Canon patents optical formula for an RF 200-500mm f/4L IS 1.4x

[Chig]

Nikon has been pushing the RF sports lens theater with the introduction of the 120-300 F2.8 for indoor work, and the super light 400 2.8 with built in 1.4X. As an owner of the Canon 200-400, 600 F4, and the RF 100-500mm. I have found the new 100-500mm to be a terrific alternative to its much heavier cousins. I would not sell my 200-400 to get the proposed RF 200-500, but the 600 F4 would be out the door ASAP if a RF 400 2.8 with 1.4X became realty. FYI: I never carry the 200-400 & 600 to the same event. Which one I use totally depends on my access to the players (footballers, etc).

Nikon's 400mm 2.8 isn't "super light" at 3.8kg compared with Canon's RF400 f/2.8 at 2.9kg . The built in T.C is great though

 

[ISv]

Some would say the same about a prime lens.

-some people are still in the time when the primes were really significantly superior than the zooms. Now in the real life one can find zooms that are about the image quality of the primes (plus the flexibility!!!). In the lab the primes would perform (some of them just slightly) better but in the real life you by far can't achieve that "better" by many reasons... Off course it's about your personal interaction with the rig - as it always has been!
It doesn't change the natural (+/-) advantage of the primes - it just change their advantage in your own hands. What is important for me: the final result!

 

[ISv]

The R5 + RF 100-500 is an excellent setup for birding. What this lens might offer (it’s just patent at this point, and few patents become real lenses) is mainly a wider aperture. That means lower ISOs / faster shutter speeds. It also means less diffraction softening, which can be a minor issue with the R5 / R7 and a TC on the 100-500. Being a ‘great white’ the image quality will be technically better, but what is detectable on test charts often makes less to no difference in real-world use (the 100-500 is a very good lens).

The trade-off is cost, size and weight. Whether those are significant issues depends on you. I expect a 200-500/4 + 1.4x to be a bit lighter than my 600/4 II. I can hike with the 600/4 and shoot handheld, but not everyone can. I do have a tripod and gimbal, I use those mainly with winter raptors where I’m standing in one place for a long period. On hikes, I carry the lens on a BlackRapid Sport-L strap, which is a left handed version because that makes sense for a heavy lens (lift and support with my left hand, shoot with my right). I carry a monopod with tilt-head for times when I pause in a spot (carried on a belt in a holder designed for a MagLite flashlight.

I almost always use the 600/4 with a 1.4x or 2x TC, the 200-500 would mean less reach (probably not enough for my needs).

"...but what is detectable on test charts often makes less to no difference in real-world use (the 100-500 is a very good lens)." Well I think you say it all...

 

[GMCPhotographics]

The current EF500L is from before Canon sent the superwhites on a diet, right? So it might be possible that a theoretical 100-500 F4L would weigh the same or only slightly more as the EF500L.

The mk1 ef 500L was the lightest of the super whites and was hand holdable-ish. Certainly more than the 600/4 or the 400/2.8. The 500mm f4 MkII bought significant weight reductions and it is now very hand holdable. Canon didn't bother with a mkIII version becuase it was already light enough and remained at teh lower price point as a result.
Who knows what the new RF 200-500LIS TC will bring to the table? However, one thing is fir sure it will be optically stellar and cripplingly expensive.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

Not compared to this:

Ha! Yes i remmeber that Sigma 200-500mm f2.8 beast. It used it's own battery just for the AF!
I had a go of one at at trade show about 8 years ago. The diameter, length and sheer bulk were extraordinary large. The reps wouldn't let me take it off the tripod (It was bolted down) so I have no idea how it handled when mounting. What I did notice was that it wasn't as sharp as I'd have liked wide open when focussing at around 10m. The battery looked a bit low. What struk me was that it was 3x heavier than my ef 400mm LIS mk I for only an extra 100mm and it was not as sharp or accurate.

 

[MihalyLaczko]

These big white zoom proposals are good for a bird photograper, but not for an airshow or airplane spotter. We need a wider range, larger aperture zoom lenses. So it would be more useable, if the zoom range remains the same 100-500mm, but the aperture steps up to f4 - f5.6. And from this specs we need an in-built 1.4 extender.

 

[AlanF]

The mk1 ef 500L was the lightest of the super whites and was hand holdable-ish. Certainly more than the 600/4 or the 400/2.8. The 500mm f4 MkII bought significant weight reductions and it is now very hand holdable. Canon didn't bother with a mkIII version becuase it was already light enough and remained at teh lower price point as a result.
Who knows what the new RF 200-500LIS TC will bring to the table? However, one thing is fir sure it will be optically stellar and cripplingly expensive.

The EF 500/4 II is heavier than the EF 600/4 III, and twice the weight of the Nikon 500/5.6 PF.

 

[kaihp]

The EF 500/4 II is [...] twice the weight of the Nikon 500/5.6 PF.

Well, that's to be expected, since the (front) lens elements will be twice the area of the f/5.6, right?

 

[MiJax]

The EF 500L II is far from heavy for its class. True, it wasn't sent on a second diet like the RF's and EF III's, but its still the lightest 500 F4 out there. But don't fret, Canon will no doubt hurt the optical performance (even if only very specific and small losses) and lighten it further in the next iteration like they did with all of their other lenses.

I think the estimates are an additional pound or so of lightening by moving some the heavier elements rearward and shrinking them. Both improvements (shifting the balance rearward and lightening the lens) would be welcome, but as the other newer lenses have shown, that weight loss comes with a performance cost. Every next-gen lens has lost a relatively "significant" amount of resolution with TCs, but on the positive side have held very close to par on the bare lens. So people like me who use TCs a lot are not looking forward to the weight savings. However if the new 500L doesn't have a integrated TC, its a non-starter for me any way. Not even a 500 DO shift will budge me on that. Not in the market for a new lens for the sake of a new lens, its got to solve a problem. The old lens is too good to change for diminishing returns (or more likely, worse performance).

As far as the 200-500L rumor, that's great but not something I'm interested in owning. The zoom is going to be heavy. And I'm just not in the market for a 8-9lb 200-500 f/4. Its a sports shooter's dream monopod monster, but not very high on a wildlife shooter's list, IMO.

 

[AlanF]

Well, that's to be expected, since the (front) lens elements will be twice the area of the f/5.6, right?

That was in reply to my mentioning that the EF 500 II is twice the weight of the Nikon 500mm f/5.6 PF. Lenses are three-dimensional, not two-dimensional, and the front lens elements are only part of the structure. So, it is not expected that twice the area of the front elements would mean the lens will be twice the weight. It doesn't even mean that the front elements will be twice the weight if the area is double because the thickness across the lens is not uniform and the thickness will most likely change as well, and it's changes in volume that give changes in mass.

But, what I was getting at is that a 500/4 is much heavier than a 500/5.6, which is an important factor for many.

 

[AlanF]

I think the estimates are an additional pound or so of lightening by moving some the heavier elements rearward and shrinking them. Both improvements (shifting the balance rearward and lightening the lens) would be welcome, but as the other newer lenses have shown, that weight loss comes with a performance cost. Every next-gen lens has lost a relatively "significant" amount of resolution with TCs,

Sony has used exactly the same design trick of reducing the weights of the 400/4 and 600/4, but it has done so without losing "significant" resolution with TCs, as reported by those who have used both Sony and Canon, and seen on the TDP site https://www.the-digital-picture.com...meraComp=979&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=2&APIComp=0
So, weight loss need not necessarily mean a performance loss.

 

[MiJax]

Sony has used exactly the same design trick of reducing the weights of the 400/4 and 600/4, but it has done so without losing "significant" resolution with TCs, as reported by those who have used both Sony and Canon, and seen on the TDP site https://www.the-digital-picture.com...meraComp=979&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=2&APIComp=0
So, weight loss need not necessarily mean a performance loss.

Sony doesn't have lenses from the previous design formula to compare the losses to. This is Sony's first rodeo in the super tele zone. Their initial 500 f/4 was a little more than a joke with the cameras to choose from, not to mention the lens just wasn't that good. So, it's hard to measure up Sony's weight loss affects. Knowing Canon has been the best in teleconverters for decades, I have to assume Sony's weight loss would also see a drop off from the optimal optical formula. They are using the same technology, so I would imagine the downsides are the same all the way around.

For reference, take a look at the Canon 500L II f/4 at 1000mm on that same site and see how Sony's 600 holds up. The trick they are using to lose weight is costly and requires significant correction to clean up. But I suspect they can't clean it up fully...yet. As new tech and methods are discovered this will be less and less of an issue. But for now, if you look at any Canon lens made after the EF III on that site, you'll see they all have the same drop off with a TC attached.

 

[AlanF]

Sony doesn't have lenses from the previous design formula to compare the losses to. This is Sony's first rodeo in the super tele zone. Their initial 500 f/4 was a little more than a joke with the cameras to choose from, not to mention the lens just wasn't that good. So, it's hard to measure up Sony's weight loss affects. Knowing Canon has been the best in teleconverters for decades, I have to assume Sony's weight loss would also see a drop off from the optimal optical formula. They are using the same technology, so I would imagine the downsides are the same all the way around.

For reference, take a look at the Canon 500L II f/4 at 1000mm on that same site and see how Sony's 600 holds up. The trick they are using to lose weight is costly and requires significant correction to clean up. But I suspect they can't clean it up fully...yet. As new tech and methods are discovered this will be less and less of an issue. But for now, if you look at any Canon lens made after the EF III on that site, you'll see they all have the same drop off with a TC attached.

The blindingly obvious point is that the Sony 600/4 with near identical design to the Canon RF 600/4 takes the Sony 2x TC well but the Canon RF 2x doesn’t match its 600/4 lens well. And the proof that it is the matching of the Canon TC that is at fault comes from comparing the RF 600/4 plus RF 2x with the RF 1200/8, which has the identical optical design to the 600/4 but a custom-designed 2x TC built in, the 1200/8 is sharper - https://www.the-digital-picture.com...eraComp=1508&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

 

[MiJax]

The blindingly obvious point is that the Sony 600/4 with near identical design to the Canon RF 600/4 takes the Sony 2x TC well but the Canon RF 2x doesn’t match its 600/4 lens well. And the proof that it is the matching of the Canon TC that is at fault comes from comparing the RF 600/4 plus RF 2x with the RF 1200/8, which has the identical optical design to the 600/4 but a custom-designed 2x TC built in, the 1200/8 is sharper - https://www.the-digital-picture.com...eraComp=1508&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

I would say the Sony's are a smidgeon better than the matching RF lens with TCs, but it's not significant and possibly explained by variation. But even if the Sonys are better, they still pale compared to the second gen EFs with TCs. This suggests the compromises that they are making in the designs to get the weight out is a technology issue and they haven't yet found a cost-effective answer to the issue.

I would agree that the 800 and 1200 are better than the 400 and 600 with TCs. However, I don't think that is a failure though. That is a feature of the 800 and 1200's design. Even though they have very similar elements in their optical designs, I would expect them to be optimized in the 800 and 1200 formulas. They don't have to account for various different lenses being used with the TCs and they can make the aberration corrections as good as they can without compromising another lenses' performance. This likely stems from near perfect element placement which you can't do with an exchangeable element (like a TC). So, I would expect the performance improvement to be present on the monster teles.

 

[AlanF]

I would agree that the 800 and 1200 are better than the 400 and 600 with TCs. However, I don't think that is a failure though. That is a feature of the 800 and 1200's design. Even though they have very similar elements in their optical designs, I would expect them to be optimized in the 800 and 1200 formulas. They don't have to account for various different lenses being used with the TCs and they can make the aberration corrections as good as they can without compromising another lenses' performance. This likely stems from near perfect element placement which you can't do with an exchangeable element (like a TC). So, I would expect the performance improvement to be present on the monster teles.

https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-RF-1200mm-F8-L-IS-USM-Lens.aspx
"Then we learned that the two new lenses shared the major design components with existing RF lenses. Specifically, the RF 400mm F2.8 L IS and the RF 600mm F4 L IS USM Lenses were used for the front of the new lenses.

"Inheriting the optical system of the "RF 600mm F4 L IS USM" that realizes weight reduction and image quality at a high level, the optimum magnifying optical system is placed at the rear of the lens..." [Canon Japan, translated]"

Bryan Carnathan then goes on to discuss that it is the 2xTC element that has been optimised in the new design.

 

[SwissFrank]

Note these formulas are 30+ elements. Is that a record or if not, what IS the record?

Back in the 90s so many lenses would impact contrast hugely but it doesn\'t seem to be much of an issue any more.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

Note these formulas are 30+ elements. Is that a record or if not, what IS the record?

Back in the 90s so many lenses would impact contrast hugely but it doesn\'t seem to be much of an issue any more.

That includes the teleconverter

 

[SwissFrank]

That includes the teleconverter

Good point, "4." Still, what I'm saying is that my old 70-200/2.8IS or 600/4IS (both MkI) went downhill substantially with the TC and while we don't have charts for this exact lens, basically ALL the current L's are fantastic compared to the old kit.

 

[GoldWing]

A Canon RF 200-500mm f/4L IS 1.4x would be the absolute must have for me, even it will cost a fortune

 

[SwissFrank]

This likely stems from near perfect element placement which you can't do with an exchangeable element (like a TC).

I'm also wondering about the fact that the TC is "one size fits all": it has to work with a huge range of lenses, so does that compromise its design? I frankly don't understand this aspect of optics enough to even guess. If it does lead to compromise though, then a lens with built-in TC would have some advantage.

For me, there was no point using the EF 70-200/2.8 and 600/4 had there been no teleconverter option. Film resolution was so bad that even destroying the lenses' theoretical resolution still resulted in far better photos. But today's sensors are good enough we might not find the old TC's even acceptable, and anyway they don't work on the RF 70-200 which to me makes these RF tele zooms kind of useless. That said the 100-500 is IN EFFECT a 70-200 with built-in 1.4x and 2.0x when you need them.