Sooooo, f/11 you say? What’s Canon up to with these upcoming supertelephoto lenses?

[Daner]

The combination of primes with DO optics for bodies with DPAF focusing (and for the R5/6 IBIS) makes it possible for Canon to offer long focal length lenses for a FF platform with (likely) decent IQ and auto-focus performance that are shorter, smaller, lighter, and less expensive than anything else on the market. Leaving out IS helps them be lighter and less expensive. All who need better low-light performance already have access to the IS-equipped, weather-sealed, large-aperture EF line of big whites which will continue to serve their needs well until RF equivalents become available.

This is simply opening up a new market segment that will bring super-telephoto lenses to a new set of consumers and help to make the entire R-line more appealing.

 

[AlanF]

Without decent light, F11 would not be very usable

A 50mm f/1.2 is brilliant in the absence of decent light but not much use for a small bird perched 50 meters away. The whole point of ILCs is that we use different lenses for different occasions, and 600-800mm at f/11 is often very useful if you are doing nature photography during open daylight.

 

[Sharlin]

The best camera is one you have with you, and the best lens is one you can afford. An f/11 800mm is the only kind of 800mm 99% of photographers can even dream of affording, unless you count "equivalent" millimeters.

 

[scyrene]

Not really because while those examples you gave are correct there was a bit missing. ALL of them will still require excellent light conditions. As soon as the light drops(overcast conditions) you will start to struggle. So if people are willing to fork out1500bucks for a lens they can only use when everything is perfect then fair enough. They will probably give it a shot. But if they want something that can also work when conditions are less ideal then they probably will look elsewhere. Canon are not stupid though and you would assume this has all been taken into account and they believe they will sell enough to make it a worthwhile endeavor. I just hope from a personal point of view that they also go with an equivalent to the third party 150-600 offerings. The 100-500looks ok but it is still an L lens and will therefore likely come with a typical L pricetag.

Well there are always caveats, and I included some; the people advocating for skiing and beach sports pointed out that the lighting is usually good there and as for the others, naurally a cheaper, slower lens won't be as good in challenging conditions as a fast, expensive one. That's hardly news! Second as I've pointed out on a few threads, you can actually shoot in cloudy/shaded conditions are narrow apertures - I've done it a lot! But whatever, keep repeating that it's only for "excllent light", maybe it'll become true if you say it enough

I wouldn't hold your breath on a 150-600. Canon will have released three budget* telephoto options and I think you have to pick one. Or just mount a Sigma. Everything is a compromise, we rarely get precisely what we want.

*I take your point that an L will be more expensive than a non-L, but honestly how cheap do you want it? I think the speculation has been it'll cost roughly the same as the 100-400, which seems reasonable.

What I don't get - and this is a general comment, not aimed at you directly - is how much complaining there is when Canon releases new products. Like it's somehow *removing* options by providing new ones. They aren't forcing anyone to buy this. If it's poorly conceived or overpriced then it'll be a failure, but they'll have done a bit of research before producing these.

 

[Aussie shooter]

Well there are always caveats, and I included some; the people advocating for skiing and beach sports pointed out that the lighting is usually good there and as for the others, naurally a cheaper, slower lens won't be as good in challenging conditions as a fast, expensive one. That's hardly news! Second as I've pointed out on a few threads, you can actually shoot in cloudy/shaded conditions are narrow apertures - I've done it a lot! But whatever, keep repeating that it's only for "excllent light", maybe it'll become true if you say it enough

I wouldn't hold your breath on a 150-600. Canon will have released three budget* telephoto options and I think you have to pick one. Or just mount a Sigma. Everything is a compromise, we rarely get precisely what we want.

*I take your point that an L will be more expensive than a non-L, but honestly how cheap do you want it? I think the speculation has been it'll cost roughly the same as the 100-400, which seems reasonable.

What I don't get - and this is a general comment, not aimed at you directly - is how much complaining there is when Canon releases new products. Like it's somehow *removing* options by providing new ones. They aren't forcing anyone to buy this. If it's poorly conceived or overpriced then it'll be a failure, but they'll have done a bit of research before producing these.

Oh. I agree entirely thet they get unwarranted complaints. And to be clear I am not complaining as such. As i said they would have done their research and decided it was worthwhile. I just think it is a strange avenue to take. It is a very niche lens made even more niche by the max apature. And I agree that they probably wont match the third party offerings but it would be nice. The sigma I use is amazing for the price but when I do finally need to replace it(however many years that may be) i would like an equivalent native option but if all I have is the 100-500 then so be it. That is probably what I will go with(unless I have stumbled into a big pile of cash in which case a 200-400 and a 600 f4 will be the choices. But that is just a pipe dream. Time will tell just how good these new sensors are in low light and maybe i will be proven completely wrong about how versatile these offering are.

 

[Antono Refa]

I *routinely* shoot my Sigma 150-600C at f/7.1 on my 7D Mark II. That's approximately equivalent to f/11.4 on full-frame. I use it mostly for airshows and such, in good light.

For DoF, not exposure.

If I need low-light performance I switch to the 70-200/2.8.

If you can crop from 200mm to 600mm, what do you need the longer zoom for?

Personally, I chose a 70-200mm f/2.8 + 2x TC.

 

[Antono Refa]

Here's something to consider: the biggest cause of the falling camera market is because of the use of cellphone cameras. What's one thing cellpbone cameras can't compete with simply because of physics? Zoom. Long, cheap zoom is a huge advantage of buying a camera, and 600mm even at f/11 could be a super exciting consumer lens. Especially considering the size.

If it was an EOS-M super telephoto zoom, say 300mm-800mm, that explanation would make sense.

I don't see people jumping from smartphones to FF MILC with primes, regardless of of the aperture.

 

[Kit.]

For DoF, not exposure.

For practically everything worth noticing in the final image.

Unless you are well depth limited, which is unlikely with these lenses (or are you shooting sunspots?).

 

[blackcoffee17]

If it was an EOS-M super telephoto zoom, say 300mm-800mm, that explanation would make sense.

I don't see people jumping from smartphones to FF MILC with primes, regardless of of the aperture.

I agree. Cellphone users were only buying cameras in the past because that was the only way to have decent family and travel pictures.
Now with the arrival of good image quality in phones, that market is mostly dead.

However these cheap telephoto lenses can make some wildlife enthusiasts to buy a Canon.

 

[Antono Refa]

For practically everything worth noticing in the final image.

You'll have to raise ISO, which will raise noise, which will be noticed in some situations.

 

[Kit.]

You'll have to raise ISO, which will raise noise, which will be noticed in some situations.

You'll need to raise ISO to get the same noise as from the crop body. If you don't, you will end up with lower noise, which will be noticed in some situations.

 

[Pape]

I wonder if they would make 350gram RPii and 300gram 400mm f8 DO .
Would make mft feel like heavy brick

 

[Lee Jay]

For DoF, not exposure.

And noise, which matters, while exposure doesn't.

If you can crop from 200mm to 600mm, what do you need the longer zoom for?

Personally, I chose a 70-200mm f/2.8 + 2x TC.

That's what I used to use. The Sigma is a better solution.

 

[Lee Jay]

For practically everything worth noticing in the final image.

Unless you are well depth limited, which is unlikely with these lenses (or are you shooting sunspots?).

Well, sort of. This was a 6-stop HDR:

 

[stevelee]

Not really because while those examples you gave are correct there was a bit missing. ALL of them will still require excellent light conditions. As soon as the light drops(overcast conditions) you will start to struggle.

"Air shows, skiing, motorsports, surfing/windsurfing" as well as the sun and the moon are all almost always in bright conditions.

 

[stevelee]

I'm not planning to buy these lenses or a camera to put them on.

But the reality for me about decent conditions is like my attitude toward weather sealing. Yes, I prefer for my equipment to be protected, but since no one is paying me to get the shot in adverse conditions, I'm not getting out in bad weather shooting pictures, no matter how robust the equipment might be.

 

[Lee Jay]

OVF based AF suffers from slow apertures, because it has only a fraction of the light to work with.

That isn't why. It's because it uses the split-prism focusing method and the baseline is smaller, thus making the triangle narrower thus making it harder to triangulate. Dual-pixels is sort-of the same. Contrast detect doesn't have that issue, but it has other issues.

 

[AlanF]

I really should drag that 2x TC out for a test. I played around with it some a few months ago, and didn't get spectacular results, but then again I *was* shooting through a triple-glaze window with a screen, which might just possibly have had an effect. Just possibly.

I had a look today at the 2xTCIII on the 5DIV+100-400mm II using Liveview at f/11 with a target. It's as good as on the 400mm DO II at f/8. I also looked up some old shots of targets with the 7DII. Again, it was impressive at 800mm and f/11. I have never got a really sharp shot through double-glazed window.

 

[Joules]

That isn't why. It's because it uses the split-prism focusing method and the baseline is smaller, thus making the triangle narrower thus making it harder to triangulate. Dual-pixels is sort-of the same. Contrast detect doesn't have that issue, but it has other issues.

What does split prism focusing have to do with AF? As far as I'm aware that is used as a visual aid for manual focus. Primarily in older cameras. I'm talking about phase detection based AF. Could you please elaborate or provide as reference, I can't follow you there.

Regardless, the point that the AF sensor in an OVF receives far less light than an on sensor solution does still stands. That is definitely a factor to consider.

 

[Nelu]

Yes, this is an excellent point and likely the reason Canon is making these primes.



Isn't any photography disappointing in less than ideal lighting conditions?

No, it's not. What are the "ideal lighting conditions" anyways?