Canon Patent Application: Let’s go long

[justaCanonuser]

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

If you include EF lenses, which still are great value and work perfectly with Canon's EF-RF converter, you really have a huge range of Canon lenses available.

 

[esglord]

If you include EF lenses, which still are great value and work perfectly with Canon's EF-RF converter, you really have a huge range of Canon lenses available.

For sure, that is the main reason I use Canon. I got good deals at various times on the ER 16-35 f/4, 100mm macro, and 85mm f/1.4 and will continue to use those whereas any other lenses I buy will likely only be RF

 

[Del Paso]

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.

Leica Classic are selling a Serenar 100mm f/2 in very good condition. I'm still tempted.
If I didn't already own the M 90 f/4 macro , the Summicron R 90 f/2, the Elmarit M 90 f/2,8 and also the Summilux M 75 f/1,4. But this Canon M 39 looks nice.
Nice to hear your wife shares your hobby!

 

[AccipiterQ]

I'd take that 300-600 on every birding trip I went on around the world, as well as safaris.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

It looks like Canon plan to replace most Big White primes with zooms.
That's a very promising concept IMHO.

For sporting events, it’s a great idea. Less so for wildlife. Most zooms are slightly short on their focal length. They usually loose focal length at min focus distance and then there’s the question of pleasing bokeh rendering. While I appreciate the flexibility of a zoom, it will need to be pretty special to make me part with my EF 400mm f2.8 LIS II.

 

[TexPhoto]

I shoot find sports with an R3 and an EF 200-400 f4 IS. And of course it has the 1.4x built in. Love that lens. Before that I had a 400mm f2.8 iS, and though I miss that stop of light the versatility of the zoom nets more good shots at the end of the day. Also with the 400mm f2.8 prime I felt I needed a 70-200 on a second body, and that was a huge expense.

It will be interesting to see If there is a true successor the 200-400. Some of these sound interesting.

 

[LuckyOne]

I currently have a 14-35 F4, a 24-105 F4, a 70-200 F4 and a 100-500 F4.5 - F7.1.

I have a R6MII with a R5MII due on 20.08.24.

I am just a hobbyist with reasonable but not unlimited resources with zero chance of selling a single image for $1 or more.

The most obvious lens upgrade for me is a 100-300 F4 and a 300-600 F4-F5.6. I know that the latter is not even part of the speculation.

I travel a lot and size, weight and cost are far more important to me than 1/3 to 2/3 of a stop of light.

I am excited to see what the future holds whether or not I buy more glass.

 

[AlanF]

For sporting events, it’s a great idea. Less so for wildlife. Most zooms are slightly short on their focal length. They usually loose focal length at min focus distance and then there’s the question of pleasing bokeh rendering. While I appreciate the flexibility of a zoom, it will need to be pretty special to make me part with my EF 400mm f2.8 LIS II.

The EF 400mm f2.8 LIS II is a cracking lens, super sharp - about the best out there. But, the loss of focal length of zooms at mfd is more than made up for by their much shorter mfds. At mfd the old EF 100-400mm II and the RF 100-500mm and even the el cheapo RF 100-400mm beat the 400mm prime hands down for magnification as its mfd is a relatively long 2.7m giving a poor magnification of 0.17x, about half that of the zooms. The new Canon zooms are not short on focal length - the 100-500mm is longer than and the 200-800mm twice as long as 400mm.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

The EF 400mm f2.8 LIS II is a cracking lens, super sharp - about the best out there. But, the loss of focal length of zooms at mfd is more than made up for by their much shorter mfds. At mfd the old EF 100-400mm II and the RF 100-500mm and even the el cheapo RF 100-400mm beat the 400mm prime hands down for magnification as its mfd is a relatively long 2.7m giving a poor magnification of 0.17x, about half that of the zooms. The new Canon zooms are not short on focal length - the 100-500mm is longer than and the 200-800mm twice as long as 400mm.

However, pop a 2x tc on the 400mm f2.8 and the max magnification doubles too. 0.34x isn’t too shabby and equal to a lot of the recent zooms.

 

[AlanF]

However, pop a 2x tc on the 400mm f2.8 and the max magnification doubles too. 0.34x isn’t too shabby and equal to a lot of the recent zooms.

You can just as well pop a 2xTC on the RF 100-500 and get up to 0.66x or 0.82x on the RF 100-400.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

You can just as well pop a 2xTC on the RF 100-500 and get up to 0.66x or 0.82x on the RF 100-400.

This is also true. However the image quality on the zooms is somewhat less with a 2x than it is with the prime. The 1.4x is still pretty good though.

The optical patent for the 300mm f4 macro looks amazing...with a R7, that would yeild a superlative 500mm (ish) 1x macro lens...unique and game changing and it'll put all the other Primes and Zooms with their (0.17-0.33) magnification ratios to perspective. I can see this lens becoming a "must have" if it's every produced.

I'm not knocking the RF zooms, they are amazing optics. If I was in the market for a replacement of my EF 100-400IIL, the RF 100-500L would be top of my list. For me, the 200-800 is an amazingly versatile and flexible optic, but it's a lens that I just don't need. I might be interested in a 200-600/f6.3 if Canon ever built a lightweight version. At home in wiltshire I'm using my 100-400IIL a lot with out converters. When I'm in Sri Lanka, I'm using it with the 1.4x TC pretty much all of the time. (140-560/f8). Partially due to the massive amount of light here...and partically because how far away everything is. Birds here are very shy and scared of humans. I'm using my 400/2.8 II LIS mostly with my 2x TC attached and it makes a rather fine 800mm f5.6 which is sharp wide open. My adapted EF 100-400IIL with a 1.4x TC makes a great companion to my larger Prime.

From the list of patents shown here, the 400/2.8 - 600/f4 is the most attractive to me. It's basically a 400mm f2.8 with an internally zoomable 0x -2x TC. Potentially, it could be the last word in wild life optics. However, there's a lot more to wildlife lenses than just sharpness, focal length and MFD.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

You can just as well pop a 2xTC on the RF 100-500 and get up to 0.66x or 0.82x on the RF 100-400.

Here's a recent photo from my EF 400mm f2.8 LIS II and a 2X TC III. Close to MFD, minimal cropping on a R6ii:



The issue when shooting dragonlies with this beast is the unweildy nature of such a large lens. Hand held, It's also good at scaring off Kingfishers as well.

 

[AlanF]

Here's a recent photo from my EF 400mm f2.8 LIS II and a 2X TC III. Close to MFD, minimal cropping on a R6ii:
View attachment 218861


The issue when shooting dragonlies with this beast is the unweildy nature of such a large lens. Hand held, It's also good as scaring off Kind fishers as well.

We have a thread for dragonfly enthusiasts https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/threads/dragonflies-and-damselflies.35543/ and there are more than 120 pages of super images of dragonflies taken with zooms. This is the type of resolution you can get with an RF 100-400 on an R7 (top) and the resolution and image quality of a RF 100-500mm with a 2xTC at 1000mm on an R5 (bottom 3).

 

[AlanF]

This discussion of EF 400/2.8 vs RF 100-400mm reminds me of a story about when Richard the Lionheart met Saladin in the Crusades (both noble warriors). Richard tried to impress Saladin by drawing his English broadsword and cleaving a huge rock in two. Saladin drew his razor sharp Damascus steel scimitar and sliced a silk cushion in two and challenged Richard to do the same. Horses for courses.

 

[birdman916]

Why would you assume that?
They would be expensive but I do not think they require some far away technology.
Now, if you are referring to how slowly Canon is filling out their lineup or how long it takes them to fulfill preorders then years away is probably an understatement.

Perhaps you are right! I guess I was basing that on the 200-500f4 never releasing

 

[GMCPhotographics]

This discussion of EF 400/2.8 vs RF 100-400mm reminds me of a story about when Richard the Lionheart met Saladin in the Crusades (both noble warriors). Richard tried to impress Saladin by drawing his English broadsword and cleaving a huge rock in two. Saladin drew his razor sharp Damascus steel scimitar and sliced a silk cushion in two and challenged Richard to do the same. Horses for courses.

The R7 is great for macro and close up work. A friend of mine has an amazing porfolio of fungi / flower photos using the R7 and a 180mm Macro. That 1.62x extra reach is so useful. I've not tried a RF 100-400, but I love the versatility and relative ease the RF 100-500 offers. With or without a 1.4x TC, with a R5/R6 or R7.
It's the results that matter. I'm convinced that a RF 100-500L is going to allow a photographer to appraoch a dragon fly much more stealthily than I ever could with the 400/2.8. With the hood, it's a bit of a monster to hand hold and those bugs are skittish.
Thank you for bringing this dragon fly gallery to my attention. I didn't know it existed. I'll see if I can take some more worthy photos to add to the gallery. I'm only out here in Sri Lanka for a few more days.

 

[AlanF]

The R7 is great for macro and close up work. A friend of mine has an amazing porfolio of fungi / flower photos using the R7 and a 180mm Macro. That 1.62x extra reach is so useful. I've not tried a RF 100-400, but I love the versatility and relative ease the RF 100-500 offers. With or without a 1.4x TC, with a R5/R6 or R7.
It's the results that matter. I'm convinced that a RF 100-500L is going to allow a photographer to appraoch a dragon fly much more stealthily than I ever could with the 400/2.8. With the hood, it's a bit of a monster to hand hold and those bugs are skittish.
Thank you for bringing this dragon fly gallery to my attention. I didn't know it existed. I'll see if I can take some more worthy photos to add to the gallery. I'm only out here in Sri Lanka for a few more days.

Best of luck and enjoy Sri Lanka! For dragonflies in flight you absolutely need a very light lens to be able to move it fast enough unless the dragonfly hovers in one place for ages.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

Best of luck and enjoy Sri Lanka! For dragonflies in flight you absolutely need a very light lens to be able to move it fast enough unless the dragonfly hovers in one place for ages.

I'm here in Sri Lanka for my Father's funeral and post death arrangements. It's a very sad occasion and I'm going to miss him very much.
The only blessing is that I have a few hours each morning free and there's a large paddy field nearby...so I brought my gear on the hope that i would get some time to shoot stuff. There's a few local White Throated King fishers here, but they are really shy. However I've got some portfolio worthy shot of them that I'm really happy with.
The local Dragon Flies are an unexpected bonus for me. I hadn't gone looking for them specifically, but one landed right in front of me and I had my large rig attached at the time. I didn't want to spook it by swapping out my large rig for my 100-400IIL, so I gave it a go. I was suprised how well they turned out. Weilding such a big rig through isn't easy and the bugs get spooked easily by the kit. The MFD with a 2x was a genuine suprise, as was the image quality.

Dragon flies in flight...not a chance with my 400L and 2x combo! Maybe with my 100-400IIL native, but I think it would be a challenging and frustrating activity. One of the few weaknesses of the 100-400IIL is that the AF can be a little sticky and it doesn't rack as well as some of my other EF lenses. I find that I often need to give it a Manual Focus nudge when it's close to MFD and it kind if wakes up and locks on and tracks. With a 1.4x TC III it's slightly worse. Natively, it's quite fast but pales next to the RF 100-500L. If often wondered how people get the dragon flies in flight shots...it's in this genre where the RF 100-500L's AF speed and accuracy shines against the older pedestrian EF100-400IIL.

 

[EricN]

I've just started saving with an unknown intensity.
Some zooms would fit so well in my equipment that I'd be unable to resist...

Canon has been so seductive with their optical advances... I'm swooning in anticipation... how can anyone resist?

 

[john1970]

Also, the 300-600 is f/2.8-4.5.

Agree. Depending on the F-stop at 400 mm and the weight I would seriously consider replacing my 400 mm f2.8 lens with such a design.