Patent: Canon RF 120-700mm f/4.5-8 optical formula

[privatebydesign]

That's not really true though. At f8 700mm, your depth of field will be shallower than a 400mm lens at f4. Focul length has a much greater affect on DoF than aperture.

That simply isn't true. If the subject is framed the same size, which is the whole point of long lenses, the aperture number gives consistent DOF. So a 700mm f8 from further away to give the same subject size on the sensor has greater DOF than a 400mm f4 shot from closer, if you shoot from the same place and crop the 400mm f4 shot to give you the same framing as the 700mm shot you get even less DOF.

 

[Mr Majestyk]

Certainly more useful than the 100-500, but a 250-750 f/5.6-7.1 would be a lot more desirable, similar front element size to 300 f/2.8. Keep it under 3kg and $6K and I would take it over a 600 f/4 these days.

Still not sure why they don't do a 200-600 f/5-6.3, the Sony 200-600 is a superb lens and good value for $2K.

 

[privatebydesign]

That's not really true though. At f8 700mm, your depth of field will be shallower than a 400mm lens at f4. Focul length has a much greater affect on DoF than aperture.

That is true, but compared through 400mm the f4 should be better and for 560mm @f5.6. There is no comparison above 560mm where the new lens will win without question! Update: it just occurred to me that I can pop on my 2x, not engage the internal TC and have a 400-800@f8 to compare with new lens. It will be interesting to compare the image quality between the two lenses. I think the 700mm might win because the glass is internal versus having a TC in the loop. I have used this setup and the image is actually pretty good.

No, it isn't.

 

[Ozarker]

700mm. I highly doubt I could handhold a 700mm lens and get a sharp shot. I'm not knocking the lens at all. I might actually be interested. I just know my limitations.

 

[sulla]

700mm. I highly doubt I could handhold a 700mm lens and get a sharp shot. I'm not knocking the lens at all. I might actually be interested. I just know my limitations.

I think you're not really supposed to handhold a 700mm lens.
I once tried it just for fun with a EF 600 (or was it the 800, I don't remember): yes, it works, you can get a sharp image with IS, high ISO plus "point and shoot" technique, but first, it is really difficult to frame the subject carefully and second you can't frame the subject for long due to the weight of the lens.

 

[sulla]

700 @ f/8 is really acceptable for me (way more acceptable than to pay for the 600 f/4 or the 800 f/5.6, which no question will be the better lenses).
Having used f/4 lenses with 2x TC in the past, I can say f/8 is not ideal, but very workable. AF also was OK with the 5D3. I assume (really only assume) that the AF system of R5/R6 will be better yet and will have no issues, at least during dawn to dusk.

 

[Billybob]

I think you're not really supposed to handhold a 700mm lens.
I once tried it just for fun with a EF 600 (or was it the 800, I don't remember): yes, it works, you can get a sharp image with IS, high ISO plus "point and shoot" technique, but first, it is really difficult to frame the subject carefully and second you can't frame the subject for long due to the weight of the lens.

An exotic prime is a very different animal from a consumer-grade superzoom, which is what this 120-700 is. I suspect that it will be similar in size to Sony's 200-600 orTamron's 150-600 if not slightly smaller. These lenses are more handholdable than you might think. They do get fatiguing after a while, but I've walked around with them for 2-3 hours at a time getting pictures just as sharp at the end of the shoot as at the beginning. 5.5 lbs seems to be the limit for me. I tried the Sigma 60-600, which is around 6lbs, and that lens was a struggle. Of course, YMMV.

 

[Deleted member 381342]

I am still hoping for a 200-500 L f/5.6 or 200-600 L f/5.6. Or maybe 400, 500, and 600mm f5.6 primes. The Nikon 500 f/5.6 is incredibly small. They aren’t competing with the f/4 lenses, but that Nikon 500 fits in hand luggage.

OT: if the 120-700 is good and sharp at f/8 it would be a great walk about if you know there is good light. But pointless in some of the places I go, but in the burn my 300 f/2.8 also only manages 1/200 at 6400 ISO

 

[Joules]

if you shoot from the same place and crop the 400mm f4 shot to give you the same framing as the 700mm shot you get even less DOF.

View attachment 190715View attachment 190716

Not sure how it relates to your point, but in the examples you have there the distance differs in both examples. I think the most relevant comparison is between situations where the subject distance is identical. It still makes sense to me that in that case, only the aperture matters. But could you provide the name (Or link if it is online) of the tool you're using there?

 

[AlanF]

I think you're not really supposed to handhold a 700mm lens.
I once tried it just for fun with a EF 600 (or was it the 800, I don't remember): yes, it works, you can get a sharp image with IS, high ISO plus "point and shoot" technique, but first, it is really difficult to frame the subject carefully and second you can't frame the subject for long due to the weight of the lens.

I regularly shoot birds at 500, 560, 600, 700 and 800mm, hand holding with no problems whatsoever to obtain pixel peeping sharpness even with high cropping. And also there has been no problem framing or holding the lens for extended periods even though I am a senior citizen because I use modern lightweight telephoto lenses with good IS at reasonable shutter speeds. I couldn't do that with a 500 or 600mm f/4 but a 700mm f/8 would be an absolute doddle at 2 kg. (I can use easily a 400mm DO II + 2xTC (= 800mm f/8 ) which weighs the best part of 2.9 kg with hood and camo, and most recently a Nikon 500mm PF + 1.4xTC at 700mm feels like a feather, coming in at well under 2 kg)

 

[AJ]

I regularly shoot my Sigma 150-600C at 600/8 handheld with good results. With a monopod or balancing on a fencepost I get a slightly better keeper ratio, but the handheld keepers are just as good as the balanced ones. I think 700/8 won't be a problem, especially with IBIS in the works.

 

[Pape]

Would be nice if they release lense like this with R6 . good beginner kit for wildlife

 

[IcyBergs]

not so true. we've found RF super telephoto patent applications.

https://www.canonnews.com/canon-patent-applications-another-canon-rf-super-telephoto-application

https://www.canonnews.com/canon-patent-application-more-canon-rf-super-telephoto-primes

https://www.canonnews.com/canon-patent-application-canon-rf-super-telephotos

Fair enough...I didn't recall seeing these before.

All those are about a year old so it's not like the RF tele primes have some hot rumors attached.

So let me ask you this....over/under June 2022 for the R1?

 

[privatebydesign]

Not sure how it relates to your point, but in the examples you have there the distance differs in both examples. I think the most relevant comparison is between situations where the subject distance is identical. It still makes sense to me that in that case, only the aperture matters. But could you provide the name (Or link if it is online) of the tool you're using there?

The idea is this, most of the time long tele lenses are used to get an acceptable subject size, if the lens is too short (a 400mm) then a longer lens is preferable (a 700mm), but if the 400mm is used either because they didn't have a 700mm etc then people invariably crop the 400mm to get the subject the same size as the 700mm, even if they crop that 700mm they still crop the 400mm even more to get the same framing/subject size.

Now the statement was that "At f8 700mm, your depth of field will be shallower than a 400mm lens at f4. Focul [sic] length has a much greater affect on DoF than aperture." followed by "That is true" my point was it isn't true.

So imagine two shooting situations:
1: Two photographers 20 meters from a bird, one has a 700mm f8 the other a 400mm f4 both on the same model camera. The person with the 700mm f8 doesn't need to crop but the person with the 400mm has to crop to get the same subject size. The 700mm f8 has a dof of 0.38m, the 400mm f4 has an initial pre crop dof of 0.59m but after the necessary crop it is approximately 0.35m.
2: Same two photographers, the guy with the 400mm lens is closer to the bird by a factor the same as the focal length difference so when they both take an image the bird is the same size in the image without either cropping. Say the 400mm guy is 10m from the subject, he has 0.12m dof, meanwhile the 700mm guy would be 17.5m away and have a dof of 0.18m

In both real world scenarios the 700mm f8 has greater NOT shallower dof than the 400mm f4.

I just googled a dof calculator and clicked on the first one that came up. https://www.photopills.com/calculators/dof

 

[Architect1776]

I don't have a problem with f7.1 or f8 EXCEPT you are not going to get the big white backgrounds with these lenses. The lenses will be sharp but will not provide as much separation of an animal from the background. Doesn't mean I won't use them, especially if they are 2-4 lbs lighter than my 200-400.

Not all of us can afford the 10,000 lenses.
We get superb shots and still can afford a house at the same time.
If we were rich like you then we would all have these 10,000 lenses but that is not the case.

 

[Ozarker]

Not all of us can afford the 10,000 lenses.
We get superb shots and still can afford a house at the same time.
If we were rich like you then we would all have these 10,000 lenses but that is not the case.

I'm thinking of torching the car so I can get one of them.

 

[Danglin52]

Not all of us can afford the 10,000 lenses.
We get superb shots and still can afford a house at the same time.
If we were rich like you then we would all have these 10,000 lenses but that is not the case.

I was not being critical of less expensive lenses, the conversation was about the aperture and focal length affected DOF. Over the years, I have met many people of modest means that have a passion for a sport or hobby and are willing to allocate resources to that activity. It may be a RV, boat, car, camera gear or other items they value enough to make trade offs - less expensive house/car, etc. I don't think you can assume someone is "rich" simply because they have placed priority on different aspects of their life. For example, I have never been allowed to drive because of my vision so we only need one vehicle. Photography is my only hobby and I don't mind allocating resources to purchase good gear - certainly less expensive than a second vehicle when you consider purchase, insurance, and maintenance. I also know that while great gear helps, it is the photographer behind the camera that is responsible for making the magic. Wildlife photography does push the limits with the need for reach and that is expensive, but there are decent alternatives to see the requirements. As I mentioned on another thread I am buying the 100-500 as a possible replacement for the 200-400, and will sell the 8lb 200-400 if I like what I seen. And finally, if you are smart, you can find some great deals on the Canon refurb or used sites. I paid $7,600 (not $10,000) for a Canon Factory refurb in 2015. The estimate on B&H Used is $5k, so worst case it has cost me $2,600 to own the lens an use it for 5 years.

Just some thoughts.

 

[Fran Decatta]

If it has a decent Image quality and IS to handheld such tele, would be a serious option to have some fun with extreme focal lenghts. I don't need them, but to get shots of my greyhound running can be great.

But probably the price will be over 1.200€... even being an f8

 

[Richard-CN]

Fair enough...I didn't recall seeing these before.

All those are about a year old so it's not like the RF tele primes have some hot rumors attached.

So let me ask you this....over/under June 2022 for the R1?

lenses take years to take from ideas to store shelves. we find (as does NL) patent APPLICATIONS they aren't even patents yet.

2021 for the R1 - I doubt covid-19 will prevent Canon from at least development announcing it and having it available for the games, considering it was leaked that it was coming out last year in 2021 i doubt much has changed.

 

[fox40phil]

Give it to us nowwwww!

But also a nice fixed aperture tele-zoom please! Maybe 5,6 or 6,3f with 200-500 or 300-800 6.3f?! why not ?!