New type of teleconverter coming from Canon alongside a Supertelephoto zoom

[Bonich]

Let’s hope that 0x really means 1.0x.

I'll take the 0x for lots of low key pitch black results .....

 

[Bonich]

Canon RF plus a mention of "It won't be cheap" will move it into the $2000+ range. At some point it will be cheaper to get a new body with more megapixels instead of a TC.

Not cheap in Canon terms?
- 10k +
- initial bundle with the RF 1200mm lens for 5% off.

 

[AlanF]

The RF lenses are fantastic sharpness but I bet lens sharpness will also be a limiting factor to how much you can crop-to-zoom, even with a billion pixels...

When you get to a billion pixels, the resolution of the system will be independent of the focal length of the lens but depend only on its diameter (for an optically good lens). This is because the resolution of such a high density sensor will be limited by diffraction. Under these conditions, double the focal length of the lens with an extender and you double the diffraction blurring, which cancels out the gain in resolution by the extra focal length. Extenders are at their most effective for low resolution sensors.

 

[scyrene]

Long ago, Kenko made a 2x/3X converter (for M42 and Nikon F, I think). It was a two-part thing with an extension tube behind the teleconverter with optics in the converter spring-loaded to pop backward in to the extension tube to change the magnification.

Probably flogging a deceased equine here, but I think this rumor is a conflation of a recent Canon patent that looks quite practical but also looks a lot like a 1.4x/2x combination with an older patent for a 1/1.5/2x adapter that has just 4 elements in two groups, with one group able to move to change the magnification. That older patent is quite simple:

View attachment 209287

Seems like far too simple a design for what's being discussed here. The actual text of the patent states the purpose as, "In the adapter device, if the imaging area of the image sensor in the camera device and the image circle of the lens device do not match each other, or if the mount of the camera device and the mount of the lens device do not match each other, the camera device and the lens device It can be attached between. In addition, the adapter device can be used to connect the camera device and the lens device with the interface that is not aligned with each other, and to convert the flange back length of the lens device."

This looks far more like a mount conversion adapter to accommodate different sensor sizes than an actual teleconverter. There are embodiments in the patent where instead of magnification the adapter includes a variable ND filter, image stabilization, etc. Seems aimed more at video, actually. The 'magnification' that people seem to assume implies a teleconverter function seems more like adjusting the image circle of the lens to match the image circle appropriate for the sensor, i.e. it's adjusting for a crop factor of 1x to 2x. Either way it's a general purpose adapter patent, not a teleconverter design.

OTOH, compare the above simplistic design to what actually looks like a switchable TC design from the more recent patent:
View attachment 209290

This design has one 'base' option with a set of swing-in elements, i.e. only two settings. Could be 1x/2x, 1x/1.4x, to 1.4x/2x, but given that as stated above 1x is actually a reducing optic that opposes the magnification of a TC, I think a dual option including 1x is unlikely.

I get it, the idea of a 1x/1.4x/2x switchable TC sounds amazing.

View attachment 209291

Sorry to be that guy, but...

Thanks for the detailed reply!

 

[dominic_siu]

If it’s not protruding inside the main lens and fully usable with 100-500 L then I definitely will buy one

 

[David - Sydney]

Fourth will be a drop-in filter.

I think that there is only one current commercial filter to fit a 500/4 on the front unless Canon releases a custom one for it. A few (but not many) choices for the RF100-300mm's front filter.

A drop-in filter slot for the switchable TC would make it even longer potentially meaning stronger optics to adjust for the extra length. How that would impact the IQ @ 1x is the question.

If filters are needed for 500mm, then the EF500/4 will be your only option...
=> the best thing is that there will be multiple options but perhaps not a perfect solution

 

[LSXPhotog]

The diagrams I saw shared on here were interesting, but they also show the size relative to the mount and BOY…it’s a fat addition. I would love to see what they do here. Perhaps they can create two versions that only do 1x to 1.5x and a 1x to 2.0x to help keep the size and complexity down.

 

[Software2]

The 1.4x lives on my 100-500 L, and that thing sticks out so much - I just bought a new bag to haul it around in that config. If this gives me the full range of 100-500, it can stick out a massive amount and still reduce the total length of my kit in bag.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

unless they have?

They have but not starting a 1.0x

 

[SonicStudios]

I been thinking and saying for a while that it maybe this, and I’m thinking starting cost around $2000 at a minimum, who knows, will see

Canon patent details a variable-magnification 1.0-2.0x teleconverter with image stabilization, variable ND filter

If — and that’s a big if — such a teleconverter ever becomes a reality, you may one day be able to turn prime lenses into ‘zoom’ lenses and bring image stabilization to lenses that lack it.

m.dpreview.com

 

[Berowne]

"It won't be cheap we have been told, although the actual price is unknown at the moment."
My guess is, that the price will be so exclusive, that an owner of a 3000€ lens like the 100-500 zoom may not consider to purchase it.

 

[lnz]

If it make my RF400 a : "Canon RF 400-800mm F2.8-5.6L IS USM", i'm willing to pay up to 3000 for it! This can be a game changer, 2 things : weight and IQ

 

[AlanF]

"It won't be cheap we have been told, although the actual price is unknown at the moment."
My guess is, that the price will be so exclusive, that an owner of a 3000€ lens like the 100-500 zoom may not consider to purchase it.

The weight hit is relatively more of a drawback for a lighter zoom than a big, wider tele. I do use the 2x on my RF 100-500 a lot, most days, but take it off when not required because of the hit on IQ, which is maintained on zooming out to 600mm. A 1.4-2x version would be of zero interest to me, accordingly. A 1-2x would be of interest only if there was no IQ hit at 1x.

 

[neuroanatomist]

A 1-2x would be of interest only if there was no IQ hit at 1x.

I’d argue that’s impossible.

 

[chasingrealness]

All I want is a tc that can work with the 135mm f/1.8.

 

[CJudge]

Another reason why we want more and more MPIX. It really delivers flexibility big time when shooting- not least for fast primes.

This is the approach inherent in Leica’s Q3 fixed lens camera. An outstandingly high performing 28mm lens, paired with a 60MP sensor, allowing for extensive cropping (they provide in-camera cropping of up to a 90mm equivalent). A combo of a great prime with a high resolution sensor is, at this stage, better performing than a variable-aperture zoom on say a 20MP body.

Of course, we used to say that about once fabled >30MP sensors. It never stops us all wanting to use those higher resolution sensors with dedicated telephoto lenses, to eke out every possible drop of image quality and get smoother bokeh!

 

[koenkooi]

I’d argue that’s impossible.

Let's see if Canon can deliver something in the "unobservable to neglible" range, assuming this whole rumour is accurate.

 

[AlanF]

I’d argue that’s impossible.

Canon will include a Dremel kit to saw off the end of your 100-300mm, fit on a new flange that will take the new TC so when the TC is out it’s at the right length.

 

[rushscott]

It's the front-protruding optical train (inner barrel) of the existing TCs that preclude compatibility with the RF 70-200 and full compatibility with the RF 100-500. The lenses won't change, but if the new TC lacks the protruding front portion then it would be compatible with all RF lenses. I doubt Canon will do this, but it's certainly possible. The patent diagrams do not show an optical train protrusion, but that doesn't mean much.

Do you have the patent number?

 

[AlanF]

Do you have the patent number?

It was in an earlier post. https://asobinet-com.translate.goog...-lens/?_x_tr_sl=ja&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en-GB