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

unfocused

Photos/Photo Book Reviews: www.thecuriouseye.com
Jul 20, 2010
6,947
5,089
69
Springfield, IL
www.thecuriouseye.com
The big white lenses are so good that Canon will have to work real hard to pursuade people to upgrade, especially with super high prices.
That assumes EF versions remain available. Many are out of stock and have been for months. As for current owners, many are one and done buyers who hang on to their lenses and never upgrade or only upgrade every 15-20 years.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

EOS 4 Life

EOS 5D Mark IV
Sep 20, 2020
1,548
1,252
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
D

Deleted member 381342

Guest
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.
Why are you talking about old lenses? I said these would be Canon copying Nikon in the best way for the mirrorless big lenses as it is a great value add. No one is talking about the old FD lenses or even the still fantastic EF 200-400 f/4.0 TC. The current RF supertele lenses are not what I expect from Canon. A full range of super tele lenses with slip in TC's is what I expect of Canon.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

tron

EOS-1D X Mark III
CR Pro
Nov 8, 2011
5,138
1,514
That assumes EF versions remain available. Many are out of stock and have been for months. As for current owners, many are one and done buyers who hang on to their lenses and never upgrade or only upgrade every 15-20 years.
You are right. In the next post I referred to my own big white teles. I have version II (300 400DO and 500) and their IQ is too good to sell them at loss and get their RF equivalents at huge prices.
 
Upvote 0

Birdshooter

EOS M50
Oct 14, 2019
27
34
Why are you talking about old lenses? I said these would be Canon copying Nikon in the best way for the mirrorless big lenses as it is a great value add. No one is talking about the old FD lenses or even the still fantastic EF 200-400 f/4.0 TC. The current RF supertele lenses are not what I expect from Canon. A full range of super tele lenses with slip in TC's is what I expect of Canon.
Why in the world would you want the teleconverter built into ever lens, adding extra weight to the lens?
Do you realize that the 200-400 was intended to be a safari lens, so you did not have to change to a teleconverter in dusty condtions.... like on a safari.
I personally have been shooting superteles ten years before you joined Canon rumors in 2018 as well as many more members have.

I still remember the lady saleswoman were I bought my first digital camera, the Canon 20D saying to me, I would not buy a Canon over a Nikon.
When I asked her why, here response was that Canon used a CMOS sensor. I think Nikon also went CMOS in 2009 but may be wrong with the exact; date.
And don't even bother with how Sony copied Canon's glass as well when they started out.
Maybe some more deeper reading is required on your part.:)

Sometime we don't get what "we" want, And one day when you own a lens manufacturing company you can make those decisions on your own. lol
I for one, know about half a dozen people that have sold their EF 600's and went to the RF 600. That is a very expensive upgrade for the same optic quality but a substantial weight savings over say a 600 version II. I think everyone would like to see a totally new group of lighter and smaller lenses. Given time, I am sure Canon will make them. In the meantime, no one is making anyone buy Canon. So you have lots of choice if you don't like where Canon is going or has gone.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
D

Deleted member 381342

Guest
Why in the world would you want the teleconverter built into ever lens, adding extra weight to the lens?
I've tried it on the Canon 200-400, Nikon 180-400, and the new Nikon Z 400 f/2.8 TC. Especially on the 400 f/2.8 it is very useful as you can safely engage it while the lens is in operation. This is fantastic for a smaller subject or more distant subject and then as if you are lucky enough to have it come in closer you can go back to 400. The alternative is of course to decide if you want a TC on right now, but then you end up missing shots that you could have gotten or gotten better if you could disengage that TC. And naturally there are environments where I don't want the lens taken off the camera at all.

There isn't a downside to a built in TC, the Nikon 400 f/2.8 isn't much heavier than the RF 400. And Canon can likely do a RF 400 f/2.8 TC that is lighter or as light as their current offering.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

sanj

EOS R5
Jan 22, 2012
4,173
1,036
Why in the world would you want the teleconverter built into ever lens, adding extra weight to the lens?
Do you realize that the 200-400 was intended to be a safari lens, so you did not have to change to a teleconverter in dusty condtions.... like on a safari.
I personally have been shooting superteles ten years before you joined Canon rumors in 2018 as well as many more members have.

I still remember the lady saleswoman were I bought my first digital camera, the Canon 20D saying to me, I would not buy a Canon over a Nikon.
When I asked her why, here response was that Canon used a CMOS sensor. I think Nikon also went CMOS in 2009 but may be wrong with the exact; date.
And don't even bother with how Sony copied Canon's glass as well when they started out.
Maybe some more deeper reading is required on your part.:)

Sometime we don't get what "we" want, And one day when you own a lens manufacturing company you can make those decisions on your own. lol
I for one, know about half a dozen people that have sold their EF 600's and went to the RF 600. That is a very expensive upgrade for the same optic quality but a substantial weight savings over say a 600 version II. I think everyone would like to see a totally new group of lighter and smaller lenses. Given time, I am sure Canon will make them. In the meantime, no one is making anyone buy Canon. So you have lots of choice if you don't like where Canon is going or has gone.
How much with the TC add? I think it will be 1.6x and not 2x.
 
Upvote 0

NorskHest

EOS 90D
CR Pro
Jan 11, 2018
187
227
Minnesota - US
Visit site
I can't wait. I am flirting with the idea of buying a used EF 300 or 400mm f/2.8...might wait for those to drop in price or see just how good these are with the built in TC.
buy the 400 2.8 v2, you wont be disappointed, i picked up a 400 and 200 when everyone was getting rid of their ef gear for rf for cheap the 400 was 4300 and 200 was 2300 both lenses looked as if they had not been used. now we all have realized that ef is still amazing and it works incredibly well when adapted
these lenses with tc's on a 1dxiii or the r5 work as though the lenses were bare in my opinion. but seriously the 400 2.8 v2 fucks
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0

gruhl28

Canon 70D
Jul 26, 2013
200
83
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.
Just curious, why do you feel that a 1.4 is better suited to a 400 mm while a 2.0 is better suited to a 500 mm?
 
Upvote 0

Curahee

I'm New Here
Jun 7, 2022
19
16
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 thought as well. Unless one is a die hard pixel peeper there are things like atmosphere haze, heat waves and a dozen other things that will degrade a telephoto shot before you notice some theoretical pixel peeping.
 
Upvote 0

EOS 4 Life

EOS 5D Mark IV
Sep 20, 2020
1,548
1,252
There isn't a downside to a built in TC
I would not go that far, but it would be nice to have the choice between a lens with a built in TC and one without.
Neither Canon or Nikon are giving us the choice.
These are not mass market lenses.
Maybe the market is not large enough to accommodate both.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

MiJax

EOS M6 Mark II
Mar 30, 2016
86
75
California
www.flickr.com
Just curious, why do you feel that a 1.4 is better suited to a 400 mm while a 2.0 is better suited to a 500 mm?
IMO, a 400mm is mostly a sideline sports lens. Sure, there are more than a fair share in wildlife shooter's hands, but I feel the scale is tipped more sports shooters. Being largely a sideline/baseline lens, positioning is already optimized so adding a 2.0x might be too much.

I'd guess the 500mm is more in wildlife shooters hands than sports, it is there where a 2.0x is likely more useful. So effectively just take the most likely usage of the lens and apply the needs. For example a 200mm f/2.0 is likely best suited to pair with a 1.4x as light conservation is paramount, as well, sideline and baseline photogs generally have an optimized location to shoot from.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

Tom W

EOS R5
Sep 5, 2012
341
325
Would be very interesting to see what comes of this.
I really liked the concept of the EF 200-400 with the built in 1.4X teleconverter, but it is apparently pretty heavy and expensive.

Right now I'm using a 100-500L, and I have a great EF 500/4 IS II as well, but it's not really a good candidate for walking around much. A bit heavy, but quite an awesome, sharp lens.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
D

Deleted member 381342

Guest
I would not go that far, but it would be nice to have the choice between a lens with a built in TC and one without.
Neither Canon or Nikon are giving us the choice.
These are not mass market lenses.
Maybe the market is not large enough to accommodate both.
With the RF 400-800 you do kinda have a choice of buying with or without. With the Nikon Z 400 f/2.8 TC you could just never engage the TC. Two versions would be very expensive to produce and you’ll end up with two lenses with the same cost to the end user with the value added model vastly outselling the strange model.
 
Upvote 0

AlanF

Desperately seeking birds
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
10,302
16,740
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

EOS 4 Life

EOS 5D Mark IV
Sep 20, 2020
1,548
1,252
With the RF 400-800 you do kinda have a choice of buying with or without. With the Nikon Z 400 f/2.8 TC you could just never engage the TC. Two versions would be very expensive to produce and you’ll end up with two lenses with the same cost to the end user with the value added model vastly outselling the strange model.
I would think that the version with the TC would be significantly more expensive.
 
Upvote 0