New diffractive optics super telephoto lenses on the way, with a new twist….. [CR1]

[tron]

And after 2 years from the prototype display we have just a CR1 rumor. So let's wait 2 more years until we see .... a CR2 one

 

[tron]

makes sense EF mount is obselete

That's why they make version III lighter super teles...

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Shorter and smaller lenses for the R line do make sense, I've been packing my R around this morning with its 100-400L and that overwhelms it. Most likely, I'll reserve it for the smaller lenses.

 

[mirage]

Sorry canon but that would suck, we want EF DO big whites. Or worst case make them and deliver for both.

no. i want them in RF mount. Smaller, lighter, good IQ. And "mirrorfree all the way."

EF = dinosaurs, soon extinct.

 

[nchoh]

Not so fast everyone. I for one although against the first iteration of mirrorless cameras would welcome DO lenses.

But, and there is a big but, we have to see if Canon can reduce the weight in relation to the new version III teles. The new 600 III weighs 3.05Kg and I would like
to remind you that the 600mm DO f/4 prototype introduced about 2 years ago weighted 3.2Kg!

So they must be able to go significantly lower than 3.05Kg for a 600 DO III to offer something useful.

Or they could move the center of gravity of the lens closer to the rear which would make the camera+lens easier to handle.

 

[tron]

Or they could move the center of gravity of the lens closer to the rear which would make the camera+lens easier to handle.

They have already done that in version III 400mm and 600mm EF lenses

 

[tron]

no. i want them in RF mount. Smaller, lighter, good IQ. And "mirrorfree all the way."

EF = dinosaurs, soon extinct.

Now that you have said so Canon will do them especially for you T-Rex

 

[dak723]

Sorry canon but that would suck, we want EF DO big whites. Or worst case make them and deliver for both.

Just wondering if you have indeed contacted Canon thru their website or other means and let them know. You do understand that this site has no connection with Canon, I hope.

If people really want to let Canon know their opinion, they can. This is not the place. I wonder how many folks here actually contact Canon with their complaints. It would be interesting to know.

 

[[email protected]]

They may do 2 versions of the lenses one for EF and one for EOS R mount, it all depends upon the uptake by punters buying into the EOS R system vs sales in current EOS EF

 

[hoodlum]

Or they could move the center of gravity of the lens closer to the rear which would make the camera+lens easier to handle.

This is one the big advantages of a DO lens that seem to get lost in the conversation. Everyone seems to just focuses on the weight.

 

[tron]

This is one the big advantages of a DO lens that seem to get lost in the conversation. Everyone seems to just focuses on the weight.

One more time: They have already done that in version III 400mm and 600mm EF lenses. At least the 600 III case has been discussed a lot before
Here is a Canon link:

https://www.usa.canon.com/internet/...s/ef/super-telephoto/ef-600mm-f-4l-is-iii-usm

And a picture from that link:

 

[efmshark]

Wouldn't a 600mm DO lens for the RF mount practically the same size and weight as the equivalent EF 600mm DO lens with an EF-RF adapter? What would be the point of making RF-only supertelephoto lenses?

 

[Lurker]

Not sure how I feel, I'm all in on EF at this point and I would like to see the EF 600 DO. I doubt I could afford/justify a new 600 of any flavor anyway. My wife and I only spent $7000 to get engaged and married, I think she'd be a little miffed if I spent more on a lens then I spent on her. If this is for the R then I don't have to think about it which makes my life easier.

My only hope is that when/if it comes it will lower the price of used EF 600s, either the II or III. Hope I can snag an EF for cheap from one of those young whippersnappers that have more money to burn than I, and more time, and love to invest in new technologies.

 

[mirage]

What would be the point of making RF-only supertelephoto lenses?

simple: future proofness. EF = on way out. RF = on way in. And many folks dislike adapters. lol

 

[MrFotoFool]

Thankfully I have no need for supertelephotos (in fact I recently bought a cheap used 300 2.8L IS and am selling it after a few months because I don't need it). However if I did want a long lens there is almost no question I would sell my Canon gear and get the new Nikon 500 f5.6 PF. I think Canon is really going to have a hard time competing with that (and the previous 300 f4 PF).

 

[applecider]

I own a 600 f4 v2 and a 300 2.8v2, the new offerings give me nothing that I don’t already have, if a 600do comes out those of us with version 2’s and 3’s of the telephotos will not be rushing out to get rid of or replace our gear. Sure a couple pounds lighter might be nice, but put yourself on a diet and you just shaved a few pounds off. It always fascinates me when people talk about weight of a lens and camera and talk about a few pounds being heavy. I mean are you really that weak or just that much of a bourgeoisie ? I know we all love tech but guess what, tech doesn’t always matter, a t5i and a 100-400 in the right hands will yield better results that a 1d and a 600 in the rookies hands. Yes this is a bit of a negative rant which a few will read but, at the end of the day I and many professionals will not be trading out our 1ds for a long time. If camera history has taught us anything the first few cycles of new bodies are not worth purchasing. I’ll take a heavier and more ergonomic friendly 1d series of that trash eosr with a ring on a lens and no joystick and one turn wheel and a apple Touch Bar and some goofy button layout any day. I love canon and I have given them lots of money and there are many DSLR users like me that will use the DSLR setup for many years to come. DSLR death will not be fast, and why replace what is near perfection. End of my rant

Yes I’m a fat American, and in my seventh decade, the transport weight of the lens is secondary to the ability to move the lens to follow say birds in flight the inertia as well as the shoulder height holding. I’m guessing that you are young and hale. Reassess your lens preferences after a knee replacement a couple of broken arms and shoulder surgery, bourgeoisie or not, time takes its toll. A 500ii with a 1.4 extender at f 5.6 is in a different class than a 100-400, which with a 1.4ext starts at f8.
Maybe the DO production is the bottleneck and an EF vs R fork cannot be supported simultaneously.

 

[Talys]

no. i want them in RF mount. Smaller, lighter, good IQ. And "mirrorfree all the way."

EF = dinosaurs, soon extinct.

Because, you know, reducing the FFD makes super telephoto lenses WAY WAY smaller and lighter, and vastly improves theirimage quality. You know, like how all Sony FE telephoto lenses are way smaller, lighter, and render way better image quality than EF telephoto lenses.

 

[Talys]

Just wondering if you have indeed contacted Canon thru their website or other means and let them know. You do understand that this site has no connection with Canon, I hope.

If people really want to let Canon know their opinion, they can. This is not the place. I wonder how many folks here actually contact Canon with their complaints. It would be interesting to know.

I suspect that ultimately, this will be a game of dollars.

If Canon keeps selling DSLRs to their pro sports crowd photographers and that group doesn't transition to mirrorless, or if RF supertelephotos simply don't sell well, Canon will release fewer super telephotos in RF.

 

[danski0224]

One more time: They have already done that in version III 400mm and 600mm EF lenses. At leat the 600 III case has been discussed a lot befo
Here is a Canon link:

https://www.usa.canon.com/internet/...s/ef/super-telephoto/ef-600mm-f-4l-is-iii-usm

And a picture from that link:

That looks like a 300mm...

 

[mirage]

Because, you know, reducing the FFD makes super telephoto lenses WAY WAY smaller and lighter, and vastly improves theirimage quality. You know, like how all Sony FE telephoto lenses are way smaller, lighter, and render way better image quality than EF telephoto lenses.

no. We know that size of long tele lenses is not dependent on FFD 20 vs. 44mm. It is just that EF is dead. New glass will be RF. Mirrorslapping is finally coming to an end now.

I like.