You are missing the point that with the optical design of these lenses, it would be easy to make them telescope together and be very compact (and light) for transport. Let's wait and see before drawing conclusions.
Sooooo, f/11 you say? What’s Canon up to with these upcoming supertelephoto lenses?
- Thread starter Canon Rumors Guy
- Start date
The important point is that a lens with few elements has to be longer to give higher image quality. It could be telescoped for carriage and packing, which would have advantages in compactness. But, it would require seals and extra tubing. Telescoping doesn't make them any lighter - in fact, it will make them heavier because it will have to have extra overlapping tubing. We will see when and if the lens is marketed.
If these two lenses are basically going to be supersized 400 f5.6L’s I hope they have better minimum focusing distances. Next to the lack of IS that’s my least favorite quality of that lens. It’s easy to get focus lock-out when you are lucky enough to get close to a subject.
I’ve always found the image quality to be very nice so these could be very similar in that regard. The falloff from max sharpness to background bokeh is nicer on the 400 5.6L than the 100-400’s IMO. The 100-400’s can be a little busy. Particularly with front bokeh if you are shooting through branches, leaves and such.
I’ve always found the image quality to be very nice so these could be very similar in that regard. The falloff from max sharpness to background bokeh is nicer on the 400 5.6L than the 100-400’s IMO. The 100-400’s can be a little busy. Particularly with front bokeh if you are shooting through branches, leaves and such.
Its 3.5m minimum focal distance is par for the course, only 0.2m longer than the 400mm DO II. The 800/5.6 is 6m, so don't be too hopeful.
How do they get the 100-400 to focus so close? That is such a killer feature of that lens.
Edit: I guess that lens has a much more complicated optical design. Not sure I’d trade a close focusing 400 f5.6 for a 600 f11 with a mfd of 4-5 meters but I still might find the 800 interesting even with the possible mfd limitation.
Last edited:
There’s a huge amount of focus breathing with the 100-400mm II as you get down to its mfd of 1m. From what I remember, the focal length nearly halves.
Interesting. I’ll have to check that out next time I have it out. I usually prefocus to the mfd when I’m doing “macro” with the zoom so I’ve never noticed the focus breathing.
Not even 20 years ago, I was shooting wildlife with cameras that were barely useable at ISO800 and hopeless at ISO1600 using f/4 and f/5.6 lenses. Modern sensors can give you very decent results at ISO3200 and even ISO6400. As long as the AF system works, I don't see why an f/11 lens wouldn't be usable on a modern camera.
Here's a thought for the folks still up in arms about this lens:
These f/11 STM seem unlikely to be L lenses, right? So... we'll probably get some nice black Canon super Tele lenses for a change!
On that note, would they put a green ring on, just because they are DO? Or does the RF series warrant a fresher look?
These f/11 STM seem unlikely to be L lenses, right? So... we'll probably get some nice black Canon super Tele lenses for a change!
On that note, would they put a green ring on, just because they are DO? Or does the RF series warrant a fresher look?
I had been thinking that they may take advantage of dgo technology seen in the c300 which as a 16 stop DR compared to the 13.5 in the current R sensor, I had not seen anything recently that suggested we would not continue to see improvement in DR. However I am not an expert in sensor tech nor have I been following what the expectations are for improvement so you may have more info than I do
Having had the good fortune to go on three safaris, I can tell you that a maximum aperture of f11 will not be very useful. Best shooting times will be before/during morning golden hours and during'/after evening golden hours from the perspective of best lighting (unless you are shooting under a canopy). Another thing to keep in mind is that the animals are very inactive during the day and some are hard to find. Those that are visible are usually not doing anything too interesting from a composition point of view. As a bonus, and off topic, if you are going on safari, be sure to get go on at least one night drive- incredible.
This is definitely not a general safari lens. Zooms are the most useful. The current 100-400mm II or the proposed 100-500mm would be the most useful on a limited budget. But, a longer prime on a second body would be great for birds, which you do see during the day. We travelled with one of us with the zoom and the other with a prime on our last safari.
There are two different problems with DR: one with the low light (and low photoelectron count), where the DR is limited by natural (and unavoidable) photon noise, another is with the good light (and high photoelectron count), where the DR (in video in particular) is limited by speed of the ramp-compare ADC (and by low accuracy of other types of ADC that could be put on the sensor). The DGO technology can only address the latter.
Hi,
Where have you been on Safari? Where did you do your night drive? We were planning a trip to Botswana, which has been postponed as a result of the pandemic. We were in Tanzania last year and it was incredible!
One of the interesting parts of being on Safari is capturing the wildlife in its gorgeous natural environment (as opposed to a zoo). I brought mostly primes to Tanzania, and sorely wished that I had brought a zoom, since I enjoyed taking photos of the wildlife that ranged from close portraits to environmental shots (so many lens changes, even with 2 bodies). Many photos of quite distant subjects showed atmospheric haze. For this reason, I am much more excited to see what the 100-500mm lens will be like than these f11 lenses.
That said, I am thoroughly intrigued by these unexpected lenses, and hope to be pleasantly surprised by their combination of size, weight, and performance. Time will tell!
Enthusiasts want exotic, fast lenses. The fact is that amateurs are drawn to more capable cameras with the notion of getting better photos. For many that means long lenses. High prices turn them off. These lenses will bring a lot on board to the surprise of many “sophisticated “ photographers.
Actually, "enthusiast" and "sophisticated" are words that are too kind. Many in the "exotic lens is the only one I would buy" crowd are in the hipster/yuppie bin and their goal is more to impress others than to take good pictures. I can afford just about any lens I want (I have an 800L among many others), but I buy lenses either for a purpose or sometimes for fun (like a 1000mm Nikon mirror lens). I think these reported new lenses will be very useful for many applications and they will sell very well because they will likely offer good to excellent performance for a sensible price, and most of all they will be small and light with lots of reach and that fills a HUGE hole in the market.
Last edited:
At that point, you might as well carry a teleconverter for a 100-400 II (or the new 100-500) and call it a day instead of limiting yourself more with that field-of-view.
These lenses will be a lot longer, too, as they are non-extending primes, more fiddly to pack in. (But they won't weigh much)
One advantage is that the blur should be much better than any zoom + teleconverter combination, but the MFD is unknown at this point.
Do you think that a 9 element simple lens will beat a sophisticated optical 21 elements contained in 16 groups EF 100-400 II L lens + x2 TC in bokeh department?
A genuine question.
@400mm f/5.6:
https://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/l...i/sample-images/5D3_5333-bokeh-400mm-1200.jpg
with a x1.4 extender:
https://dustinabbott.net/2015/02/canon-ef-100-400mm-f4-5-5-6l-usm-ii-review/
Last edited:
Generally speaking, prime lenses have better blur as opposed to zoom lenses and the longer focal length you have (with the bare lens), the smoother the bokeh gets again. So an 800mm has a lot of potential even with f/11
And having less elements is not a bad thing, the DO element negates the use of several others to control aberrations.
A lot of vintage lenses have much nicer rendering than modern ones, because they are much simpler and don't use aspherical elements (so they have more aberrations)
The 400/DO bokeh was a bit nervous at times, the 400/DO II improved it.
But, of course, we need to see samples.
Similar threads
- Contains 1 staff post(s)
- Contains 1 staff post(s)
- Contains 1 staff post(s)
