Canon Patent Application: Let’s go long

[SonicStudios]

Wow, I'm good with with a 400-600. Having the 100-300, the 400-600 would be my next purchase. I do indoor/outdoor sports and airshows and ordered the R5II and R1, looking forward to the 100-300 photo/video results on those bodies.

 

[Richard CR]

Obviously it's not like suddenly the website is a pile of trash, it's extremely far from that, but it is a change of direction, it's the fact that the contents are not impartial.

you must be confusing this site with another one.

I don't think we've ever made the claim to be "impartial" and you are certainly cherry picking if you think we don't spend a lot of time and effort criticizing Canon. have you read anything that I've written lately that has the word R100 in it?

We are cautious on our rumors, but on other stuff - every now and then we are completely allowed to go into fanboy mode and why wouldn't we be - the site is all about Canon - it's not about mirrorless or the industry overall. Craig uses Canon gear since the dawn of digital (not sure about film) and I've used Canon since film days.

As a matter of fact, that's why Craig brought me on board - one of my tasks is be hyper-critical about Canon when I see fit, and I have. But there has to be a balance for our readership as well to that.

 

[Richard CR]

Wow, I'm good with with a 400-600. Having the 100-300, the 400-600 would be my next purchase. I do indoor/outdoor sports and airshows and ordered the R5II and R1, looking forward to the 100-300 photo/video results on those bodies.

assuming the quality is there and with a limited zoom range it probably would be - it's basically a 400mm F2.8 and a 600mm F4 rolled up into one.

 

[Richard CR]

And if this 70-300 f/4 accepted an extender.... My future lens (if ever produced!)

by the looks of the back focus distance - yes.

if you see the back focus distance around ~20mm or less, then no official canon extenders could use it - but if it's much more relaxed aka 30-40mm, then there's a good chance that they would.

Of course Canon could nerf things - but it would be compelling in some cases to get a 140-600mm - especially if you are only working with 24MP which doesn't stress lenses nearly as much.

 

[esglord]

300-600 or 400-600 would be pretty slick. I’d never be willing to part with the requisite cash for either, but I’d add it to the cart at midnight after several whiskeys, engage in an internal, existential debate, and be saved from myself only when my phone exhausts its charge before clicking buy.

 

[Richard CR]

300-600 or 400-600 would be pretty slick. I’d never be willing to part with the requisite cash for either, but I’d add it to the cart at midnight after several whiskeys, engage in an internal, existential debate, and be saved from myself only when my phone exhausts its charge before clicking buy.

or put it in preorder and watch it breathlessly until the nanosecond before they are ready to commit the order then cancel.

 

[justaCanonuser]

It looks like Canon plan to replace most Big White primes with zooms.
That's a very promising concept IMHO.In fact I am a prime fan, because primes force you to frame and compose more creatively,

In fact I am a prime fan, because a prime forces you to think in a more creative way about framing and composing an image. When you study photography in a classical way, that's why teachers will force you to use primes for a while to train your skills.

That said, supertele photography is a different world, at least in my personal experience over decades. First, you often cannot move freely around to get the optimum angle of view and distance for a good shot, e.g. when you are sitting hidden in a camouflage tent or you have just a small gap in a thicket to peer through. So a zoom gives here much more flexibility. Plus, given the small angle of view at very long focal lengths the option to zoom is a real help. I think all of you supertele shooters here (birders) exactly know what I mean.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

I think we can be sure that at least no 500mm f/4 prime update from Canon will ever come. The main original reason for the fast 500mm prime line was the fact, that the original 600mm f/4 lenses were extremely heavy.

Compared to what an RF 500 f/4 would be, the RF 600 f/4 is still extremely heavy.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

assuming the quality is there and with a limited zoom range it probably would be - it's basically a 400mm F2.8 and a 600mm F4 rolled up into one.

Also a 500 f/3.5

 

[P-visie]

In fact I am a prime fan, because a prime forces you to think in a more creative way about framing and composing an image. When you study photography in a classical way, that's why teachers will force you to use primes for a while to train your skills.

That said, supertele photography is a different world, at least in my personal experience over decades. First, you often cannot move freely around to get the optimum angle of view and distance for a good shot, e.g. when you are sitting hidden in a camouflage tent or you have just a small gap in a thicket to peer through. So a zoom gives here much more flexibility. Plus, given the small angle of view at very long focal lengths the option to zoom is a real help. I think all of you supertele shooters here (birders) exactly know what I mean.

Yes, a zoom with 300mm or 400mm lens would be ideal for bird photography from hides where the distance to the subject is shorter than in the great wide open and where 500mm or 600mm is sometimes too long. The zoom’s shorter focal lengths can also be used for showing the subject in it’s environment.

 

[Del Paso]

In fact I am a prime fan, because a prime forces you to think in a more creative way about framing and composing an image. When you study photography in a classical way, that's why teachers will force you to use primes for a while to train your skills.

That said, supertele photography is a different world, at least in my personal experience over decades. First, you often cannot move freely around to get the optimum angle of view and distance for a good shot, e.g. when you are sitting hidden in a camouflage tent or you have just a small gap in a thicket to peer through. So a zoom gives here much more flexibility. Plus, given the small angle of view at very long focal lengths the option to zoom is a real help. I think all of you supertele shooters here (birders) exactly know what I mean.

I was particularly thinking of sports photographers who often need to adapt quickly to changing situations.
A zoom can be very helpful.
Or, when hiking in difficult landscapes or climatic conditions, not having to change lenses is a huge advantage.
In a distant past, I often used my Telyt 560mm. But when I changed into digital, and bought the EF 100-400mm L, I was more than happy with the flexibility it did confer. And with a 1,4 X extender, I still got my 560mm.
Of course, the Telyt with the Apo 1,4X gave me 800mm...

 

[justaCanonuser]

In a distant past, I often used my Telyt 560mm. But when I changed into digital, and bought the EF 100-400mm L, I was more than happy with the flexibility it did confer. And with a 1,4 X extender, I still got my 560mm.
Of course, the Telyt with the Apo 1,4X gave me 800mm...

Just because this made my curious: was it a Leitz telyt 560mm? And do you also like to sometimes shoot landscape with tele lenses? I do, and this is indeed another advantage of carrying a tele zoom in the backpack.

 

[justaCanonuser]

Compared to what an RF 500 f/4 would be, the RF 600 f/4 is still extremely heavy.

That's the question I asked myself when I wrote that post. Since a 500/4 wouldn't be much shorter with standard lenses, and those wouldn't be much smaller to support f=4, I doubt that Canon could create a miracle of a, say, 2 kg lens. The only way to achieve this would be a DO version, and extending the current 400mm f/4 DO would indeed be an interesting option. Then, this would set such a 500mm lens so much apart of the 600mm f/4 that it might make sense in the market. Not sure about the price level, bigger DO lenses may be quite costly to produce.

 

[esglord]

or put it in preorder and watch it breathlessly until the nanosecond before they are ready to commit the order then cancel.

Ha, i never preorder. I’m more of a want it for a few years and then impulse buy it the second there is a good refurbished sale guy. I stopped mid conversation at a bar with coworker friends a couple months ago to order the 50 f/1.2L and I then looked up a minute later and was like, hey what are we talking about now?

 

[justaCanonuser]

300-600 or 400-600 would be pretty slick. I’d never be willing to part with the requisite cash for either, but I’d add it to the cart at midnight after several whiskeys, engage in an internal, existential debate, and be saved from myself only when my phone exhausts its charge before clicking buy.

LOL! I really feel sick when I buy expensive photo gear in the days after, too, but luckily most of my more expensive decisions were finally rewarding. So, if you can afford it, do it. Life is too short to hesitate

 

[esglord]

LOL! I really feel sick when I buy expensive photo gear in the days after, too, but luckily most of my more expensive decisions were finally rewarding. So, if you can afford it, do it. Life is too short to hesitate

Yeah, there is definitely always the “what have I done?” feeling. Steady resale values are important for calming the panic

 

[justaCanonuser]

Yeah, there is definitely always the “what have I done?” feeling. Steady resale values are important for calming the panic

That's true. I currently experienced again that 3rd party lenses, even in nearly mint state, lose much more value than original Canon glass (if it is L glass, of course). So that's another reason to put more money into the gear game.

 

[esglord]

That's true. I currently experienced again that 3rd party lenses, even in nearly mint state, lose much more value than original Canon glass (if it is L glass, of course). So that's another reason to put more money into the gear game.

Yeah, at these point I think Canon offers most anything I’d want anyway even though there are other great lens offerings

 

[Del Paso]

Just because this made my curious: was it a Leitz telyt 560mm? And do you also like to sometimes shoot landscape with tele lenses? I do, and this is indeed another advantage of carrying a tele zoom in the backpack.

It was (is) indeed the fast focusing Telyt 560mm. I carried it disassembled in a home-modified Lowepro Magnum, and, whenever needed, quickly reassembled it.
Or, in US National Parks,I kept it fully assembled and mounted on a body. on the backseat of my car.
But I used it exclusively for wildlife. Due to its optical 3 lens formula, only the center offered a high degree of sharpness. So, for landscapes, not really usable.
Yet, for wildlife in those AF-less times, focusing was very fast, with the front lens-group sliding on rails.
Sharpness wise, Canon's big whites play in a different league but are also from a different epoch!
Nowadays, my wife not being really patient, I more or less quit photographing wildlife, and use my teles almost exclusively for landscapes and macros. ( )

 

[justaCanonuser]

It was (is) indeed the fast focusing Telyt 560mm. I carried it disassembled in a home-modified Lowepro Magnum, and, whenever needed, quickly reassembled it.
Or, in US National Parks,I kept it fully assembled and mounted on a body. on the backseat of my car.
But I used it exclusively for wildlife. Due to its optical 3 lens formula, only the center offered a high degree of sharpness. So, for landscapes, not really usable.
Yet, for wildlife in those AF-less times, focusing was very fast, with the front lens-group sliding on rails.
Sharpness wise, Canon's big whites play in a different league but are also from a different epoch!
Nowadays, my wife not being really patient, I more or less quit photographing wildlife, and use my teles almost exclusively for landscapes and macros. ( )

Ah, the classic Telyt, I learned that many wildlife photographers in the manual focus era loved it because you could focus it much faster than a rotating focus. In my collection, I have the complete opposite but also much shorter tele lens: Canon's vintage 100mm f/2.0 Serenar with Leica's M39 threat mount. I still use it sometimes for street photography with a Canon 7 rangefinder, it's fun. It can be focused so precisely that I get suprisingly frequent in-focus shots even at f=2 (camera needs to be serviced, of course), but I have to screw and screw and screw - so the best thing is to pre-focus and work within that distance range (the classic way of doing street)... Well, the results are really rewarding, with a wonderful mix of vintage charm, great bokeh and a center sharpness that is much better than the lens generations before. All those vintage lenses are not up to today's sharpness, but with a nice film grain they can be wonderful.

Sorry to read that you had to quit wildlife! I am really happy that my wife shares the same interest, so we shoot side by side and enjoy the setting.