And then they all put them on the same non pro body? What a bunch of amateurs!
Upvote
0
Well, well, well… could this be Canon’s lens roadmap for 2021? [CR2]
- Thread starter Canon Rumors Guy
- Start date
They’re gonna produce new cameras as long as people buy them. And they still sell quite a lot of them. The lens lineup has been very small though.wish canon would AT LEAST address the ef-m line... I wanted to invest in more ef-m lenses but I'm scared that they're gonna kill it off soon
Upvote
0
I wonder if we will get an RF 200mm 1.8 L or similar?
On that note, someone was looking for one of the EF mount ones, I forget who, but it’s over at KEH if you’re in the market.
www.keh.com
On that note, someone was looking for one of the EF mount ones, I forget who, but it’s over at KEH if you’re in the market.
Canon 200mm f/1.8 L USM EF-Mount Lens {Gel} Late
The world's fastest 200mm telephoto lens at the time. Three UD-glass elements eliminate secondary spectrum for sharp images at all apertures. The optics have been designed to give excellent background blur. Try it with the maximum aperture's sh
Upvote
0
To compare a pancake lens on a 45 MP FF body to a cellphone is pretty ridiculous. I have photos taken on my 6D with my pancake lens that I've printed large and are beautiful. One of the selling points of mirrorless has been the compact size. Thats cool you commit to carrying a heavy load - when I'm riding my bike I'm not going to lug a f/1.4 and I wouldn't want to bounce around my L glass anyways.
Upvote
0
There is a reason that smartphones have put point and shoot cameras on the endangered species list. The newest and best phones have astounding built-in cameras! Of course the sensor in a FF is going to allow for larger prints at the highest quality, but if my goal heading out the door is to produce great photos that somebody would want to keep on their wall, a pancake would not be my first choice. If going out for relaxation, for the fun of photography, I'd rather have a smaller, more flexible body and lens combo, but that's my personal choice.
(Ok, I'll admit, for the fun of photography, I'd still rather have a FF and a good zoom or fast prime or a macro that can work for portraits too. I understand, working in post with FF images makes it hard to downsize. But if really space-limited, or for keeping something in the car for whatever might come up, the 80D isn't too bad!)
Here are some suggested print sizes for smartphones, grouped by sensor size:
Smartphone Print Sizes
So you have this really nice smartphone, but you’re not sure how big you can make a print from its camera? The chart below offers some very general guide-lines for print sizes from some of t…
www.reedphoto.com
Also, I wonder why you think it's ok to "bounce around" a $3800 camera body, but not, say, a $1000 or less 24-105mm. Could you share a little more?
PS When I say putting a pancake on an R5 makes the camera an expensive smartphone without the phone, I'm using an exaggeration to express my gut reaction to the idea. A little ridiculous? Maybe once I finally get my hands on an R5, and it is less an object of abstract reverence, I would feel comfortable enough to see it as my "fun" camera. Right now, it's still somewhere near the level of the obelisk in 2001: A Space Odyssey.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Its a bit disappointing but maybe not as dissapointed as those waiting for the m50 mark ii may feel. Seems Canon were keeping true with flagship being M6ii.
Anyway, I have been tempted to get an RP but I am at a time in my life I just cant afford those lenses. I would need to sell one of my kids . The imagery from R is just amazing. These lenses should be fantastic.
Upvote
0
Again. That's just B&H .. and they could be saying anything to you, and you also don't know the reasons why. For instance, there could have been such a demand from professional services, that they preempted retail stores. You can bet if high profiles clients that deal directly with Canon USA wanted R5's.. They'd probably get them before retail outlets.
also again, in what world do you live in where camera manufacturing would impact lens manufacturing?
Upvote
0
I use my R5 with an RF 35mm f/1.8 as my everyday carry everywhere I go, normally just slung on a shoulder strap over one shoulder. I don't even really care about the image quality of a smartphone, I just detest the shutter delay/ergonomics/poor exposure controls/normally awful shutter speed/etc. I was leaning towards getting a Fuji X100F for a while for that reason, but my R5 with the 35 is basically a slightly bigger X100 with perfect Canon controls that also serves as my primary body for all my professional work.
I'm a breaking news photographer, and I would hate myself if I ever was in a situation where I came upon a structure fire or shooting while only carrying my smartphone. With my R5 as my everyday carry, I always know I'll have an incredible 45 megapixel 20 FPS camera at the ready, even if it only had a pancake or 35mm on it. My situation may be a little out of the ordinary, but realistically most street photography or photography involving people is about the decisive moment, and it is far easier to catch that moment with an R5 than a smartphone.
I would be very excited to pick up a 40mm pancake for the R5 to replace the 35 1.8 as an everyday carry when I'm just going to the grocery store/etc, though the 35 would definitely remain as my main travel/vacation lens for the wider aperture and macro features.
Upvote
0
Well, that list of “officially supported lenses” in the back of the manual should give you an idea. The older the lens, the slower the mechanical shutter is going to be.
Although I haven’t timed it, with my 600 f4IS the camera probably only lets me shoot at 6-8 fps.
Upvote
0
What would be causing that? AF control with the faster RF mount communication protocols would impact older lenses. I guess that you would get higher fps from a 1D but that has a higher battery voltage to power the AF. Can you get a higher fps from your 600/4 from any other Canon body?
Upvote
0
Of course on my 1Dx II’s it’s fine.
Canon has been clear, to get the maximum fps, you have to use an RF lens or an EF lens off of that list which is naturally comprised of only the newest EF releases.
Upvote
0
Rudy Winston hinted at, but didn't say outright, that the speed of the aperture motor plays a role. I don't think that's the whole story, since that wouldn't impact shooting wide open, but I did notice that on a (rented) 1dx3 the fps dropped significantly when stopping down my 180L. My EF85 f/1.8 gives a white blinky 'H' even wide open on the R5, so no full speed.
On the R5/R6, make sure wifi is off, the manual says that will limit fps as well, regardless of lens.
Upvote
0
The Original EF 1200mm f/5.6L weighed about 25 lbs and sold for $100,000 USD they were a serious specialty lens, and a special order item I believe. And to my knowledge were only ordered and sold to news agencies. BH Photo had a used one for sale in 2009 for $120,000 USD, I believe a Saudi Prince bought it (or some Prince in the Middle East). In any case, they fellow who purchased it is into photography and not just collecting. See embedded screen snip from Wikipedia... For interesting 'recent' sales info see bottom area of snip...
Upvote
0
God knows, how Conon cooks MTF. Never treated them seriously. I believe more those TDP real-picture charts. Sure, they may have a bad copy. It is, by the way, another problem of old lenses. Nowadays they much more stable in terms of copy variation. But there is another source of comparisons - DxOMark. I don't like their super-simplified, number-only results, but there are no many places with comparisons of various lenses on various bodies. Here are comparisons of 180L with 100L and 24-70L II: on 5Dmk2, on 5Dmk3, on 5Dmk4 and on 5DSR. On sharpness score newer lenses are better already from the lowest-mp 5Dmk2. All get better with sensor resolution grow, but 180L stops at (or before) the 30mp of 5Dmk4. Other two get better and much better at 50mp of 5DSR. They don't have 85 1.4L to compare, but at TDP it looks sharper wide open. Another source, which has no many tests, but here are few with MTF charts for 180L, 100L and 200L. Those tests were on old 8mp APS-C camera, but still show the same: 100L and 200L resolve better. By the way, while 100L is newer, 200L is from the same '96. So, IDK, maybe they all had a bad copy, or you are right, and it should be sharper at macro distance, or it seems better, because it is, probably, used on tripod, with remote and mirror look-up. Anyway, for me it is an old and odd lens, which I avoid, until Canon make a new one. And, I return to the beginning of our discussion, I believe it can be improved a lot. Meanwhile 100L serves well and double as decent portrait lens.Hmmm! To be clear I was reporting Canon's own MTFs as a source. While they seem to be problematic in some ways, I assumed that whatever problems their methodology had would cancel out between lenses. (For instance they don't take film/sensor into account. In fact I don't think they take production into account and instead are theoretical calculations.)
Also, the impression the Canon MTFs gave backs up my own findings with owning 2xEF 14mm/2.8, 2xTS 24/3.5, EF 24/1.4, EF 35/1.4, 50/1.0 1.2 1.4 1.8 MkI, 85/1.2 MkI, old non-USM 100Mac, 135/2 and 600/4, plus about six zooms. And a bag of Leica lenses, whole Contax G2, Mamiya 7+3 lens, couple other MFs. The experience I've had is that 1) Mamiya 7 probably beat everything, but then the 135 and 180 are so much sharper than everything there's no point in even comparing numbers. 600 could well be too but I use it at distances atmospheric haze and heatwaves always hurt the results.
As to the charts you kindly link to: I dunno! Maybe Canon MTFs aren't fit to use as toilet paper. Maybe I'm only happy with the 180 and 135 because I haven't had to buy a lens since like 2005 :-D OTOH, maybe your site's 180Mac simply sucked? If multiple sites have bad results for them, maybe they all suck, or maybe they're easy to break or something.
My last guess is that I never use it for portrait-style shooting, I'm always focusing FAIRLY close even if not macro. Maybe it gets quite blurry at long range.
Here's the Canon MTFs in question, for whatever they're worth. I'll admit the 100Mac looks awesome, but it's hardly wiping the floor with the 180. Edging it out, perhaps?
Canon's 180Mac MTF:
100mm/2.8L Mac:
And as for your claim that practically any recent EF prime is sharper, you may know best, but in that case Canon's MTFs are useless. 85/1.4L should be an easy-ish formula, not too crazy aperture, not retrofocus, and yet even at 10lp/mm, Canon's own MTFs show it's not as contrasty as the 180 at 30lp/mm for most of the image.
Upvote
0
Couldn't the fps also be related to the focusing- speed of lenses, knowing that the 180 L macro is particularly slow-focusing?
Upvote
0
We are aiming at the same goal but having different views on the situation. I'm using the 100-400 for travelling (actually very important for me) and was hoping for a new smaller/lighter RF version but no loss of aperture. RF design makes that possible, that's the great about it. Making a lens lighter with loss of aperture, is not a game changer, not much innovation needed for that. And it's not even the same lens anymore. I would even be OK with a lens design change like in the case of the 70-200 loosing internal zoom.
For hiking we will have a very portable 70-200/4 which everybody will love I guess. I would definitely buy it hadn't I tried the 100-400 on my last backpacking trip. Kills my back and makes me sweat but I just can't live without 300-400mm anymore.
I don't need the extra 100mm in the 100-500 tho and a weight/size reduction on the 100-400 without loosing aperture would have been my wish.
I guess a 70-200/2.8 style 100-300/4 with external zoom optimized for size and weight would be my dream travel lens. Accepting teleconverters of course.
Please note that justifying lens aperture loss with higher ISO is not valid imho. Aperture changes DoF which make it a different image. You can't give a painter lower quality paints and tell him he has better brushes to compensate.
Upvote
0
Right. But you can give a photographer more focal length while maintaining the same pyhsical aperture (or in other words, decrease the f-number), and in all situations where that photographer was limited by reach previously improve their quality.
And that's what Canon is doing here. The 100-500 mm 4.5-7.1 L IS USM has a comparable f-number to the EF predecessor at 400 mm and offers greater reach. The 100-400 mm you are talking about here is an entirely different lens. I am certain it is an RF upgrade to the EF 70-300 mm 4.0-5.6 IS USM (a well regarded 525 € lens, NOT to be confused with the abysmal 75-300 mm 4.0-5.6 line of lenses). It is not an L lens, and I expect it to be very compact. Maybe it is more of an amalgamation of the EF lens I just mentioned and the lovely EF-S 55-250 mm IS STM (Also not to be confused with the mediocre predecessors).
In the context of tele lenses, you have too keep your reach and magnification in mind. Only saying that you are losing aperture doesn't show the full picture. If you shoot with a faster, wider lens and crop, you are likely getting worse results than shooting a longer and slower lens without cropping as much. As long as the pyhsical aperture is the same and the class of the lens is comparable. I would not compare this RF 100-400 mm f/5.6-7.1 IS USM to the EF 100-400 4.5-5.6 L IS.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
