No idea, but I'd expect that if the new 400mm and 600mm lenses have an integrated, switchable 1.4x TC (there were patents published on those about a year ago) then they'll go up in cost a bit over the current versions. Maybe $1K or $2K more? The 1.4x TC is selling for $600...
Not sure that even reducing optics would solve the problem. A friend of mine who worked for Canon for many years once pointed out to me that the reason no one made the equivalent of a Metabones Speed Booster for EF-to EF is that focal reducers do not extend the focal plane like extenders do so they can only be made to fit inside the existing back focus distance of a lens. Hence, we have focal reducers that replace the EF to M and EF to R adapters, but no focal reducers for EF to EF or R to R.
It's technically possible to have a focal reducer that maintains the same lens mount and flange focal distance - there is a 0.7x focal reducer for PL to PL. Of course, technically possible ≠ easy...that optic is 20 cm long, has 13 elements, rotates the image 180° and costs $5500. But it will give you 0.7x the focal length and an extra stop of light with a FF lens and an S35 sensor (or an S35 lens and an S16 sensor).
The 180 rotation makes sense. that would indicate that the adapter created an intermediate focal plane and supports what my friend told me. I guess you could create yet another focal plane and rotate the image back for only $12k
.
Probably not, unfortunately.Given the identical front end size requirement, do you figure getting to 600mm adds more cost than the 2x (instead of 3x) zoom factor reduces it? Honestly, unless some magic happens, I'm not really in the market for this one either
I think we can expect a built-in 1.4 extender, because Nikon's current Z 600mm f/4.0 has one. I guess the old rivalry will drive Canon to come up with such a solution.
Well, Canon's 1200mm f/5.6 was still pocketable compared to the medium format 1700mm f/4.0 tele lens that Zeiss designed especially for a rich Sheikh and his Hasselblad(s). I guess this guy hasn't to carry that lens by himselfomg, how heavy was this lens? According to google AI, it was 16,8 kg. Instead of a tripod one should have probably used a golf cart
.
petapixel.com
If Nikons Z8/9 perform with that lens AF wise like with the Z 600mm f/6.3 PF + 1.4,x extender (latest one from Nikon), I'd really prefer my Canon gear. Shooting side by side with comparable settings, my R5 II + EF 600mm f/4.0 and Canon's 1.4x TC III combo focuses much more reliably than the Nikon gear. I am really disappointed, since I made that 10 k€ gift to my wife as an upgrade of their DSLR F mount gear and hoped it will bring a boost in performance. The opposite is currently the case, and my wife is an experience photographer + she uses exactly the settings recommended by Nikon and Nikon reviewers for birding. Nikon really needs to improve their underwhelming Z AF system.
Canon recognises and locks on to birds faster than Sony or even more so than Nikon. However, they are meant to have stickier tracking. (Faster AF acquisition is more important for me). Recently, I was shooting Peregrines and Kestrels side-by-side with my R5ii +RF 200-800mm and someone with the Sony A1ii and the 300mm f/2.8 + 2xTC against a tricky background. I was much more successful at catching them. It's probably a software thing and they should be able to catch up.
DPAF offers a great deal more focus information than Nikon or Sony have to work with. So long as Canon has that advantage, they are only limited by processing power to stay in the lead with AF. The price, of course, is continually processing twice as many pixels, so the processors are power hungry.
