Agreed! the upgraded magnification factor is a nice surprise.Since the 100-400mm is more like 200mm at MFD, I care more about the magnification factor than the distance Which the RF improves upon a bit, 0.33x vs 0.31x.
Upvote
0
Agreed! the upgraded magnification factor is a nice surprise.Since the 100-400mm is more like 200mm at MFD, I care more about the magnification factor than the distance Which the RF improves upon a bit, 0.33x vs 0.31x.
While specs are a nice teaser, we're waiting to see what the IQ is out of this lens still, given that there are no sample images to pixel peep yet. If the image quality out of this L lens is as great as people have come to expect out of RF glass, people who would generally purchase this type of lens will generally be quite happy.I’m curious what the price will be and if it will work with the converters. Because under the bright African sun f14 is usable
btw what do you guys mean with the iq
Maybe someone can answer, why do manufacturers always choose to start with such slow apertures on the low end of these zooms? Is it purely a cost issue or is there inherent design issues with starting a 100-400 or 100-500 at 2.8?
Aperture is a ratio of how wide the pupil can open relative to the focal length. A longer lens needs a wider pupil to achieve the same f stop as a normal focal length lens. In practical terms, it's relatively easy to make a 50mm f/1.4 but it would be almost physically impossible to make a 500mm f/1.4 because the lens would have to be impossibly huge. Look at sizes for lenses like the 200-400mm L f/4 or any of the super teles. They are massive lenses because the aperture has to be massively wide at those focal lengths to achieve a fast aperture.
ah yes, I can now see that that was the point of his question. I don't know other than to theorize that there are some limitations in the optical formula that prevent it. f/2.8 at 100mm would make it a far more versatile lens for things like portraits.I think he meant why can a 100-500 not be 2.8 at 100 and 7.1 at 500.
I'm curious about this as well...
I think the only path forward is to buy both lenses... Long reach is just as important as low light and shallow DOF. Sigh.
Sigma makes a 200-500mm f/2.8 - it's only $25,999 https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/551435-REG/Sigma_597101_200_500mm_f_2_8_EX_DG.htmlAperture is a ratio of how wide the pupil can open relative to the focal length. A longer lens needs a wider pupil to achieve the same f stop as a normal focal length lens. In practical terms, it's relatively easy to make a 50mm f/1.4 but it would be almost physically impossible to make a 500mm f/1.4 because the lens would have to be impossibly huge. Look at sizes for lenses like the 200-400mm L f/4 or any of the super teles. They are massive lenses because the aperture has to be massively wide at those focal lengths to achieve a fast aperture.
D = Lens Diameter (in mm)Maybe someone can answer, why do manufacturers always choose to start with such slow apertures on the low end of these zooms? Is it purely a cost issue or is there inherent design issues with starting a 100-400 or 100-500 at 2.8?
Sigma makes a 200-500mm f/2.8 - it's only $25,999 https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/551435-REG/Sigma_597101_200_500mm_f_2_8_EX_DG.html
Next, someone will post that photo of the bodybuilder hand holding it!And it's not even 35 pounds!
This is so far the only lens that Canon has said was compatible with the converters.I’m curious what the price will be and if it will work with the converters. Because under the bright African sun f14 is usable
btw what do you guys mean with the iq
No silly, you just buy both!!!!I'm in the same boat. I'm quite disappointed that the 70-200 doesn't appear to be compatible with the extenders. It's a real shame, as it would have been a definite purchase for me. So do I just give up on longer reach, in favour of size, weight, and low light? Hmmm...
D = Lens Diameter (in mm)
F = Focal length
N = F-Number (or perhaps T-number to be more precise)
And we have a formula relating them:
N = F/D
The smaller N requires larger D for a given F.
There are weight and cost constraints with larger D.
And we have a formula relating them:
N = F/D
No silly, you just buy both!!!!