Patent: Impressive super telephoto L zoom lenses for the RF mount

[ncvarsity3]

I have the EF 200-400/4, nice lens.
But the lens of my dreams would be a RF 400/2.8 with 1.4x or better a 300-400/2.8 with 1.4x

If they made the 200-400/f4 into a 200-400/2.8+TC that was around the same size as the current lens, that would be such a sought after lens.

 

[neuroanatomist]

If they made the 200-400/f4 into a 200-400/2.8+TC that was around the same size as the current lens, that would be such a sought after lens.

Sought after like fairies and unicorns. Because physics.

 

[kaihp]

If they made the 200-400/f4 into a 200-400/2.8+TC that was around the same size as the current lens, that would be such a sought after lens.

The front element would have to be 41% larger in diameter to get to f/2.8, so that won't be a possibility.

In short, it'd be a lot larger, heavier, vastly more expensive. At least 2x, more likely 3-4x the price of the current f/4L. And even that is prohibitively expensive for most people.

 

[Antono Refa]

The front element would have to be 41% larger in diameter to get to f/2.8, so that won't be a possibility.

In short, it'd be a lot larger, heavier, vastly more expensive. At least 2x, more likely 3-4x the price of the current f/4L. And even that is prohibitively expensive for most people.

Wouldn't the front element be the same size as the EF 400mm f/2.8 and EF 800mm f/5.6?

Agree it would be much larger, heavier, and pricier, which would have a big influence on sales and profits. Canon cares about the last two.

 

[masterpix]

Continue reading...

I only wish that they be in the 1500-2000$ range and not 10,000-20,000$ range, cause the 300-800 is very appealing for birds while the others are by no means less interesting..

 

[Czardoom]

Going from 500 to 600 is a 20% increase in magnification, not 25% or 44%.

Try putting a shot at 500mm and one at 600mm in your computer software. Zoom in until they are the same size on your screen. You will find that the 500mm shot needs to magnified 1.2x (or 20% more) to be the same size as the 600mm shot. Here is a comparison.

 

[AlanF]

Going from 500 to 600 is a 20% increase in magnification, not 25% or 44%.

Try putting a shot at 500mm and one at 600mm in your computer software. Zoom in until they are the same size on your screen. You will find that the 500mm shot needs to magnified 1.2x (or 20% more) to be the same size as the 600mm shot. Here is a comparison.

You are correct, and 500 to 600mm gives a 20% increase in resolution, not 44%. However, as I have learned several times in the past, there are those who have their own definitions and won't accept the standard. An 8x Magnification pair of binoculars, increases 8x larger in height and width, resolutions are given in line pairs per mm etc. Years ago, there used to be ads for 25x magnification binoculars that were in fact 5x but they covered themselves by claiming they were quoting area.

 

[entoman]

I find myself asking which of these option would differentiate most greatly from the 100-500 (possibly with a TC)?

Canon RF 150mm-600mm f/5-6.3L. Just a bit more length and speed.
Canon RF 200mm-400mm f/4L. More speed, but not a ton, and 200-400 isn't much of a zoom range.
Canon RF 200mm-500mm f/4L. A lot more speed (nearly two stops), and a decently wide zoom range. But the 100-500 is still appealing to carry along and handhold.
Canon RF 300mm-800mm f/8L. Like with a TC plus some speed.

The real answer for one with a 100-500 seeling real differentiations: a 400 f2.8 for serious speed (or 600 f4 if length is preferred).

A 400mm F2.8 with a built-in 2x converter (making it a 800mm F5.6) would be absolutely amazing.

But so would the price

 

[dcm]

If they made the 200-400/f4 into a 200-400/2.8+TC that was around the same size as the current lens, that would be such a sought after lens.

Ah, to dream! That's similar to wishing that the RF 70-200 f/2.8 plus a built-in extender could be made into something the same size as the RF 70-200 f/4. Yes, it would be sought after - if it was technically possible. It isn't without bending the current laws of physics. But you might have already known that....

 

[entoman]

You are correct, and 500 to 600mm gives a 20% increase in resolution, not 44%. However, as I have learned several times in the past, there are those who have their own definitions and won't accept the standard. An 8x Magnification pair of binoculars, increases 8x larger in height and width, resolutions are given in line pairs per mm etc. Years ago, there used to be ads for 25x magnification binoculars that were in fact 5x but they covered themselves by claiming they were quoting area.

Same problem with megapixels. Many seem to wrongly assume that the image from a 50MP sensor will be twice as wide as an image from a 25MP sensor. Likewise many are under the illusion that there's a huge difference between a 20MP and a 24MP sensor, when it's highly unlikely that even a hypercritical viewer would notice any difference.

 

[AlanF]

Same problem with megapixels. Many seem to wrongly assume that the image from a 50MP sensor will be twice as wide as and image from a 25MP sensor. Likewise many are under the illusion that there is a huge difference between a 20MP and a 24MP sensor, when it's highy unlikey that even a hypercritical viewer would notice any difference.

That's right. Resolution (pixel density) changes with the square root of the number of pixels. A 24 MP sensor gives just 10% more linear resolution, all things being equal), and a 50 MP sensor 40% more resolution than a 25 PM.

 

[Dragon]

I'd love the Canon RF 300mm-800mm f/8L but I have the much older, and probably HEAVER sigma version, and it's served me well. The canon at f/8 will probably focus just as fast as the sigma at f/5.6, but Canon will probably be lighter.

Yes, that one is very interesting. At f/8, the objective only needs to be 100mm, so it could be just a bit larger and longer than a Tamron 150-600.

 

[Blue Zurich]

Has Canon ever had a patent for a DO zoom near the 150-600 range? I have always wondered how Canon could best a Tammy G2 (besides Canon superior optics) I'd drop $2399 on that.

The Tamron does fairly well and ever better in certain aspects adapted onto R bodies than on dslr's yet not enough to sway me so patience is key.

 

[AlanF]

Has Canon ever had a patent for a DO zoom near the 150-600 range? I have always wondered how Canon could best a Tammy G2 (besides Canon superior optics) I'd drop $2399 on that.

The Tamron does fairly well and ever better in certain aspects adapted onto R bodies than on dslr's yet not enough to sway me so patience is key.

The Sony 200-600mm is a much better lens than the Tammy 150-600mm G2 and sells for $2000 so Canon should be able to do it.

 

[Blue Zurich]

The Sony 200-600mm is a much better lens than the Tammy 150-600mm G2 and sells for $2000 so Canon should be able to do it.

Very true and I guess I left out the words "...could best a Tammy G2 without it being in the price range of the super whites"

Because of course they can!

 

[Dragon]

Has Canon ever had a patent for a DO zoom near the 150-600 range? I have always wondered how Canon could best a Tammy G2 (besides Canon superior optics) I'd drop $2399 on that.

The Tamron does fairly well and ever better in certain aspects adapted onto R bodies than on dslr's yet not enough to sway me so patience is key.

The EF 100-400L II with a 1.4 TC outperforms the Tammy in just about every way in spite of being a little slower. I have both and have made many comparisons. AF accuracy and speed of the 100-400 are both better on the R5 and it is sharper.

 

[Blue Zurich]

The EF 100-400L II with a 1.4 TC outperforms the Tammy in just about every way in spite of being a little slower. I have both and have made many comparisons. AF accuracy and speed of the 100-400 are both better on the R5 and it is sharper.

Thank you! I have owned that lens previously but I am only purchasing native RF glass from now on, no more adapting (that's why these patents are interesting to me) That lens + adapter + TC is an arthritic nightmare for me.

 

[Dragon]

Thank you! I have owned that lens previously but I am only purchasing native RF glass from now on, no more adapting (that's why these patents are interesting to me) That lens + adapter + TC is an arthritic nightmare for me.

No doubt these patents are interesting. The RF 100-500 is a little slower at the long end than the EF 100-400, but by all accounts, it is at least as sharp and a little lighter. Again, you need a TC to equal the Tammy for reach, so if you are looking for 600, then one of the new ones would be nice. I have the EF 800L and just ordered the RF 800 f/11 because it is so much more portable and from the samples I have seen, it is sharper than the 100-400 with a 2x TC (but still not as sharp as the 800L by a fair bit). As the saying goes "horses for courses".

 

[mxwphoto]

I get that a constant aperture is easy to roll off the tongue and simpler to market, but something like the 300-800 f8 really should have a variable aperture. So much wasted light at shorter focal lengths, should be more like 300-800 f4-f8 L.

 

[Dragon]

I get that a constant aperture is easy to roll off the tongue and simpler to market, but something like the 300-800 f8 really should have a variable aperture. So much wasted light at shorter focal lengths, should be more like 300-800 f4-f8 L.

Unless maybe, just maybe you are trying to make it very small