New rumor of Supertelephoto DO’s and the R1 [CR2]
- Thread starter Richard CR
- Start date
Still got mine sitting in the drawer next to me here. I have the 600 F4L iii now for wildlife, but the 5.6 has great sentimental value. I'll probably never get rid of it. May have to try it on the R5 actually and do some close-up nature shots in my backyard.
Upvote
0
I picked one up recently, and Iove it on my R6. Ibis helps a lot. Gives new life to this lens.
Upvote
0
It's very interesting to know by how much IBIS stabilises telephotos. If you have time, could you do a series of shots at different shutter speeds with and without IBIS and give a rough idea of how many stops it gives. He avoids saying in that video
Upvote
0
But, but, but... people say Canon will support for 10 years after production stops.
I used to have that lens too. I really liked it.
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
Much slower, smaller lenses are possible due to AF advantages of mirrorless.
Upvote
0
Given the two new lenses' prices, they should be easier to come by than the 400 and 600.
Upvote
0
Canon's past history the opposite is usually true. The expensive items tend to be delayed.
It is possible that there will not be enough interest so more copies will be in stock.
The estimated ship date is 5/19/22 according to Canon's website.
I doubt there will be a shipping delay, Canon has been shipping the big whites via air.
A few people "might" get a copy.
The RF 400 and RF 600 are both on back order still.
Upvote
0
Does this mean anything for the long-rumored RF 500mm f/4? Been waiting to hear more about that one.
Rumors around that lens made it seem like diffractive optics are just "standard" now, as if there wouldn't be any lenses specifically marketed as "DO" anymore. What am I missing?
Rumors around that lens made it seem like diffractive optics are just "standard" now, as if there wouldn't be any lenses specifically marketed as "DO" anymore. What am I missing?
Upvote
0
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:
Upvote
0
Similar threads
