Canon Patent Application: Lightweight Telelphotos

[neuroanatomist]

How dare Nikon make a fast tele way less expensive than Canon.... The hubris....

So now f/5.6 and f/6.3 are fast? Oh, I guess that makes sense in the context of statements on this forum that 600/6.3 is perfect but 500/7.1 is unusable.

 

[HMC11]

In my use case, where I do long hikes, the lighter the lens the better, assuming that the IQ is good enough for me. The 100-500L provides practically peak IQ performance right from wide open throughout its zoom range. Stopping down improves things only slightly. If these new lenses perform similarly, then the smaller appetures will be fairly usable, as they would still allow for 2-3 stops down before diffraction kicks in. Also, for wildlife photography, my preference is to have more of the subject in focus, so would often stop down to F9-11 anyway depending on the subject distance and focal lengths. So overall, I am excited to hear about these lenses, until the prices are published, that is.

 

[EricN]

So overall, I am excited to hear about these lenses, until the prices are published, that is.

I think I can accept it if it's under $3,500 and under 3kg

 

[AlanF]

I think I can accept it if it's under $3,500 and under 3kg

Under $2500 and under 2kg for me. Might compromise on the price.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

The loss of sharpness by diffraction is usually overstated. The diffraction limited apertures as listed on the digital picture, for example, ignore the Bayer filter and any low-pass filter, which make it larger in practice as it is not the size of a single pixel that determines resolution but it's of the array. A simple way of visualising the effects is to look at the MTF values vs apertures as measured by people like opticallimits.com. Below is their chart for the RF 85mm f/2 on the R5. You can see that the value at f/11 is still 85% of the maximum at f/4. They have measured the 800 f/11 and it's the same as the 85mm at f/11. And, if you want a real shock, the sharpness of the RF 800mm f/11 shown on the digital picture looks looks better in the centre than the RF 800mm f/5.6. https://www.the-digital-picture.com...ensComp=1513&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

View attachment 211492

While I agree that DLA is an overstated observation, it will become a larger issue as MP / sensor resolution increases. From your chart above, the difference in resoluton between f8 and f11 is discernable, observable and puts the lens in the Excellent category @f8 and "Very Good" at f11. By F16...it's in the upper end of "Good". These effects will only increase with sensor resolution.

I also agree with you that the alias filters affect optical resolution and charts significantly. Canon have been weakening their alias filters on the R mount cameras for some time. A lot of percieved sharpenss using the later cameras (R5/R3/R6ii/R8) is due to the reduceed AA filter's power and alias frequency.

However, Shoot a landscape with a sharp lens (like a EF 11-24mm) on a r6ii and then do the same on a R5. Ideally at 11mm to maximise DOF. Shoot one set at F5.6 and another frame at F22. Compare the results...the R5 will show more softness due to DLA and lens difraction than the R6ii image. Then compare the images are F5.6 and the sharpness results are extrordinary. This is why a lot of landsacp photographers using R5's are choosing to focus stack at larger apertures so they can stack the DOF they desire and retain the larger aperture sharpness.

DLA is slowly creeping in to our workflow as resolution increases. It's not the diffration apocolypse that was prophecied but it is creeping in.

Your comments about the RF 800mm f5.6...it's a poor choice of an example because it's not a native 800mm deisgn. We we all know that it's really a EF 400mm f2.8 LIS III with a built in EF to RF 2x TC. From my experience with that series of lenses and a 2x TC...drop 1/3 of a stop and the sharpness and contrast bumps right back...just as TDP charts show. By f6.3 is already sharper than the 800mm f11 and then by f8 there is simply no comparision.

 

[AlanF]

While I agree that DLA is an overstated observation, it will become a larger issue as MP / sensor resolution increases. From your chart above, the difference in resoluton between f8 and f11 is discernable, observable and puts the lens in the Excellent category @f8 and "Very Good" at f11. By F16...it's in the upper end of "Good". These effects will only increase with sensor resolution.

I also agree with you that the alias filters affect optical resolution and charts significantly. Canon have been weakening their alias filters on the R mount cameras for some time. A lot of percieved sharpenss using the later cameras (R5/R3/R6ii/R8) is due to the reduceed AA filter's power and alias frequency.

However, Shoot a landscape with a sharp lens (like a EF 11-24mm) on a r6ii and then do the same on a R5. Ideally at 11mm to maximise DOF. Shoot one set at F5.6 and another frame at F22. Compare the results...the R5 will show more softness due to DLA and lens difraction than the R6ii image. Then compare the images are F5.6 and the sharpness results are extrordinary. This is why a lot of landsacp photographers using R5's are choosing to focus stack at larger apertures so they can stack the DOF they desire and retain the larger aperture sharpness.

DLA is slowly creeping in to our workflow as resolution increases. It's not the diffration apocolypse that was prophecied but it is creeping in.

Your comments about the RF 800mm f5.6...it's a poor choice of an example because it's not a native 800mm deisgn. We we all know that it's really a EF 400mm f2.8 LIS III with a built in EF to RF 2x TC. From my experience with that series of lenses and a 2x TC...drop 1/3 of a stop and the sharpness and contrast bumps right back...just as TDP charts show. By f6.3 is already sharper than the 800mm f11 and then by f8 there is simply no comparision.

The discussion was about the effect of narrow aperture Canon lenses on diffraction and the loss of IQ, and I specifically made my comments about f/11, the narrowest aperture RF lens, vs f/4 as only a 15% loss in resolution for very good optical lens, the RF 85mm f/2. Of course if you go down to f/22 it's going to tend to double the loss of resolution. And why stop there - you could go down to f/44 and lose another factor of 2.

What I wrote about the 800s was: "And, if you want a real shock, the sharpness of the RF 800mm f/11 shown on the digital picture looks looks better in the centre than the RF 800mm f/5.6. https://www.the-digital-picture.com...ensComp=1513&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0" Isn't it a shock that a £1000 lens at f/11 is as sharp as a £19000 one at f/5.6? If you look at the numbers in the chart I posted, you will see that you would expect only a 12% loss in resolution due to diffraction on going from f/5.6 to f/11 so that f/11 should be pretty close to the 800/5.6 when both are optically perfect. We are talking about the effects of diffraction, but as an aside as you raised the matter, don't you think it a bit of a shock that you have to stop down to f/8 for a £19000 lens to overtake a £1000 f/11 one and waste half the area of the front of the lens and all that extra weight as well as the money in making it?

 

[blackcoffee17]

So now f/5.6 and f/6.3 are fast? Oh, I guess that makes sense in the context of statements on this forum that 600/6.3 is perfect but 500/7.1 is unusable.

People conveniently forget the 150-600 6.3 type zooms weigh 50% more than the 100-500.

 

[blackcoffee17]

The discussion was about the effect of narrow aperture Canon lenses on diffraction and the loss of IQ, and I specifically made my comments about f/11, the narrowest aperture RF lens, vs f/4 as only a 15% loss in resolution for very good optical lens, the RF 85mm f/2. Of course if you go down to f/22 it's going to tend to double the loss of resolution. And why stop there - you could go down to f/44 and lose another factor of 2.

What I wrote about the 800s was: "And, if you want a real shock, the sharpness of the RF 800mm f/11 shown on the digital picture looks looks better in the centre than the RF 800mm f/5.6. https://www.the-digital-picture.com...ensComp=1513&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0" Isn't it a shock that a £1000 lens at f/11 is as sharp as a £19000 one at f/5.6? If you look at the numbers in the chart I posted, you will see that you would expect only a 12% loss in resolution due to diffraction on going from f/5.6 to f/11 so that f/11 should be pretty close to the 800/5.6 when both are optically perfect. We are talking about the effects of diffraction, but as an aside as you raised the matter, don't you think it a bit of a shock that you have to stop down to f/8 for a £19000 lens to overtake a £1000 f/11 one and waste half the area of the front of the lens and all that extra weight as well as the money in making it?

The only problem with the 800 F11 is the HUGE minimum focusing distance.

 

[AlanF]

The only problem with the 800 F11 is the HUGE minimum focusing distance.

It's a real problem, which is a major reason why I wouldn't take one on a regular hike and I far, far prefer one of my RF zooms. The other for me is that 800mm too difficult for BIF and its AF isn't that fast. But, when I know I specifically will be taking distant subjects, I do use it.

 

[ruralmontanan]

You guys really are drinking the koolaid in here. Canon just keeps slowly moving the bar and charging us more for the privilege and you guys have convinced yourselves it’s brilliant somehow. Might be time to step back from the bubble and reevaluate. I shoot all brands at this point and you guys are acting like brand shills. F/9 is ridiculous. Look at what Nikon is doing with their PFs and it’s obvious Canon just doesn’t want to compete on price or undercut their already overpriced primes. Nikon has shown it can be done—quality glass, low price, one stop slower—in this mid-tier category of super teles. I’ll stick with theirs and you guys can shoot these at noon with harsh light. Maybe chase some squirrels or a BIF against a bright blue sky like those f/11s. No thanks. Canon is holding back on purpose.

 

[scyrene]

Just when I thought f/7.1 was bad. “Hold my beer,” says Canon. “We’re moving the bar higher…again!”

So 400 f/4.5 would also be a joke? And yet the venerable EF 400 f/5.6 is still highly regarded, even without IS. Do you actually use long lenses?

 

[scyrene]

I remember when f/5.6 was slow.
I realize that camera AF systems are way ahead of those of the past in terms of operating with low light, but the ISO/shutter speed/Aperture triangle hasn't changed.
Won't even mention bokeh.

What aperture do you think this is? Bokeh looks ok to me.

(it's f/11)

 

[AlanF]

So 400 f/4.5 would also be a joke? And yet the venerable EF 400 f/5.6 is still highly regarded, even without IS. Do you actually use long lenses?

What do you do with these guys who make, for example, abusive comments about both the aperture of lenses and the folks who use them? Their level of nasty language increases with their level of ignorance. Easiest to ignore them but that allows myths to propagate.

 

[scyrene]

Count me as another who'd be very interested in the 200-800 zoom. I'd keep my 800 f/11 though, because the secondhand price has plummeted so it would scarcely be worth trading in.

 

[AlanF]

Count me as another who'd be very interested in the 200-800 zoom. I'd keep my 800 f/11 though, because the secondhand price has plummeted so it would scarcely be worth trading in.

A 800 prime with long mfd is a niche lens. However, as the f/11 is so light, you can go on a hike with it in a backpack and have the RF 100-400 on your camera and have quite a distance range at your disposal with less total lens weight than the current crop of 200 zooms. The Nikon 800/6.3 does look a very nice lens and I've seen quite a few around. But, its mfd of 5m means I would use it only as specialised but not a general lens. I'd get a 200-800mm if it's not too heavy and expensive.

 

[neuroanatomist]

You guys really are drinking the koolaid in here. Canon just keeps slowly moving the bar and charging us more for the privilege and you guys have convinced yourselves it’s brilliant somehow. Might be time to step back from the bubble and reevaluate. I shoot all brands at this point and you guys are acting like brand shills. F/9 is ridiculous. Look at what Nikon is doing with their PFs and it’s obvious Canon just doesn’t want to compete on price or undercut their already overpriced primes. Nikon has shown it can be done—quality glass, low price, one stop slower—in this mid-tier category of super teles. I’ll stick with theirs and you guys can shoot these at noon with harsh light. Maybe chase some squirrels or a BIF against a bright blue sky like those f/11s. No thanks. Canon is holding back on purpose.

Thanks for proving your point with all those images you’ve posted showing how the results you get at f/5.6 and f/6.3 are just as good as those people get at f/4, and way better than those people get at f/8 or f/11. Oh, wait…you haven’t posted a single image here. Others have posted excellent images shot at narrower apertures, though.

It seems you’ve drunk another flavor of koolaid, so much of it that you’ve vomited it up here in this forum and made a mess.

 

[blackcoffee17]

I am very interested in a 200-800 F9 zoom IF:

1. great optically, sharp and contrasty
2. has good MFD at 800mm, not 6m like the RF 800mm F11 lens
3. well built with some weather sealing
4. fast AF
5. accept TC's with good results
6. around 2kg - 2.5kg max weight.

Internal zoom like the Nikon and Sony 200-600 type lenses would be nice.

 

[juststeve]

I am very interested in a 200-800 F9 zoom IF:

1. great optically, sharp and contrasty
2. has good MFD at 800mm, not 6m like the RF 800mm F11 lens
3. well built with some weather sealing
4. fast AF
5. accept TC's with good results
6. around 2kg - 2.5kg max weight.

Internal zoom like the Nikon and Sony 200-600 type lenses would be nice.

Does not look like an internal zoom 200-800 is planned. The patent clearly is for an extending zoom. But, by going to an extending zoom Canon was able to make a pair of RF 70-200 zoom extremely small and light while maintaining optical quality and a remarkably light and compact 100-500 (currently the love of my life). So maybe there is hope for something around 2.5 kg. Have not waded through the patents to see if any fluorite lenses are involved. Those tend to be pricey but so very, very good. The zoom mechanism seems to be simplified with only two groups moving and then in synch. Could be a very interesting lens.

 

[neuroanatomist]

The zoom mechanism seems to be simplified with only two groups moving and then in synch. Could be a very interesting lens.

Also, the long and fixed backfocus distance suggests full TC compatibility.

 

[ruralmontanan]

What aperture do you think this is? Bokeh looks ok to me.View attachment 211550

(it's f/11)

I mean we could play this game all day with any gear on the market. Cherrypick a photo and ignore the massive swaths of horrible f/11 images where the bird is not perfectly placed with the background a mile away. These are tools and one tool is incredibly slow and limited in use while the other tool is not. I’m all for options—that’s great you’re happy with slower glass—but Canon is ignoring a big part of the market intentionally to push you into their overpriced higher-end glass. They’re also comfortable moving the goalposts with these slower aperture lenses and you guys are just lapping it up, paying more for less. That is obvious to everyone right now who isn’t drinking the Canon koolaid.