Canon RF 200-500mm f/4L IS USM confirmed, likely in Q4 [CR3]

[Jack Douglas]

And don't forget pure luck that eventually comes from dogged persistence and patience; waiting not chasing. That's a rush as well.

Technically not great but still a great thrill. Late evening with poor light.

 

[Jack Douglas]

As I said:
While skill matters, so does equipment.
Equipment isn't going to improve skill level, but it can improve the quality of photograph taken. Does that not impact what you call "level of photography"?
Or do you deny that better equipment can impact a photograph?

It's a given for all of us that better equipment improves the technical quality (assuming it's properly used) of the photo, just not the composition. What better gear did for me was give me a renewed desire to try harder to sometimes reach the level of the great photographers since I could no longer blame the gear. It gave me an impetus to hope and strive and so it increased the enjoyment factor. But that's just me.

 

[AlanF]

As I said:
While skill matters, so does equipment.
Equipment isn't going to improve skill level, but it can improve the quality of photograph taken. Does that not impact what you call "level of photography"?
Or do you deny that better equipment can impact a photograph?

Read my posts and you don't need to ask those questions. Of course better equipment can improve the quality of a photograph, and what it can and should do is to extend the range and ease of what you can do. But, what I thought I had made clear is that having better gear does not automatically raise your photography to a higher level, which you were saying was correct, or consign those who do not have the top gear to a lower level. I have some very good gear now as I upgrade regularly, but the quality of my images has not improved because I am limited by my skill and not my gear. The gear I have now and what I had for my last DSLRs greatly increased my keeper rate for difficult BIF and the fps helps.

 

[AlanF]

It's a given for all of us that better equipment improves the technical quality (assuming it's properly used) of the photo, just not the composition. What better gear did for me was give me a renewed desire to try harder to sometimes reach the level of the great photographers since I could no longer blame the gear. It gave me an impetus to hope and strive and so it increased the enjoyment factor. But that's just me.

Well Jack, this discussion on gear has certainly reactivated you! The big thing for both of us before the newer Canon lenses came in with the EF 100-400mm II was our getting the EF 300mm DO II and then the 400mm DO II as the only smaller telephotos available, the 400/5.6 and 100-400mm first version, had their limitations. But, the EF 100-400mm II and some good Tamron and Sigmas zooms changed the scene. As you say, AI is changing everything. In principle there is no difference in blurring background to get subject separation digitally in post processing than doing it by analogue methods by wider aperture - both are artificial. it's likely to change the whole scenario of buying lenses.

 

[davidespinosa]

Cropped the centre, then opened in Photoshop, selected the bird and branch, inverted selection and blurred the background.

You're trolling, but it's a better picture than I could take !
That's a lot of pixels -- shot on R5 ?

 

[AlanF]

You're trolling, but it's a better picture than I could take !
That's a lot of pixels -- shot on R5 ?

I am not trolling, it's showing what you can do in PP, which I had never done before, inspired by @EOS 4 Life, and it's just a quick snap for which I had a window of 3 seconds to catch the bird as it dodged back in. R5 + 100-500mm, the EXIF data are on the images (1/640s f/7.1 iso 1000, distance 15.72m).

 

[takesome1]

Read my posts and you don't need to ask those questions. Of course better equipment can improve the quality of a photograph, and what it can and should do is to extend the range and ease of what you can do. But, what I thought I had made clear is that having better gear does not automatically raise your photography to a higher level, which you were saying was correct, or consign those who do not have the top gear to a lower level. I have some very good gear now as I upgrade regularly, but the quality of my images has not improved because I am limited by my skill and not my gear. The gear I have now and what I had for my last DSLRs greatly increased my keeper rate for difficult BIF and the fps helps.

I had no need to read your other posts, you had responded to my post that I made to someone else.
Why do you feel you need to add to the statements I made?
I only need to use the statements you actually make to prove the point.
In response to the original post from @birdman916 with the skill level he expressed in his post he will benefit from the faster lens.
Without the skill for PP, would the bokeh and separation in his background not improve with the faster lens?

 

[birdman916]

You are correct, and you see the evidence in photos of others. Also the lower f stop also gives you an edge in lower light. Any scientist here that tells you otherwise that pontificate otherwise are telling you "shit like that". You do not need a new $10K plus zoom prime to see such benefit. Used 500mm F/4 II's are much more reasonable. While skill matters, so does equipment.

I see what you did here. A little subliminal shot at my verbiage while simultaneously answering my questions. So you were a subtle jerk and helpful. Well done sir!

 

[takesome1]

I see what you did here. A little subliminal shot at my verbiage while simultaneously answering my questions. So you were a subtle jerk and helpful. Well done sir!

Some one will take the bait. It is their nature.

 

[Jack Douglas]

Well Jack, this discussion on gear has certainly reactivated you! The big thing for both of us before the newer Canon lenses came in with the EF 100-400mm II was our getting the EF 300mm DO II and then the 400mm DO II as the only smaller telephotos available, the 400/5.6 and 100-400mm first version, had their limitations. But, the EF 100-400mm II and some good Tamron and Sigmas zooms changed the scene. As you say, AI is changing everything. In principle there is no difference in blurring background to get subject separation digitally in post processing than doing it by analogue methods by wider aperture - both are artificial. it's likely to change the whole scenario of buying lenses.

Well, Alan, you and some others may have wondered. I'm now burdened by serious health issues but hopeful and what can be more stimulating than the prospect of better gear!

 

[scyrene]

In principle there is no difference in blurring background to get subject separation digitally in post processing than doing it by analogue methods by wider aperture - both are artificial. it's likely to change the whole scenario of buying lenses.

I'm sure you know this and perhaps I'm splitting hairs but unless the software can accurately determine the distance of each element in an image, software blurring will look different to true wide aperture - simply separating foreground and background means the latter all gets blurred by the same amount. Some phones use a combination of algorithms and other methods (eg LIDAR) to parse the scene but even then the results rarely mimic a wide aperture lens well enough to convince on close inspection IMO. If course it will satisfy many people but maybe not the kind who would be in the market for exotic lenses.

 

[David - Sydney]

But what commercial photog just has to have these big apertures at these wide angles of view? Architecture and travel photogs are probably happy with the 14-35/4, no? Just as the "modern 300/2.8" is actually a 100-300 zoom, you could argue that the "modern 14/2.8" is the 14-35/4. Unless you're shooting closer than like 8", the difference between f/2.8 and f/4 at 14mm is invisible. And you can already hand-hold the 50mm/1.8 a second EASILY, and ISO 2500 is butter-smooth, so it's not like we need f/1.4 or f/2.8 to keep our shutter speeds up and film speed down.

For wide angle astro landscape, the 1 stop difference between f4 and f2.8 is huge given the low light of the milky way and the shutter speed limitations for trailing stars if not using a tracker. Focusing will be manual and at infinity.
Using the Sigma 14/1.8 means a 2 1/3 stop advantage over f4
Some photographers even recommend the Sigma 20/1.4 for the 3 stops over f4 and then go to the trouble of stitching multi-row panoramas.

"Invisible" is correct as you won't see the stars as well

 

[EOS 4 Life]

But this lens won't turn you into a better photographer.

This is a pretty common statement but I never quite understood it.
Maybe I am the only one who is not in a contest to be the best photographer.
I look at any gear as a tool.
This would get me shots that I am currently not able to get.
I personally do not need such a lens but that hos nothing to do with me being a better photographer.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

I'm sure you know this and perhaps I'm splitting hairs but unless the software can accurately determine the distance of each element in an image, software blurring will look different to true wide aperture

Someone skilled enough at photo editing can pull that off.
Ansel Adams is considered a great photographer but he was also a great photo editor.
I am not denying that great equipment is worth the money but if you don't have it then "fake it until you make it".

 

[David - Sydney]

Buy this lens if you feel like buying it, and have the money to do so. The extra 1 2/3rds stop can, in some environments, help.But this lens won't turn you into a better photographer. Years ago, I convinced myself that with the Telyt 560mm I'd get "professional" pictures of birds of prey. Nada! Only patience, knowledge of behaviour and growing experience helped. And understanding that many photographers were just much better than I, and this would never change.
Remember that Cartier Bresson only needed a 50mm. Yes, I know, he wasn't a birder.

I guess the benefit of this lens (as you say 'in some environments') will be the ability at the same shutter speed ie a sharp shot vs high ISO. Subject isolation aside.

Better gear will perhaps get the shot vs not getting it. I feel that sharpness is the key (if that is what you want) so high ISO performance, IBIS and high mp sensors (allowing cropping) has been the best gear improvements.

I am agreeing with you for this lens although.....
Having acceptable sharpness for indoor sports with poor lighting and fast movement can really only be done with decent gear. Whether it is worth the cost is a different story but virtually no one likes a blurry version of themselves but reasonable amount of noise is more acceptable.
Wide aperture lenses are needed for astro shots as the ISO needed is ridiculously high if you don't and noise reduction is very difficult.
Macro lens capabilities for small stuff as cropping high mp shots, close-up filters, reverse lens solutions only gets you so far.
You need tilt-shift lenses if post processed keystoning is not sufficient.
You need CPL filters for managing reflections as you can't fix it in post.
Everything else is gravy

A lot of improvements recently in post-processing with high ISO, simpler subject masking, crop and upscale and of course sensor quality has also improved a lot over the last years. There will always be the SooC promoters but photography is a broader set of skills these days.

 

[rontele7]

Today's 135/1.8 absolutely beats the EF135/2 to a pulp, at least in my tests.

[/URL]

No way! The EF wins by a mile. It's 3-4x cheaper, 30% lighter, substantially smaller (especially with the hood), and has a focus window.

 

[Jack Douglas]

Read my posts and you don't need to ask those questions. Of course better equipment can improve the quality of a photograph, and what it can and should do is to extend the range and ease of what you can do. But, what I thought I had made clear is that having better gear does not automatically raise your photography to a higher level, which you were saying was correct, or consign those who do not have the top gear to a lower level. I have some very good gear now as I upgrade regularly, but the quality of my images has not improved because I am limited by my skill and not my gear. The gear I have now and what I had for my last DSLRs greatly increased my keeper rate for difficult BIF and the fps helps.

"...I upgrade regularly, but the quality of my images has not improved..." Come on Alan, you surely don't believe that, I don't.

 

[usern4cr]

Well, Alan, you and some others may have wondered. I'm now burdened by serious health issues but hopeful and what can be more stimulating than the prospect of better gear!

I'm sorry to hear about your serious health issues, and hope that you are able to recover as much as possible. As many of us (myself included) enter our "golden years", it turns out that there can be a lot of rust among that gold, and a lot of our parts need to be fixed or replaced. As much of our news starts to become of other dear friends and family that are no longer with us, I can certainly agree that the news & prospect of better gear in a long loved hobby (or profession) can be very uplifting and stimulating. I wish you all the best as you enjoy your photography with whatever equipment and helpful software that you are able to afford.

 

[SNJ Ops]

No way! The EF wins by a mile. It's 3-4x cheaper, 30% lighter, substantially smaller (especially with the hood), and has a focus window.

Optically RF 135mm f1.8 is considerably better which it should be considering its the more modern lens. Its not just sharper but also the control of CA is a night and day difference.

 

[AlanF]

I'm sure you know this and perhaps I'm splitting hairs but unless the software can accurately determine the distance of each element in an image, software blurring will look different to true wide aperture - simply separating foreground and background means the latter all gets blurred by the same amount. Some phones use a combination of algorithms and other methods (eg LIDAR) to parse the scene but even then the results rarely mimic a wide aperture lens well enough to convince on close inspection IMO. If course it will satisfy many people but maybe not the kind who would be in the market for exotic lenses.

The dual pixel (or quad) AF will allow the position of all parts of the image to have their distances measured and the correct out of focus calculated. I am sure that is possible now but too slow for everyday use in current cameras. It will happen.