New rumor of Supertelephoto DO’s and the R1 [CR2]

LogicExtremist

Lux pictor
Sep 26, 2021
317
224
Much slower, smaller lenses are possible due to AF advantages of mirrorless.
I think you may have mixed up a few features of the new Canon mirrorless cameras here. Lens size and AF are two separate matters. Hope I can clarify the issue.

The RF mount sits closer to the sensor than the EF mount, and that only really helps with the design of new wide angle lenses.

RF lenses generally aren't really smaller than equivalent EF lenses, the ones that do achieve compact size have telescoping bodies that must be extended before use (RF 600 & 800 f/11) which may lead to durability issues, or now telescope in and out when zooming (Canon RF 70-200 f2.8 IS vs Canon EF 70-200 2.8 IS III), which may compromise environmental sealing. Some also extend when focussing, making them more prone to damage.

The RF lenses are slower because of better sensors on the R5 and R6, not because of mirrorless technology, an advantage not shared by the EOS R and RP bodies which use sensors based on the older 5DIV and 6DII sensors. Yes, the newer sensors can produce better images (less noise) at higher ISOs, I think it's around a two stop advantage., but what have we gained? All Canon has done is some clever marketing to lower customer expectations, make slower lenses that would have been previously less usable, relying on the better sensor to compensate for the inferior optics. No different to a better lens on an inferior sensor, nothing is gained for the customer, but Canon often sells these lenses at the same price or more than the optically better lens. A win for Canon, making more money, selling you less!

Many RF lenses are lighter, and that's because Canon has been using engineering plastics (which may be cheaper to produce and less durable) in place of metal, using PMo (plastic molded) lens elements which are cheaper and lighter in some lenses, such as the RF 100-400 and RF 16mm, or by underbuilding lenses which produce optically unusable images and relying on software to fix the issue afterwards. In a DSLR, when you look through the OVF, you are looking through the lens, and so the lens optics have to produce a fairly reasonable image without crazy distortion, otherwise nobody would buy them. Since MILCs are really just mini video cameras running all the time, sending a video feed to a mini-screen, the EVF, and taking a photo using mechanical or electronic shutter when the button is pressed, it's possible to hide shocking optics by processing the digital signal and modifying it to correct for bad distortion before it reaches the EVF, it's like a 'screw it, lets take a bad photo and fix it in post" type of approach. This way, Canon can underdesign a lens, compromising image quality for size, which is cheaper for them, but they sell the lens at the same price, or more often at a greater price, which is what we've seen with lenses such as the RF 14-35mm. Once again, a win for Canon, making more money, selling you less! Sure, other brands do this too, but the 'bandwagon fallacy', they're doing it so that makes it right to do it too, isn't actually a sound logical argument.

Manufacturers are competeing with each other in a shrinking market and looking for ways to give consumers a few more features to compel them to upgrade while still making a sufficient profit. Some of the lenses they produce on the new RF platform my hit the right balance of image quality, value for money, innovation (new features) and profitability, while others wont, and time will tell which falls into each respective category. :)


 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

LogicExtremist

Lux pictor
Sep 26, 2021
317
224
The rf 800 f11 could not be made in ef mount because the focusing wouldn't work in DSLR at f11. Can you think of a more affordable, small 800mm lens?
Many could focus at f/8 though, including the APSCs such as the 80D and 90D, and with their crop factor considered, these are really operating at f/12.8 at the full-frame equivalent f/8 aperture. I'm sure Canon would have been able to build a 500mm f/7 apsc only lens, which would have been the same optically, and possibly smaller, considering the fairly compact size of the Sigma 100-400mm, which is a zoom with aperture blades.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

davidcl0nel

Canon R5, 17 TSE, RF35+85 IS, RF70-200 4 IS, EF135
Jan 11, 2014
188
52
Berlin
www.flickr.com
Many could focus at f/8 though, including the APSCs such as the 80D and 90D, and with their crop factor considered, these are really operating at f/12.8 at the full-frame equivalent f/8 aperture. I'm sure Canon would have been able to build a 500mm f/7 apsc only lens, which would have been the same optically, and possibly smaller, considering the fairly compact size of the Sigma 100-400mm, which is a zoom with aperture blades.
Only on _one_ AF point in the center. On an 800mm it would be not such a problem (but its even f/11), but Canon also build zooms with f/8 on the long end (like the 100-400), which they would never do for EF. On 400mm I want also not-centered AF points, to use rule of thirds or focus on the eye/head of somebody/thing.
And so these lenses can be smaller, because on EF Canon always uses maximum of f/5.6....
 

Fischer

EOS RP
Mar 17, 2020
352
248
Manufacturers are competeing with each other in a shrinking market and looking for ways to give consumers a few more features to compel them to upgrade while still making a sufficient profit. Some of the lenses they produce on the new RF platform my hit the right balance of image quality, value for money, innovation (new features) and profitability, while others wont, and time will tell which falls into each respective category. :)
Your logic fails you. In general neewly designed RF lenses have been clearly better than their EF-equivilants mechanically and optically. The 50mm prime is probably the best example. I have full confidence that the new materials will hold just as well or better than the old. Lens Rentals tear down shows impressive Canon engineering, excellent solutions and upgraded mechanics - also belying your sweeping claims that Canon is taking more but giving us less.

Lensrentals verdict on the RF 70-200mm f/2.8:

"a LOT of engineering progress has been made. The Canon RF 70-200mm f/2.8 is a complex beast, but you get a quick feel for it being organized complexity, and it’s actually a much simpler layout than those other lenses. Some of that is from the improved optical design; there’s less glass floating around. Some of it is the use of linear focusing motors.
Most of it is superior electro-mechanical engineering and a brand-new, ground-up design. It’s clear those other lenses were improvements on existing designs. Over the years, as various versions of the lenses have been released, it’s apparent that they started with the previous design and modified it. Like a lens paleontologist, we could see the bones of the original beast with layers of new complexity and modifications added in the newer version. (Yes, I’m very aware it was Sony’s first FE 70-200mm lens, but, to be polite, it heavily borrowed from other 70-200mm lenses mechanically).
This lens was a new design from the ground up. There’s no ‘that’s the way we’ve always done it’ holdovers. That’s a lot more work for the designers, but the result is a beautifully engineered, fully modern lens. It’s clean, functional, and straightforward.
It’s obviously very robustly engineered from a mechanical standpoint. The internal composites are strong as hell. There are double cams, rods, and posts everywhere. There’s no play in any moving parts. We can’t imagine there will ever be play in the moving parts unless you run over it with a truck. You could describe it as ruggedized, but I’m going to stick with Strong, Like Bull, and suggest we refer to this as the RF-SLB 70-200mm f/2.8 from now on.
There are a lot of nice touches, like the air filter tape over the openings around the front group. Will it prevent the lens from getting dust inside? Of course not; every lens gets dust inside. But it’s helpful and shows they’re trying. It’s also the first lens in a decade that I can say was obviously designed with ease of repairability in mind, at least as far as they could."
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

LogicExtremist

Lux pictor
Sep 26, 2021
317
224
Only on _one_ AF point in the center. On an 800mm it would be not such a problem (but its even f/11), but Canon also build zooms with f/8 on the long end (like the 100-400), which they would never do for EF. On 400mm I want also not-centered AF points, to use rule of thirds or focus on the eye/head of somebody/thing.
And so these lenses can be smaller, because on EF Canon always uses maximum of f/5.6....
On the Canon 7D II perhaps, but 27 AF points on 80D and 90D at f/8.
I've had an 80D for quite a while, awesome camera! :)

------------------------------------

From the Canon site, "What's new: EOS 80D - AF at f/8 max. apertures"

Lenses providing this broader 27-point coverage at f/8 effective maximum apertures with the EOS 80D are:

EF 100–400mm f/4.5–5.6L IS II + Extender EF 1.4x III
EF 200–400mm f/4L IS Extender 1.4x lens + Extender EF 2x III (built-in extender not used)

Summary
Focus with 27 AF points, at f/8, with newest tele lenses + extenders

For years, photographers have grown used to assuming that if they wanted additional features like the ability to use autofocus with lenses slower than f/5.6, that they needed to turn to advanced, high-end digital SLR cameras. Canon engineers have begun to listen to the growing requests from our customers who want the ability to continue to use AF, without requiring big, heavy and expensive super-telephotos with wide apertures to achieve this if they want to add a tele extender.

The EOS 80D’s new 45-point AF system is a strong testament to this. It provides AF at the center AF point with almost all combinations of compatible Canon EF telephoto lenses and Canon-brand tele extenders with f/8 (effective) maximum apertures. And, it expands this to an outstanding 27 available AF points at f/8, with the two new lenses mentioned immediately above, if combined with the latest Version III tele extenders. Even if you’re using an older lens or extender, though, the EOS 80D will make it possible to get more out of your gear, and at a much lower cost of entry, than the higher-end cameras that would have been required previously.

(source: https://www.usa.canon.com/internet/...tures/Whats-New-EOS-80D-AF-at-f8-max-apetures)

------------------------------------

From DP review:

The Canon 90D, when using apertures of F8 and wider, there are 27 points, nine of which are cross-type.

(source: https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canon-eos-90d-review/2)
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
27,108
6,542
Many could focus at f/8 though, including the APSCs such as the 80D and 90D, and with their crop factor considered, these are really operating at f/12.8 at the full-frame equivalent f/8 aperture. I'm sure Canon would have been able to build a 500mm f/7 apsc only lens, which would have been the same optically, and possibly smaller, considering the fairly compact size of the Sigma 100-400mm, which is a zoom with aperture blades.
The apparent narrower aperture with a crop sensor applied only to DoF when you move further from the subject to match framing. In the context of AF, it’s a red herring.

Also, for telephoto lens designs the diameter of the image circle is not limiting. A 500/7 APS-C lens would be no smaller than a 500/7 FF lens.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

LogicExtremist

Lux pictor
Sep 26, 2021
317
224
Your logic fails you. In general neewly designed RF lenses have been clearly better than their EF-equivilants mechanically and optically. The 50mm prime is probably the best example. I have full confidence that the new materials will hold just as well or better than the old. Lens Rentals tear down shows impressive Canon engineering, excellent solutions and upgraded mechanics - also belying your sweeping claims that Canon is taking more but giving us less.

Lensrentals verdict on the RF 70-200mm f/2.8:

"a LOT of engineering progress has been made. The Canon RF 70-200mm f/2.8 is a complex beast, but you get a quick feel for it being organized complexity, and it’s actually a much simpler layout than those other lenses. Some of that is from the improved optical design; there’s less glass floating around. Some of it is the use of linear focusing motors.
Most of it is superior electro-mechanical engineering and a brand-new, ground-up design. It’s clear those other lenses were improvements on existing designs. Over the years, as various versions of the lenses have been released, it’s apparent that they started with the previous design and modified it. Like a lens paleontologist, we could see the bones of the original beast with layers of new complexity and modifications added in the newer version. (Yes, I’m very aware it was Sony’s first FE 70-200mm lens, but, to be polite, it heavily borrowed from other 70-200mm lenses mechanically).
This lens was a new design from the ground up. There’s no ‘that’s the way we’ve always done it’ holdovers. That’s a lot more work for the designers, but the result is a beautifully engineered, fully modern lens. It’s clean, functional, and straightforward.
It’s obviously very robustly engineered from a mechanical standpoint. The internal composites are strong as hell. There are double cams, rods, and posts everywhere. There’s no play in any moving parts. We can’t imagine there will ever be play in the moving parts unless you run over it with a truck. You could describe it as ruggedized, but I’m going to stick with Strong, Like Bull, and suggest we refer to this as the RF-SLB 70-200mm f/2.8 from now on.
There are a lot of nice touches, like the air filter tape over the openings around the front group. Will it prevent the lens from getting dust inside? Of course not; every lens gets dust inside. But it’s helpful and shows they’re trying. It’s also the first lens in a decade that I can say was obviously designed with ease of repairability in mind, at least as far as they could."
"Your logic fails you." :( I hope not!

Don't get me wrong, I like a lot of the new RF lenses, have a few of them already, most are a bit better than their EF equivalents where they exist, but they're usually a lot more expensive relative to how much of an improvement they are, compared to their older counterparts.

If, by 50mm prime, you mean the nifty fifty, I have both, and prefer the slightly better but they're charging much more for RF 50mm f/1.8 ($200 vs $125 for the EF, or 60% more). If you're talking about the 50mm 1.2 L, then we're in exorbitant price territory, but they're improved that lens a lot, much sharper, if you value sharpness. But the EF 50mm f/1.2L USM sells for $1349, vs the $2299 price tag of the RF 50mm f/1.2L USM, that's a huge price hike!

The solid metal big whites have been proven out in the field, those things have been used in warzones and have survived the worst of treatment under the most shocking conditions. In engineering, all things are compromises, and you can't get rid of a solid armored one piece sealed metal shell that weights a heap, replace it with a lightweight telescoping plastic zooming mechanism, and expect the same durability. That's absurd, the fact that you have a sliding, extended piece is a glaring sign that you have a potential point of breakage. How much lateral force duou you imagine that could stand if you swung around and hit it, or it fell at an angle. Where would the force go? The light weight and compact size is chosen over durability in the RF version of the 70-200mm f/2.8. EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS III USM (Canon Store: $2099.00) vs RF 70-200mm F2.8 L IS USM Canon Store: $2799.00), a 40% price increase, really?

I don't do the brand loyalty thing, each lens has to stand on its merit. Like the EF range, some RF lenses will be awesome, some average, some mediocre, and some, well... You get the picture. What is guaranteed is that you'll be paying much more for any modest improvements, let alone major ones.
 

LogicExtremist

Lux pictor
Sep 26, 2021
317
224
The apparent narrower aperture with a crop sensor applied only to DoF when you move further from the subject to match framing. In the context of AF, it’s a red herring.

Also, for telephoto lens designs the diameter of the image circle is not limiting. A 500/7 APS-C lens would be no smaller than a 500/7 FF lens.
Hi Neuro, I don't get your first point, you might need to explain further. I'm talking pixels on bird at same distance, not everyone has an R5 lol, of all the RF camera bodies the next highest MP models are the EOS R and RP respectively if I'm not mistaken.

Precisely, a 500mm f/7 APS-C lens would be no smaller than a 500mm f/7 FF lens, but most likely smaller than an 800mm F/11 extended for use.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
27,108
6,542
Hi Neuro, I don't get your first point, you might need to explain further. I'm talking pixels on bird at same distance, not everyone has an R5 lol, of all the RF camera bodies the next highest MP models are the EOS R and RP respectively if I'm not mistaken.
You replied to the point by @AEWest that, “The rf 800 f11 could not be made in ef mount because the focusing wouldn't work in DSLR at f11,” with a statement that, “Many could focus at f/8 though, including the APSCs such as the 80D and 90D, and with their crop factor considered, these are really operating at f/12.8 at the full-frame equivalent f/8 aperture.”

I inferred that to mean you were suggesting an f/11 lens could AF on an APS-C DSLR. Probably I misunderstood your intent.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

Fischer

EOS RP
Mar 17, 2020
352
248
"Your logic fails you." :( I hope not!

In engineering, all things are compromises, and you can't get rid of a solid armored one piece sealed metal shell that weights a heap, replace it with a lightweight telescoping plastic zooming mechanism, and expect the same durability. That's absurd, the fact that you have a sliding, extended piece is a glaring sign that you have a potential point of breakage. How much lateral force duou you imagine that could stand if you swung around and hit it, or it fell at an angle. Where would the force go?
Suggest you study the trade off between weight, rigidity, force and impact. A lighter lens with a less rigid shell will suffer a lot less force to the critical fragile inner parts than the glass within a heavier, stiffer metal counterpart. Take a look at your car and just consider how - extremely - much better that car manages to reduce total impact with its "soft" composite shell than the steel coffins people were driving yesterday. As for extended pieces - another illogical argument. I could also ask which lens do you think will suffer the largest force: the pulled back RF or the long EF-model when hit at an angle? I trust you know the answer.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

AlanF

Stay at home
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
9,723
14,939
Suggest you study the trade off between weight, rigidity, force and impact. A lighter lens with a less rigid shell will suffer a lot less force to the critical fragile inner parts than the glass within a heavier, stiffer metal counterpart. Take a look at your car and just consider how - extremely - much better that car manages to reduce total impact with its "soft" composite shell than the steel coffins people were driving yesterday. As for extended pieces - another illogical argument. I could also ask which lens do you think will suffer the largest force: the pulled back RF or the long EF-model when hit at an angle? I trust you know the answer.
The car analogy is not a good one. The reason the modern car is safer is because there is a rigid passenger cage with a crumple zone in front that deforms to absorb the impact and lower the deceleration forces. If you put a crumple section in front of the old steel “coffin” it would function as well (and safety bags etc importantly help). A disposable lens hood in the front of a metal lens would act as a crumple zone for a head first fall. The internal components within a lens would be protected by impact protection structures like rubber between them and the rigid frame, like we know the RF 100-500mm has for its IS unit that does not park like in the EF lenses.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

LogicExtremist

Lux pictor
Sep 26, 2021
317
224
Suggest you study the trade off between weight, rigidity, force and impact. A lighter lens with a less rigid shell will suffer a lot less force to the critical fragile inner parts than the glass within a heavier, stiffer metal counterpart. Take a look at your car and just consider how - extremely - much better that car manages to reduce total impact with its "soft" composite shell than the steel coffins people were driving yesterday. As for extended pieces - another illogical argument. I could also ask which lens do you think will suffer the largest force: the pulled back RF or the long EF-model when hit at an angle? I trust you know the answer.
Hmmm, not really sure that's the case. It's basic engineering/physics, were talking a two-piece unsupported structure vs a solid structure.

Exert a force perpendicular to the lens body, over its centre. In the solid structure the stresses will be exerted over the lower surface, taken up by the material, which will not deform in the case of a metal lens body unless it leads to destructive failure, much like a load bearing beam spanning two points.

With a structure that consists of a weaker material formed as a tube within a tube, the stresses will all be placed on the area of the joint. The bottom edge of the inner tube will cut into the inner surface of the outer tube, and act like a lever. Of course we're talking about an extended lens, which you've steered away from discussing

This is not a point that can validly be argued from an engineering perspective. Without getting into force vector diagrams, ask yourself why bridges are constructed of solid beams and not loose tubes sliding inside each other. Or just extend the RF 70-200mm lens and sit on it! :oops:

Is it so hard to imagine that a company would trade strength and durability for weight and size in a product? It's done all the time with all manner of things.
The simple rule with engineering is that when you add to something, you take away from something else - because there is no such thing as a free lunch! The imaginary perfect material or structure that is the best at everything and fits every need is nonexistent by definition. :)

Probably best to be aware of the potential weaknesses of a new design and treat the gear with respect to ensure it doesn't get damaged, rather than assume it's better in every way because it's newer, that would be a logical fallacy.

Practical advice, don't treat an extended telescoping lens made of engineering plastics as it it were a solid, single-piece alloy traditional big white, that would be a sure way to wreck a really good expensive lens. :(
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

Otara

EOS RP
CR Pro
Jul 16, 2012
480
285
The real correction isnt for distorted optics, it was for low light levels, looking through an optical VF has its own issues.

F8 was noticeably darker, let alone the F11 or F16 as you can now do with the 800F11+TC. I got to take a picture of a bird at 125th at 800mm, 6400 ISO - through an optical VF I suspect I wouldnt have been able to see the branch, let alone the bird.
 

LogicExtremist

Lux pictor
Sep 26, 2021
317
224
The real correction isnt for distorted optics, it was for low light levels, looking through an optical VF has its own issues.

F8 was noticeably darker, let alone the F11 or F16 as you can now do with the 800F11+TC. I got to take a picture of a bird at 125th at 800mm, 6400 ISO - through an optical VF I suspect I wouldnt have been able to see the branch, let alone the bird.
Um, how do I say this gently...

The optical distortion of the RF 16mm f/2.8 and RF 14-35 f/4 is absolutely shocking, you're talking about two totally different issues here. Vignetting is also bad, around 2-3 stops I believe, on all RF lenses, much worse than EF mount. Its a flaw of the RF mount design because 'physics and engineering', you can't get something for nothing...

The discussion was whether shooting at f/11 was a mirrorless camera design miracle or no big deal, something that could be done on a DSLR.

There's nothing like straight evidence, here's a video by bird photographer Duade Paton, who does this very test using a Canon 5D IV DSLR and a 500 f/4 turned into a 700 f/11. It can be done! He does it to prove that the RF f/11 lenses are usable at those settings. He also has other videos where he tests the actual lenses.

Unless you're shooting at dawn or dusk or other low light conditions, shooting at f/11 is no big deal in terms of available light. Most macro photographers shoot at that aperture (and manually focus because all AF has its limits when DOF is measured in millimetres) and I believe many landscape photographers do too. Incidentally a lot of macro is shot on APSC, so their f/11 is actually equivalent to f/17.6 on FF.



For perspective, yes, it's exciting to have all those extra focus points on a mirrorless camera, and to be able to use a lot of them with the AF, but once again, there's no such thing as a free lunch when it comes to engineering. Anyone who has done any amount of photography using a mirrorless camera has had the experience where once the camera locks onto something in the background, and the foreground subjects are blurred out of focus, the camera refuses to lock back onto them, because it can't see them, and can't lock focus on what it can't see on the sensor, as that's how focussing works on these camera bodies.

Most of us either put our hand in front of the lens, point the camera to a large nearby object, or towards the ground and half-press the shutter butter to re-acquire focus. DSLRs have a separate autofocus system so they don't have this problem, but sometimes this system goes out of alignment with the lens/sensor and microadjustments are needed to get maximum sharpness from the lens. Like I said, different approaches to an engineering problem yield different benefit, but also different shortcomings, that's the way the physical world works, for better of for worse! :)

Here's a video of the problem here, by the same photographer.

 
Last edited:

Otara

EOS RP
CR Pro
Jul 16, 2012
480
285
"Unless you're shooting at dawn or dusk or other low light conditions, shooting at f/11 is no big deal in terms of available light."

Well yes, except for that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

Otara

EOS RP
CR Pro
Jul 16, 2012
480
285
I guess we're in agreement then, great! :)

Not really, but you misunderstood my point, it was about how easy it is to actually _look through_ an optical VF when the aperture is actually set to F11 or F16 at a small target with a long distance lens in lower light.

It makes the VF quite dim and lower in contrast, which can be corrected by mirrorless, and in my view is rather valuable.