Canon Patent Application: Lightweight Telelphotos

[AJ]

I think a 200-800 would lure away people from their beloved Sigma/Tamron 150-600 lenses. If priced attractively, this will sell quite well methinks.

 

[Snapster]

F/9 is ok, assuming the AF area isn't crippled like with the f/11 primes. I don't mind the higher ISO as much as the AF area interfering with composition on a fixed focal length.

 

[koenkooi]

F/9 is ok, assuming the AF area isn't crippled like with the f/11 primes. I don't mind the higher ISO as much as the AF area interfering with composition on a fixed focal length.

The smaller AF area is a function of the sensor, the cameras released after the R5/R6 have a much larger AF area when used with the f/11 lenses.

 

[AlanF]

The smaller AF area is a function of the sensor, the cameras released after the R5/R6 have a much larger AF area when used with the f/11 lenses.

Do you know whether it is the sensor or it is just a firmware thing that Canon could port to the R5/R6 if they could be bothered?
Edit: Just checked, the RF 100-500mm + 2xTC at 1000mm f/14 has a much larger area in the focus frame of the R5 than does the 800mm f/11.

 

[koenkooi]

Do you know whether it is the sensor or it is just a firmware thing that Canon could port to the R5/R6 if they could be bothered?
Edit: Just checked, the RF 100-500mm + 2xTC at 1000mm f/14 has a much larger area in the focus frame of the R5 than does the 800mm f/11.

My interpretation is that Canon decides which sensor is sensitive enough to get a wider area. So they could decide to give the R5 a larger area through a firmware upgrade, but I doubt that will happen.

As you’ve noticed, Canon isn’t being consistent with it, so I’m not convinced it’s an objective decision.

 

[roby17269]

The ISO side of the triangle has certainly changed significantly (from the relevant standpoint of image quality). Sensors have lower read noise, and AI-driven noise reduction software is far better these days.

My first FF DSLR was a 5DII, and I preferred to keep the ISO at 1600 or lower, but would use 3200 if really needed. With my R3, I prefer to keep it at 12800 or lower but will use 25600 if needed (and if anything, my tolerance for image noise has gotten more stringent over the years).

That’s a 3-stop improvement in ISO, which more than offsets the 2/3 to 2-stop narrower aperture some people are complaining about.

Subject isolation is a different matter (but another area in which AI is being successfully applied).

Personally, I was ok with 3200 on my R5, but now I am more liberal with ISO due to the new AI-powered software NR. I think the improvements in sensor noise are there, but also that those are dwarfed by the improvements in NR algorhytms.

I will always trade noise for sharpness.
And good NR is needed because....
I come from DSLRs where 5.6 was a limit few lenses dared to break. Initially I was wary of the 7.1 max aperture of the 100-500, and the high-res sensors used in some cameras mean that, in order to get sharp results at distance, my rule of thumb went from shutter = 1/fl to = 1/(4*fl). So I set the shutter speed to at least 1/2000 when using the 100-500 at 500mm when shooting hand held. Which means high ISO unless there is a lot of light.

Even then, in the end, reach is king. 800mm @ f/9 with the versatility of a zoom and of controllable aperture sounds to me much better than the 800mm f/11 fixed aperture prime. And it sounds better to me than using the 100-500 with extenders. Especially if image quality is better. I have the 800 11 and I am not in love with it. Admittedly I use it very little, but I am still to get an image I want to keep out of it. Obviously there are already much better lenses, but those are much bigger, heavier and more expensive. So something in between would be welcome.

And if they do not release any of these lenses.... well the 100-500 keeps to impress (at least me )

 

[masterpix]

In this patent application (2023-125584), Canon is attempting to design lightweight telephotos with good optical characteristics. First up we have some full-frame telephotos ranging from a 4x 200-800 F5.6-9 to a 6x 100-600mm F5.6-9. The designs are interesting, but they, even with F9.0 would have some pretty big front elements, and at least two large

See full article...the 200-800 will appeal to many if it will be light weight and also light budget as well. I wish such a lens to be in the range of 2K.. that will be the best for the quadret 11-24, 24-70-70-200 and 200-800... it just need to match the 63MP R5II

 

[shire_guy]

Interesting the number of Canon RF telephoto zooms (real and rumoured). Is this a brand differentiation to Nikon with the 500/800 PF primes (don't really follow Sony news). As a birder I was disappointed with the weight of the RF 100-300 vs the EF 300 2.8 II, and I assume the same would be on the new 500mm zoom. I feel the same on these patent applications where F9 might be an offset for the zoom weight.

On a lighter note maybe that well known phase should be changed to "Canon is Z*****".

 

[GMCPhotographics]

The ISO side of the triangle has certainly changed significantly (from the relevant standpoint of image quality). Sensors have lower read noise, and AI-driven noise reduction software is far better these days.

My first FF DSLR was a 5DII, and I preferred to keep the ISO at 1600 or lower, but would use 3200 if really needed. With my R3, I prefer to keep it at 12800 or lower but will use 25600 if needed (and if anything, my tolerance for image noise has gotten more stringent over the years).

That’s a 3-stop improvement in ISO, which more than offsets the 2/3 to 2-stop narrower aperture some people are complaining about.

Subject isolation is a different matter (but another area in which AI is being successfully applied).

The ISO perofrmance and ability of my R8/R6ii is simply astonishing compared to my old 5D3's.
I think f7.1 for a 105mm is quite low. But for a 500mm, it's actually quite useful because I'd probably shott at that aparture anyhow due to the DOF required for front to back subject sharpness. I find it a bit of a suprise that the 800mm f11 and 600mm f11 both share the same aperture value. I would have expected the 600mm to be a tad brighter. The 800 seems to be a better choice than the 600 for that reason. more reach for the same aperture.
The issue with small aperture lenses is the resolution encroaching diffraction. so for an R5, the figure is f7.1. With an f11 optic, difraction limits will be observed in every R mount camera body. Even the R8/R6ii has a DLA of f9.6. If the new R5 has the same pixel pitch as the R7 then diffraction will be seen in F5.6 glass. So darker lenses are not necessarily the way forwards if we want to see sharp images.

 

[AlanF]

The ISO perofrmance and ability of my R8/R6ii is simply astonishing compared to my old 5D3's.
I think f7.1 for a 105mm is quite low. But for a 500mm, it's actually quite useful because I'd probably shott at that aparture anyhow due to the DOF required for front to back subject sharpness. I find it a bit of a suprise that the 800mm f11 and 600mm f11 both share the same aperture value. I would have expected the 600mm to be a tad brighter. The 800 seems to be a better choice than the 600 for that reason. more reach for the same aperture.
The issue with small aperture lenses is the resolution encroaching diffraction. so for an R5, the figure is f7.1. With an f11 optic, difraction limits will be observed in every R mount camera body. Even the R8/R6ii has a DLA of f9.6. If the new R5 has the same pixel pitch as the R7 then diffraction will be seen in F5.6 glass. So darker lenses are not necessarily the way forwards if we want to see sharp images.

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

 

[Kiton]

These appeal to me. 800mm f/9 has 2/3rd stop more light gathered per duck than a 500/7.1 or 400/5.6 and the same as a 600/6.3 (all have the same diameter front element/entrance pupil). For many years, my main telephoto was an EF 400mm f/4 DO II with a 2xTC on it to give 800mm f/8, which was used on a DSLR. f/9 on a current mirrorless will be better for AF and IQ. A 200-800mm f/9 should be approximately the same size as a 200-600mm f/6.3 and give extended range. If it is built to a lightweight design, it should be light enough even for me and a winner as far as I am concerned. Even at L-standard, I might consider it as an alternative when I do not need to hike. The 100-600mm f/9 is very slightly slower than a 100-500 f/7.1 and could either be an expensive successor to the current RF 100-500 or a cheap larger version of the RF 100-400, depending on the quality of construction.

I've been using the 1.4xTC on the RF 100-500mm to give 700mm f/10 with the R7, and f/10 is quite ok as these cameras go up to very high isos when combined with DxO PL or other modern noise reduction software..

...."

more light gathered per duck"....... ok that is hilarious! thank you

 

[john1970]

The 200-800 mm f5.6-f9 is an interesting lens and one I could see being useful. For me it will come down to build quality. I would see such a lens being used extensively for wildlife and would need weather sealing. I would be willing to pay a decent amount if they make it a L series lens.

 

[divinshire]

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

how is 7.1 bad? i've been using this lens for a few years now, and its clearly one of the best telephotos zoom lens you can purchase. even at 12800 iso it still produces amazing detail and sharpness.

 

[efmshark]

600 f/9 could have a front element as small as 67mm, but an 600 f/8 with a 77mm front element would still be very reasonable size and weight.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

One thing I do like about these slower long lenses is that they will teach people to be more mindful of their background.

Either that or whine more.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

I too would certainly prefer a 5,6/200-800 if:
- It weren't for its huge weight
- It weren't for its exhorbitant price
- It weren't for its size requiring the largest possible backpack
And that's why I'll happily accept, as a non professional, its f9 aperture.

I see that you don't work for Sigma

 

[EOS 4 Life]

The people/market decided that they could live quite well with the f/8 of the 100-400 as well as the f/7.1 of the 100-500L.
So why not give them more choices.
Personally, I know both RFs, the 100-400 and the 100-500. And from my point of view, those were definitely good designs.
And for sure, I'd take a 200-800/9 with variable aperture over an 800/11 fixed.
Of course, the MFD would be very interesting/deciding for me.
Let the people decide if they like it or not.

Well, since Canon can only make so many lenses at a time I can sympathize with people not getting lenses that they want.
What I do not sympathize with is when people think that lenses that do not suit them personally should not exist at all.

 

[Maximilian]

What I do not sympathize with is when people think that lenses that do not suit them personally should not exist at all.

... especially when others state, that those suit them very well. Like "other opinions do not count, only my own."

 

[dbcooper]

Too right, man. How dare Canon design supertelephoto lenses with such narrow apertures that they are in price ranges affordable by a large number of photographers? The hubris! Such focal lengths should be restricted only to professionals and those with a ton of disposable income.

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

 

[blackcoffee17]

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

F7.1 is pretty bad on a 50-210 APS-C lens but quite good on a 100-500mm in small size. Or F8 can look horrible on the 100-400 until you realize it's the same size as a traditional 70-300 lens. It's all about context.