Canon Patent Application: Lightweight Telelphotos

[AlanF]

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.

An 800mm f/11 actually has a relatively narrow depth of field. Here are the values at 10m for the 800mms on the market and some shorter telephotos. It does help to know some basic facts before making tendentious statements. There is very little increase in dof on going from f/5.6 to f/11, and a 400/5.6 has twice the dof.

800mm f/5.6, 10m dof = 0.049m
800mm f/6.3, 10m dof = 0.055m
800mm f/11, 10m dof = 0.098m
500mm f/7.1, 10m dof = 0.16m
400mm f/5.6, 10m dof = 0.2m
200mm f/2.8, 10m dof = 0.4m

 

[neuroanatomist]

I mean we could play this game all day with any gear on the market.

You mean you can keep losing this game all day. Yes, that's your prerogative.

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.

Apparently you believe that it would be, in your hands. That says more about your skill than about the gear. How did people manage to capture the critical moment with manual focus and a frame rate determined by their thumb? Skill. But not everyone has it.

I don't suppose that it's occurred to you that many people posting less-than-perfect bird photos on Facebook taken with the RF 100-400, 600/11 or 800/11 are new to bird photography, and the only reason they're able to have a go a the genre is that Canon offers an affordable way to get the needed focal lengths? Evidently not.

Meanwhile, people who are experienced bird photographers can use a lens like the RF 100-400 or 800/11 to produce excellent results. I've seen them on this forum. On the other hand, I haven't seen any of the images you think are so much better that you've taken with your Nikon PF lenses. Why is that?

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.

So you're smart because you pay more for a supertele lens that's faster than f/8 or f/11, but people who pay even more for a supertele that's f/4 are 'pushed into overpriced higher-end glass'. Also, how is paying $500 for a zoom going to 400mm f/8 or less than $1K for a 600/11 or 800/11 'paying more for less'? Seems to me that it's paying less for less. Just like paying more for a 600/4 or 1200/8 is paying more for more.

What you are really saying is that Canon is doing something that you personally don't agree with. So what? Canon is a successful company that sells more cameras than any other manufacturer and has done so for the past 20 years. You are some rando on the internet with a koolaid fetish.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

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.

So...you come on here and say that we sound like Canon Shills...we post a few nice pictures and you shoot your mouth off again and show ZERO photos. Show us your photos and maybe we'll give you some more consideration.

If you don't like the gear that some guys are using to good effect then don't buy the same gear.
I've never found Nikon lenses compelling compared to my long term Canon investment glass. I've generally found the canon bodies to AF quicker and more accurately, lock up less and provide me with the colours, detail and resolution that I like. I also find that the Canon lenses and bodies handle better.

However, you are entitled to your own opinion.

Personally, i won't be buying a 800mm f11, but the 200-800mm f9 optic might be of interest to me. It depends on a number of factors including price, weight, sharpness, AF and MFD. It would be more portable than my fantastic EF 400mm f2.8 LIS II.

 

[ruralmontanan]

Maybe you guys are right. Who needs fast glass when you could *clearly* get everything you want from a plastic fantastic f/11? In the right hands we could all shoot products from the 20th century—who needs any of these fancy features and developments, after all? The market must be *crazy* paying all that money for super telephoto primes! Why buy that shiny 800mm prime for $20k when you could just buy the f/11 for $1k—are you simply not good enough to shoot with f/11?

You guys who are willing to die on this hill really are a laughable bunch of brand shills at this point. If I ever need a fix for Canon laughter I will come here to read the latest acrobatics.

 

[scyrene]

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.

I mean, they have the wide aperture options, you just think they're too expensive. That's a separate issue. Nobody made me buy the lenses I did. I chose the relatively narrow aperture 800 f/11 and RF 100-400 because they were so much cheaper and lighter than any lens I'd previously used at those focal lengths. I understand that it's a compromise, and both have exceeded my expectations. I'll ask again, do you use any long lenses?

 

[neuroanatomist]

Maybe you guys are right. Who needs fast glass when you could *clearly* get everything you want from a plastic fantastic f/11? In the right hands we could all shoot products from the 20th century—who needs any of these fancy features and developments, after all? The market must be *crazy* paying all that money for super telephoto primes! Why buy that shiny 800mm prime for $20k when you could just buy the f/11 for $1k—are you simply not good enough to shoot with f/11?

Apparently you have difficulty comprehending what you read, or you just enjoy making an ass of yourself.

The point is that Canon offers very expensive, fast supertele primes and inexpensive, slow supertele primes, but they do not offer fairly expensive, moderately fast supertele primes. Nikon offers expensive, fast supertele primes and fairly expensive, moderately fast supertele primes, but they do not offer inexpensive, slow supertele primes.

Funny how you’re not bashing Nikon for not offering supertele primes that are affordable for a large number of people. I guess if you don’t want it, no one does. You happen to prefer fairly expensive, moderately fast supertele primes. Good for you.

Your problem is that you think those who prefer fast supertele primes and can afford them are overpaying (i.e., they’re foolish for making a different decision than you or for being able to afford those very expensive lenses). Likewise, you think those that prefer inexpensive, slow supertele primes are incapable of producing good results with them (i.e., they’re foolish for buying such poor, useless tools).

News flash: not everyone is a fool. Those who believe everyone else is a fool are the real fools. And in case the implication is too subtle for your limited comprehension skills, I’m referring to you.

You guys who are willing to die on this hill really are a laughable bunch of brand shills at this point. If I ever need a fix for Canon laughter I will come here to read the latest acrobatics.

Read and laugh all you like. But don’t bother posting. You add nothing of value, and your posts only serve to make you look more asinine.

 

[Longtermer]

Maybe you guys are right. Who needs fast glass when you could *clearly* get everything you want from a plastic fantastic f/11? In the right hands we could all shoot products from the 20th century—who needs any of these fancy features and developments, after all? The market must be *crazy* paying all that money for super telephoto primes! Why buy that shiny 800mm prime for $20k when you could just buy the f/11 for $1k—are you simply not good enough to shoot with f/11?

You guys who are willing to die on this hill really are a laughable bunch of brand shills at this point. If I ever need a fix for Canon laughter I will come here to read the latest acrobatics.

Please leave us in peace and go troll under some other bridge ...

 

[Longtermer]

... many people posting less-than-perfect bird photos on Facebook taken with the RF 100-400, 600/11 or 800/11 are new to bird photography, and the only reason they're able to have a go a the genre is that Canon offers an affordable way to get the needed focal lengths? Evidently not.

That would be me, in my case with the 600mm f/11, complete with moderate at best pictures. But I never thought I would ever afford a long prime at all, and I'm very thankful for the opportunity to learn a bit, and have some fun, using the f/11.

 

[EricN]

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

That would be much better!

 

[GMCPhotographics]

Maybe you guys are right. Who needs fast glass when you could *clearly* get everything you want from a plastic fantastic f/11? In the right hands we could all shoot products from the 20th century—who needs any of these fancy features and developments, after all? The market must be *crazy* paying all that money for super telephoto primes! Why buy that shiny 800mm prime for $20k when you could just buy the f/11 for $1k—are you simply not good enough to shoot with f/11?

You guys who are willing to die on this hill really are a laughable bunch of brand shills at this point. If I ever need a fix for Canon laughter I will come here to read the latest acrobatics.

Congratulations, you've just passed over the line for forum decorum....you have directly insulted respected members of this forum. You are clearly Trolling.
To quote:

You guys who are willing to die on this hill really are a laughable bunch of brand shills at this point.

 

[EricN]

Congratulations, you've just passed over the line for forum decorum....you have directly insulted respected members of this forum. You are clearly Trolling.
To quote:

it usually appears to be the case. Why would someone go to a message board for a specific company and be so negative? Any normal person can say various companies have products which are designed for different people. I think this last person claimed to have cameras from different manufacturers (that's unusual, but possible). Why would anyone buy cameras from different manufacturers if they don't understand the companies are focusing on different use cases?

 

[Tom W]

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

(it's f/11)

It's a nice shot, and I have no doubt that it's f/11. I've shot that aperture before with good results, if the background is right. What is a stumbling block to me is when the bird is under the cover of the forest, where you're trying to keep shutter speed up and ISO reasonable - that's one place where a brighter lens would be handy.

Of course, f/4 on a long lens comes a with a price tag - both in money and in weight and size. I have a 500 f/4 II that I seldom use because it's not really very practical to carry around. I end up using the 100-500 RF lens. Which is quite excellent, though I'd love to have a little more aperture at times.

 

[Tom W]

Personally, i won't be buying a 800mm f11, but the 200-800mm f9 optic might be of interest to me. It depends on a number of factors including price, weight, sharpness, AF and MFD. It would be more portable than my fantastic EF 400mm f2.8 LIS II.

I owned, for a couple of years, a Canon 400 f/2.8L that was made before the IS version came out. It was very heavy, but sharp as a tack. Just excellent. I think it took until the second version of the IS lens to equal that sharpness. It was extremely good.

Not very portable, however. If I were shooting sports, slap that lens on a monopod and it would be great. Ditto for birds that hold still (with a tripod). But it was decidedly not the best option for handholding. I can hand-hold my 500/4 II here and there, but it also isn't practical for general walk-around birding.

 

[scyrene]

It's a nice shot, and I have no doubt that it's f/11. I've shot that aperture before with good results, if the background is right. What is a stumbling block to me is when the bird is under the cover of the forest, where you're trying to keep shutter speed up and ISO reasonable - that's one place where a brighter lens would be handy.

Of course, f/4 on a long lens comes a with a price tag - both in money and in weight and size. I have a 500 f/4 II that I seldom use because it's not really very practical to carry around. I end up using the 100-500 RF lens. Which is quite excellent, though I'd love to have a little more aperture at times.

Yes I used the EF 500 f/4 II for a decade; there will always be a place for wide aperture telephotos. But we see here a chronic problem of people who have no experience with long lenses claiming the newer narrower aperture options are useless. I shot that lens for years with a teleconverter at 1000mm stopped down a little to f/10 so I expected the 800 f/11 could produce good results - and so it can. (Incidentally the shot I posted above is the 100-400+1.4x). I would love a wider option for low light etc but as you say, that comes with the compromises of weight, size, and cost. It's good to have as many choices as we do now

 

[AlanF]

Yes I used the EF 500 f/4 II for a decade; there will always be a place for wide aperture telephotos. But we see here a chronic problem of people who have no experience with long lenses claiming the newer narrower aperture options are useless. I shot that lens for years with a teleconverter at 1000mm stopped down a little to f/10 so I expected the 800 f/11 could produce good results - and so it can. (Incidentally the shot I posted above is the 100-400+1.4x). I would love a wider option for low light etc but as you say, that comes with the compromises of weight, size, and cost. It's good to have as many choices as we do now

It's a chronic problem of naysayers without direct hands-on experience or adequate theoretical knowledge spouting rubbish or just uncritically repeating hearsay. In photography, it doesn't matter much but it's mirrored in society for matters that are really important.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

I owned, for a couple of years, a Canon 400 f/2.8L that was made before the IS version came out. It was very heavy, but sharp as a tack. Just excellent. I think it took until the second version of the IS lens to equal that sharpness. It was extremely good.

Not very portable, however. If I were shooting sports, slap that lens on a monopod and it would be great. Ditto for birds that hold still (with a tripod). But it was decidedly not the best option for handholding. I can hand-hold my 500/4 II here and there, but it also isn't practical for general walk-around birding.

I think the measure of sharpness of a big white...is how doe sis fare with teleconverters. Both my mk1 and mk2 seem very sharp with a 1.4x TC with hardly any quality degredation. With a 2xTC is still excellent. However droppping a 1/3rd of a stop to f6.3 and the sharpness is amazing.
I think my mkII is a wee bit sharper than my mkI, however that might be the slightly better AF system. Either way, both are exceptional lenses.