Patent: Canon RF 300mm f/2.8L IS 1.4x plus other supertelephoto optical designs

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
27,892
7,964
I'm surprised to hear this. Can you share some MTF charts or back-to-back example shots?
The MTFs are nearly identical except in the extreme corners. Bryan/TDP tested 3 copies of the MkIII lens, one was so bad it was deemed damaged, the other two were similar to each other and slightly less sharp than his copy of the MkII.

 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Upvote 0

AlanF

Desperately seeking birds
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
10,306
16,754
The MTFs are nearly identical except in the extreme corners. Bryan/TDP tested 3 copies of the MkIII lens, one was so bad it was deemed damaged, the other two were similar to each other and slightly less sharp than his copy of the MkII.

The difference is noticeable in his charts with the 1.4xTC
Not that I take those charts too seriously.
 
Upvote 0

Hector1970

EOS R
CR Pro
Mar 22, 2012
1,484
1,021
The difference is noticeable in his charts with the 1.4xTC
Not that I take those charts too seriously.
I'd always assumed the Mark III was better. Interesting, I guess its lower weight is the advantage. The Mark II is very good but also very heavy and not good for my back (I used it hand held on safari - not a good idea)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

Hector1970

EOS R
CR Pro
Mar 22, 2012
1,484
1,021
A 300mm 2.8 with built in TC would be a very interesting lens. I can just imagine the price.
I love my EF 300mm 2.8 II. The best of all the Canon lens in my personal opinion.
For sport the option of having a built in teleconverter would be a good one.
I often use the 300mm with a 1.4 teleconverter and it works very well.
I have been surprised with the R5 and 100-500mm combo which works really well for sport.
Tracking while not perfect is fairly good. There is a bit of a way to go on tracking but the R5 is decent.
It's great when it detects the head and stays on it.
 
Upvote 0

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
27,892
7,964
I have been surprised with the R5 and 100-500mm combo which works really well for sport.
Tracking while not perfect is fairly good. There is a bit of a way to go on tracking but the R5 is decent.
It's great when it detects the head and stays on it.
Tracking is good with the 100-500 on the R3. The problem I have with the combo is for night sports, even at ISO 25600 the images are ~2 stops underexposed to get high enough shutter speeds. The RF 300/2.8 will solve that issue.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

mxwphoto

R6 and be there
Jun 20, 2013
97
143
This sounds sweet. Another $10000 lens on the list of stuff I want but can't afford. Maybe the EF IIs will drop in price enough someday.

Brian
I doubt it will cost that much for a 300mm 2.8. I would imagine more along the lines of $8000.

Speaking of the EF II, if you wait for a right priced listing you can get it used for around $3500 right now which is not a bad deal.
 
Upvote 0

Billybob

800mm f/11 because a cellphone isn't long enough!
May 22, 2016
262
518
Not at all, it is Nikon that copied Canon. We do have a 200-400 with built in TC, don't cha know?
I and I am sure other would love Canon to bring out smaller super telephotos like Nikon has with the PF line as we had the DO line first as well. And if you, want to say Canon copied Nikon, it's your story tell it the way you want.
So Nikon, like Apple, took ideas developed elsewhere and made them (far) better? I mean the two Nikon pf lenses put the 400 DO to shame on price/value alone, and the Nikon's are far superior to the cheap, single-aperture RF DO long primes.

That's my story.
 
Upvote 0
So Nikon, like Apple, took ideas developed elsewhere and made them (far) better? I mean the two Nikon pf lenses put the 400 DO to shame on price/value alone, and the Nikon's are far superior to the cheap, single-aperture RF DO long primes.

That's my story.
Also there was the EF1200f5.6L that was fitted with a switchable internal 1.4x - way back in the '80s!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

john1970

EOS R3
CR Pro
Dec 27, 2015
556
715
Northeastern US
IMO, some lenses and some use cases lend themselves more to different TCs. For example, IMO, a 400mm is better suited with an internal 1.4x, but I'd argue a 500mm is much more useful with a internal 2.0x at 1000mm. On a 300mm I argue its pretty even between the two, but I'd love to see them seriously consider the internal 2.0x.
I agree. For me a 300 mm f2.8 with a internal 2x would be an amazing lens. Being able to switch between 300 mm and 600 mm on the fly.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
D

Deleted member 381342

Guest
Not at all, it is Nikon that copied Canon. We do have a 200-400 with built in TC, don't cha know?
I and I am sure other would love Canon to bring out smaller super telephotos like Nikon has with the PF line as we had the DO line first as well. And if you, want to say Canon copied Nikon, it's your story tell it the way you want.
What's a zoom lens to do with anything? The topic is the big white mirrorless lenses. If you aren't interested in discussing the topic at hand, why bother replying?
 
Upvote 0

becceric

Making clumsy photographic mistakes since 1980
CR Pro
Oct 30, 2016
304
600
I'd always assumed the Mark III was better. Interesting, I guess its lower weight is the advantage. The Mark II is very good but also very heavy and not good for my back (I used it hand held on safari - not a good idea)
My experience is limited to the Mark III, but for most of what I shoot with it (birds) the corners are out of focus anyway, so I have not yet come across poor corner sharpness issues.
 
Upvote 0

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
27,892
7,964
What's a zoom lens to do with anything? The topic is the big white mirrorless lenses. If you aren't interested in discussing the topic at hand, why bother replying?
You stated Canon should copy Nikon with a built-in 1.4x TC. The fact is, Nikon copied Canon…again. Are you one of those people who simply can’t admit when they’re wrong?

As far as I know, the Canon FDn 1200 f/5.6L 1.4x was the first supertele lens with a built-in ‘flippable’ 1.4x TC, used at the 1984 Olympics. In response to that, Nikon developed their own 1200mm + 1.4x (called a 1200-1700mm lens), although it took them 5 years to make the prototype.
 
Upvote 0

ERHP

EOS RP
CR Pro
May 9, 2013
513
1,411
San Diego
erhp.smugmug.com
Would love to have the option with my RF600 f/4L to simply flip the lever when a subject moves either two close to frame properly or further away than optimal w/the bare lens. Adding/Removing the 1.4x simply takes to much time and often introduces a risk of spooking the subject(s).
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0

mxwphoto

R6 and be there
Jun 20, 2013
97
143
That’s what I was thinking, but built-in switchable TC might push it to $10K.
You may be right... The initial launch price of the EF mk II at $6600 translates into $8500 today, add in TC and improved IS/weight reduction surcharge so probably around $10k. Though one can still hope that strong Dollar vs Yen will push that down to $8999 at launch.
 
Upvote 0