New Canon 600mm f/4 Design Uses Spotting Scope Trick

[entoman]

I suspect many people fill that gap with the RF 100-500L without or with the 1.4x TC.

Yes, that's what I aim to do, but I'd like to have a wider max aperture at the tele end than is available with the 1.4x.

 

[melgross]

The vast majority of the public buys 800/5.6 and 1200/F8's?

The vast majority of people who shoot subjects where those lenses are desirable. And, of course, who can afford to rent or buy them. But those lenses are pretty expensive,with good profitability.

Canon is the worlds most successful camera/lens manufacturer. Obviously they know what their customers and potential customers want.

 

[arbitrage]

One typo in the article....the Nikon 400S with its built in TC should be 560mm f/4 (not 600 f/5.6).

 

[mbike999]

The vast majority of people who shoot subjects where those lenses are desirable. And, of course, who can afford to rent or buy them. But those lenses are pretty expensive,with good profitability.

Canon is the worlds most successful camera/lens manufacturer. Obviously they know what their customers and potential customers want.

I don't think I've read a single post where someone said they wanted those lenses, especially not in their current form, but I get the point that the forums aren't an accurate read of the market.

 

[AlanF]

The vast majority of people who shoot subjects where those lenses are desirable. And, of course, who can afford to rent or buy them. But those lenses are pretty expensive,with good profitability.

Canon is the worlds most successful camera/lens manufacturer. Obviously they know what their customers and potential customers want.

Ford became the best selling car in 1906. In 1909, Henry Ford said they can have any color as long as it is black. http://oplaunch.com/blog/2015/04/30/the-truth-about-any-color-so-long-as-it-is-black/ so maybe it’s not obvious.

 

[Czardoom]

I think the recently introduced lenses were clearly stop-gaps, right? It's like the R and the RP back a few years. I'm curious what the other priorities are though....R7 maybe?

I agree completely, especially if this patent represents a reality where Canon is looking at new types of designs for super-telephotos. I think there was a recent article linked here that discussed just how long it takes to design a lens - I think 3 years minumum and often considerably more. While forum users continually act as if they need new products right away - or foolishly think that camera companies can design and produce a lens right away in response to what their competitors have just released - it will be years before we can decide whether Canon's recently released super-teles are a slap in the face or a raised middle finger, or just a stop gap measure.

 

[Del Paso]

While I can understand the redesign of the RF 800 and 1200, I still find it hard to swallow their price.
On the other hand, who am I to criticize lenses which I would never even consider buying????
What actually matters, is what actual users think about them, and whether they'll buy or reject.
It's true that this forum's needs and demands are sometimes a bit "off- reality".
And it's also true that Canon has, in the past, proven that they know what they are doing...

 

[Birdshooter]

I really hope Canon announces something that rival Nikon's 500mm and 800mm PF designs. With current ISO performance there's no need for f4 lenses.

I disagree, as a F/4 600 owner... lol
Maybe you like losing a stop of light to higher iso's, but not me.

 

[Birdshooter]

I suspect many people fill that gap with the RF 100-500L without or with the 1.4x TC.

Ya, and shoot 7.1 with super high iso values.
No matter what people say about how good the iso is on new bodies, it still degrades the image.
And then there is the Bokeh.... and for me 7.1 or 6.3 as my base aperture would be a no go as I don't venture into that space very often and prefer fast glass when ever possible. Everyone is different and so are their images.

 

[AlanF]

Ya, and shoot 7.1 with super high iso values.
No matter what people say about how good the iso is on new bodies, it still degrades the image.
And then there is the Bokeh.... and for me 7.1 or 6.3 as my base aperture would be a no go as I don't venture into that space very often and prefer fast glass when ever possible. Everyone is different and so are their images.

Have you shot with the RF 100-500mm? Have you used modern noise reduction software? If you haven't, I can tell you you won't detect any noticeable image degradation at iso 800. On a sunny day for fast birds in flight, a typical exposure for me would be 1/3200s, f/7.1, iso 800. You can shoot a couple of stops of iso higher than that and still not worry about image degradation. And how often does bokeh, @Birdshooter, seriously affect your bird photos? For close-ups, you have to stop down anyway because the depth of field is so shallow at 500mm. It's only when it it gets really dark would I appreciate an f/4. Anyway, f/7.1 and even f/11 is good enough for me, but, fair enough, might not be good enough for you.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I disagree, as a F/4 600 owner... lol
Maybe you like losing a stop of light to higher iso's, but not me.

Ya, and shoot 7.1 with super high iso values.
No matter what people say about how good the iso is on new bodies, it still degrades the image.
And then there is the Bokeh.... and for me 7.1 or 6.3 as my base aperture would be a no go as I don't venture into that space very often and prefer fast glass when ever possible. Everyone is different and so are their images.

A current sensor paired with the right RAW converter can produce excellent images from what used to be unthinkably high ISOs.

Also, not everyone can afford —or carry— a 600/4.

When I use a 2x TC with my 600/4, the base aperture is f/8, and I don’t find that to be a no-go at all.

 

[Alam]

Is it possible to design lens like this with this binocular-ish design?
: 600mm 5.6 on top/ left and 400mm f4 on the right, with a lever to switch,

Since jt will be weird to have lens only one tube bending on one direction i think it's possible,

 

[entoman]

Have you shot with the RF 100-500mm? Have you used modern noise reduction software? If you haven't, I can tell you you won't detect any noticeable image degradation at iso 800. On a sunny day for fast birds in flight, a typical exposure for me would be 1/3200s, f/7.1, iso 800. You can shoot a couple of stops of iso higher than that and still not worry about image degradation. And how often does bokeh, @Birdshooter, seriously affect your bird photos? For close-ups, you have to stop down anyway because the depth of field is so shallow at 500mm. It's only when it it gets really dark would I appreciate an f/4. Anyway, f/7.1 and even f/11 is good enough for me, but, fair enough, might not be good enough for you.

Not to mention the fact that the zoom is a lot lighter and easier to manoeuvre for BIF than a wide 600mm or 800mm prime. The big primes, unless you happen to be a body-builder, really need to be used with a strong tripod and a gimbal, neither of which are practical if you have to walk any distance.

Topaz DeNoise AI makes a vast difference to image quality at medium-high ISO settings. I normally shoot at 800-1000 ISO and with Topaz "tuned" correctly it completely eliminates noise, and actually increases the amount of fine detail rendered. It's absolutely night and day, compared to LR and PS, and simple to use.

Having said all this, given the choice, I'd go for a lower ISO and a faster shutter speed in almost all cases (with BIF), and if it was possible to get F4 bokeh and subject isolation (for perching birds) in the form of a lightweight, compact and relatively affordable 800mm prime, I'd jump at it.

My bird and mammal season is roughly October to March - (for the rest of the year I usually switch to photographing insects), so I'm not in a hurry to upgrade from my existing EF 100-400mm and 1.4x, but I agree that the 100-500mm is the best compromise between 600mm F4 quality, and the low price and lightweight of a high quality zoom.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Is it possible to design lens like this with this binocular-ish design?
: 600mm 5.6 on top/ left and 400mm f4 on the right, with a lever to switch,

Since jt will be weird to have lens only one tube bending on one direction i think it's possible,

Binoculars with a 107mm front element on one side and a 100mm front element on the other? Good luck with that. Also, it would be massively heavy and the shape would be very uncomfortable to handhold, like a waiter supporting a 9-lb platter.

 

[bbasiaga]

If this could get me a 600 F/4 for close to the price of the 150-500, I'd be down. I'm sure it would be 20k USD though. Smaller than the current 600mm L offering = higher value in Canon's mind.

Really need some 3rd party lenses to come along and fill that middle ground price point on the RF mount. Canon's stuff is great, but getting unaffordable. Luckily there are millions of used EF units out there that work great.

-Brian

 

[AlanF]

A current sensor paired with the right RAW converter

= DxO PL5

 

[AJ]

Looks like Canon is thinking of creative ways to get rid of excess mirrors.

 

[AlanF]

Not to mention the fact that the zoom is a lot lighter and easier to manoeuvre for BIF than a wide 600mm or 800mm prime. The big primes, unless you happen to be a body-builder, really need to be used with a strong tripod and a gimbal, neither of which are practical if you have to walk any distance.

Topaz DeNoise AI makes a vast difference to image quality at medium-high ISO settings. I normally shoot at 800-1000 ISO and with Topaz "tuned" correctly it completely eliminates noise, and actually increases the amount of fine detail rendered. It's absolutely night and day, compared to LR and PS, and simple to use.

Having said all this, given the choice, I'd go for a lower ISO and a faster shutter speed in almost all cases (with BIF), and if it was possible to get F4 bokeh and subject isolation (for perching birds) in the form of a lightweight, compact and relatively affordable 800mm prime, I'd jump at it.

My bird and mammal season is roughly October to March - (for the rest of the year I usually switch to photographing insects), so I'm not in a hurry to upgrade from my existing EF 100-400mm and 1.4x, but I agree that the 100-500mm is the best compromise between 600mm F4 quality, and the low price and lightweight of a high quality zoom.

The real pros (top amateur) BIF guys do use the 600mm f/4 hand held, but they are in a different league or two from the likes of us, and all I can do is to admire their skill and images. Remarkably, Chelsea Northrup can hand hold a 600mm! I once went on a Puffin shoot with 400mm f/4 DO II on a 5DIV and got 100s of keepers as they belted past with sand eels in their beaks but the guys with 1DXs and 400mm f/2.8s on tripods got close to zero. I'd use the bare 100-500mm on the R5 if I get the opportunity to go again.

 

[MiJax]

I agree completely, especially if this patent represents a reality where Canon is looking at new types of designs for super-telephotos. I think there was a recent article linked here that discussed just how long it takes to design a lens - I think 3 years minumum and often considerably more. While forum users continually act as if they need new products right away - or foolishly think that camera companies can design and produce a lens right away in response to what their competitors have just released - it will be years before we can decide whether Canon's recently released super-teles are a slap in the face or a raised middle finger, or just a stop gap measure.

I can understand why you guys see these as stop gaps, but I don't think I'd give them that much credit. A stop gap suggests they plan to come right back and correct it. I feel like this was purely a cost saving measure. They developed two lenses and turned them in to six. Six for the cost of 2 or 3 lenses is an accountant's win as well it freed up the designers to start work on the 200mm, 300mm, and 500mm lenses much sooner than a set of conventional designs would have allowed.

 

[Alam]

Binoculars with a 107mm front element on one side and a 100mm front element on the other? Good luck with that. Also, it would be massively heavy and the shape would be very uncomfortable to handhold, like a waiter supporting a 9-lb platter.

Well, the design promise lighter construction and shorter length, I think possible but who knows