most pedanticy debates I've seen.

#### Joules

##### doom
CR Pro
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.

#### JohnC

##### EOS RP
CR Pro
Fwiw I agree. Nothing I’ve ever seen calculation-wise has a different meaning for average. Open up a spreadsheet and use the average function...that’s the way it is calculated..sum of values divided by number of values.

#### privatebydesign

##### I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
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.

JohnC

#### john1970

##### EOS R5
CR Pro
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....

#### Bdbtoys

##### R5
CR Pro
In a forum dominated by pedantic debates, this is one of the most pedanticy debates I've seen.

I don't know about that, it's just an 'average' run of the mill debate here... (sorry, low hanging fruit here).

#### Joules

##### doom
CR Pro
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.

#### lnz

##### I'm New Here
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...
EF 500 f4 cost 9k so RF 500 should cost the same. I believe the 200-500 F4 will be between 13-15k

#### ERHP

##### EOS RP
CR Pro
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.

#### Bundu

##### EOS 90D
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.

ERHP

#### subtraho

##### Birds and Macro
CR Pro
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:
H. Jones and pape2

#### FrenchFry

##### Wildlife enthusiast!
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!

#### Bundu

##### EOS 90D
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.

chasingrealness

Replies
12
Views
10K
Replies
25
Views
9K
Replies
36
Views
9K
Replies
0
Views
779