# New diffractive optics super telephoto lenses on the way, with a new twist….. [CR1]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Oct 16, 2018)

> We’re told that new diffractive optics super telephoto lenses are on the way, but they may not be for the EF mount.
> An unknown source has told us that the 600mm f/4 DO IS that Canon showed at the last Canon Expo could be making its way to the RF mount instead of EF. The same source also claims that two additional DO lenses are in the works, and both are likely going to be for the RF mount.
> None of these lenses are expected in 2019, but they may be part of the 2020 roadmap.
> More to come…



Continue reading...


----------



## applecider (Oct 16, 2018)

Sorry canon but that would suck, we want EF DO big whites. Or worst case make them and deliver for both.


----------



## traveller (Oct 16, 2018)

If that is the case, then we can surely expect a 1D-level EOS R body very shortly. It would also imply that Canon intend the EF-RF transition period to be much shorter than a lot of people have anticipated. Other than removing the need to use an adaptor, I can't see that an RF mount version of this lens would offer any substantial advantages over an EF mount version.


----------



## JonSnow (Oct 16, 2018)

DSLR death my come sooner than later...


----------



## Ozarker (Oct 16, 2018)

I wouldn't think this would make the EF to R transition any quicker. The market for these top end super-tele lenses is very small compared to the rest of the EF market.


----------



## nchoh (Oct 16, 2018)

JonSnow said:


> DSLR death my come sooner than later...



Not really. Looks like Canon is focusing on a certain segment for the EOS R. It's also logical to fill out the R line before the EF as the RF lenses are quite sparse at the moment.


----------



## AlanF (Oct 16, 2018)

I don't believe it.


----------



## masterpix (Oct 16, 2018)

It is only natural that Canon (as the other companies) will try to widen the range of lenses for their new R series. As they did in the days when they introduced the EF series. It is part of the shift to mirror-less cameras, and it is a matter of time until they will abandon the EF line all together. They are not likely to do that before they will manage to create a R camera that will be able to really face to face the 1D capabilities. As it took them some time to stop manufacturing the EOS1 while the digital era had matured, so will be with the mirror-less. They eventually will take over cause they have few advantages (no mirror, closer rear side to the sensor, and that ring that they placed that allows you to change one more parameter easily).


----------



## NorskHest (Oct 16, 2018)

I own a 600 f4 v2 and a 300 2.8v2, the new offerings give me nothing that I don’t already have, if a 600do comes out those of us with version 2’s and 3’s of the telephotos will not be rushing out to get rid of or replace our gear. Sure a couple pounds lighter might be nice, but put yourself on a diet and you just shaved a few pounds off. It always fascinates me when people talk about weight of a lens and camera and talk about a few pounds being heavy. I mean are you really that weak or just that much of a bourgeoisie? I know we all love tech but guess what, tech doesn’t always matter, a t5i and a 100-400 in the right hands will yield better results that a 1d and a 600 in the rookies hands. Yes this is a bit of a negative rant which a few will read but, at the end of the day I and many professionals will not be trading out our 1ds for a long time. If camera history has taught us anything the first few cycles of new bodies are not worth purchasing. I’ll take a heavier and more ergonomic friendly 1d series of that trash eosr with a ring on a lens and no joystick and one turn wheel and a apple Touch Bar and some goofy button layout any day. I love canon and I have given them lots of money and there are many DSLR users like me that will use the DSLR setup for many years to come. DSLR death will not be fast, and why replace what is near perfection. End of my rant


----------



## Pooshoes (Oct 16, 2018)

They'll be all ready for the 2020 Olympics in Japan, the year of canon RF.


----------



## tron (Oct 16, 2018)

NorskHest said:


> I own a 600 f4 v2 and a 300 2.8v2, the new offerings give me nothing that I don’t already have, if a 600do comes out those of us with version 2’s and 3’s of the telephotos will not be rushing out to get rid of or replace our gear. Sure a couple pounds lighter might be nice, but put yourself on a diet and you just shaved a few pounds off. It always fascinates me when people talk about weight of a lens and camera and talk about a few pounds being heavy. I mean are you really that weak or just that much of a bourgeoisie? I know we all love tech but guess what, tech doesn’t always matter, a t5i and a 100-400 in the right hands will yield better results that a 1d and a 600 in the rookies hands. Yes this is a bit of a negative rant which a few will read but, at the end of the day I and many professionals will not be trading out our 1ds for a long time. If camera history has taught us anything the first few cycles of new bodies are not worth purchasing. I’ll take a heavier and more ergonomic friendly 1d series of that trash eosr with a ring on a lens and no joystick and one turn wheel and a apple Touch Bar and some goofy button layout any day. I love canon and I have given them lots of money and there are many DSLR users like me that will use the DSLR setup for many years to come. DSLR death will not be fast, and why replace what is near perfection. End of my rant


First of all I agree about this not being DSLR death and ergonomy is better with DSLRs. I also prefer them to this first iteration.

But weight is very important for me when I have to walk instead of using the car. So If I had a 600 f4 v2 I would trade it for 600 f4 v3 to shave off about 0.9Kg. I have both the 500 f4 II and 400 4 DO II. Even to use the 500 I have to have a Car or tripod. I can walk and shoot handheld (even for many hours) only with the 400 DO II. So for me the v2 to v3 (for tele EF lenses) would help me if it involved alot of weight reduction. Maybe not 0.9Kg for the 500 but I would welcome say a 0.6Kg (with a change of center of weight close to the body just like the 600 v3). This would take it to the region of the 400 DO and it would be fantastic. Add DO technology and the result would be an even lighter lens. True other people can cope with weight way better than me but I mentioned my wish 

P.S Add to the fact that there is no EOS R at 50Mpixel yet so these hypothetical DO lenses wouldn't offer a benefit.


----------



## Memirsbrunnr (Oct 16, 2018)

Well as they keep on mentioning the possibility of moving heavy lenses away from the front to the back it would make a huge advantage on rf mount as the light eod r camera gets much more balanced toward the middle shorter and more easy to handhold.


----------



## tron (Oct 16, 2018)

Memirsbrunnr said:


> Well as they keep on mentioning the ossibvility of moving heavy lenses away from the front to the back it would make a huge advantage on rf mount as the light camera gets much more balanced toward the middle shorter and more easy to handhold.


Same with EF mount DSLRs (See the new 600 III)


----------



## [email protected] (Oct 16, 2018)

This is very good news, as it indicates that Canon anticipates fixing its frames per second issue. It would be pretty useless to launch these lenses with a set of bodies that only had a few frames per second. 

If true, this suggests that the go – slow approach we see today is largely due to the fact that there are not a lot of the new lens mount lenses. Once they flesh out those lenses a bit, it looks like the manufacturer is going to get pretty aggressive about pushing people to the new mount. 

All that said, we do not see a reliable history of rumors showing up this early having a high accuracy rate.


----------



## Graphic.Artifacts (Oct 16, 2018)

The current super tele's are mostly air on the back end so It's hard to see what the benefit would be. I'd prefer an interchangeable bolt on mount than could be either native EF or RF but I don't expect that to happen. That being said, I don't think adapters are a good long term solution for the larger tele's so Canon will have to come up with some sort of native RF solution sooner rather than later if they intend to sell a lot of mirrorless sports/wildlife cameras. Big cameras and lenses put a lot of strain on the mount. A EF/RF converter coupled to a 1.4x or 2x teleconverter and you are starting dealing with a lot of strain/flex at the mount. Not the sort of thing you want to be worried about when you are trying to get out of the way of a 320lb defensive back who missed a sideline tackle.


----------



## djack41 (Oct 16, 2018)

This is awesome news! If the R-mount is chosen, it means that Canon is developing a pro-level mirrorless for sports/wildlife. Bet that DSLRs will be extinct within 5 years.


----------



## Hector1970 (Oct 16, 2018)

It makes sense for them to be focusing now on big whites for RF cameras.
They are bound to bring out a 1DR and they will need a range of lenses to help sell them.
I'm sure they will still bring out some EF lens but less and less so.
DSLR will die off slowly. Many users will still be using them in 10 years time


----------



## xps (Oct 16, 2018)

Will be pleased to see an superfast AF on an RF-big white one, that is 1/3 lighter than the non DO version. A pleasure for my old backbone.
When they introduce big whites for Rf, it should be clear, than an fast highend body will be coming. An A9 competitor. The question is: Just FF, or Crop too?


----------



## adamfilip (Oct 16, 2018)

makes sense EF mount is obselete


----------



## tron (Oct 16, 2018)

Not so fast everyone. I for one although against the first iteration of mirrorless cameras would welcome DO lenses.

But, and there is a big but, we have to see if Canon can reduce the weight in relation to the new version III teles. The new 600 III weighs 3.05Kg and I would like
to remind you that the 600mm DO f/4 prototype introduced about 2 years ago weighted 3.2Kg!

So they must be able to go significantly lower than 3.05Kg for a 600 DO III to offer something useful.


----------



## tron (Oct 16, 2018)

And after 2 years from the prototype display we have just a CR1 rumor. So let's wait 2 more years until we see .... a CR2 one


----------



## tron (Oct 16, 2018)

adamfilip said:


> makes sense EF mount is obselete


That's why they make version III lighter super teles...


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Oct 16, 2018)

Shorter and smaller lenses for the R line do make sense, I've been packing my R around this morning with its 100-400L and that overwhelms it. Most likely, I'll reserve it for the smaller lenses.


----------



## mirage (Oct 16, 2018)

applecider said:


> Sorry canon but that would suck, we want EF DO big whites. Or worst case make them and deliver for both.



no. i want them in RF mount. Smaller, lighter, good IQ. And "mirrorfree all the way." 

EF = dinosaurs, soon extinct.


----------



## nchoh (Oct 16, 2018)

tron said:


> Not so fast everyone. I for one although against the first iteration of mirrorless cameras would welcome DO lenses.
> 
> But, and there is a big but, we have to see if Canon can reduce the weight in relation to the new version III teles. The new 600 III weighs 3.05Kg and I would like
> to remind you that the 600mm DO f/4 prototype introduced about 2 years ago weighted 3.2Kg!
> ...



Or they could move the center of gravity of the lens closer to the rear which would make the camera+lens easier to handle.


----------



## tron (Oct 16, 2018)

nchoh said:


> Or they could move the center of gravity of the lens closer to the rear which would make the camera+lens easier to handle.


They have already done that in version III 400mm and 600mm EF lenses


----------



## tron (Oct 16, 2018)

mirage said:


> no. i want them in RF mount. Smaller, lighter, good IQ. And "mirrorfree all the way."
> 
> EF = dinosaurs, soon extinct.


Now that you have said so Canon will do them especially for you T-Rex


----------



## dak723 (Oct 16, 2018)

applecider said:


> Sorry canon but that would suck, we want EF DO big whites. Or worst case make them and deliver for both.



Just wondering if you have indeed contacted Canon thru their website or other means and let them know. You do understand that this site has no connection with Canon, I hope. 

If people really want to let Canon know their opinion, they can. This is not the place. I wonder how many folks here actually contact Canon with their complaints. It would be interesting to know.


----------



## [email protected] (Oct 16, 2018)

They may do 2 versions of the lenses one for EF and one for EOS R mount, it all depends upon the uptake by punters buying into the EOS R system vs sales in current EOS EF


----------



## hoodlum (Oct 16, 2018)

nchoh said:


> Or they could move the center of gravity of the lens closer to the rear which would make the camera+lens easier to handle.



This is one the big advantages of a DO lens that seem to get lost in the conversation. Everyone seems to just focuses on the weight.


----------



## tron (Oct 16, 2018)

hoodlum said:


> This is one the big advantages of a DO lens that seem to get lost in the conversation. Everyone seems to just focuses on the weight.


One more time: They have already done that in version III 400mm and 600mm EF lenses. At least the 600 III case has been discussed a lot before
Here is a Canon link:

https://www.usa.canon.com/internet/...s/ef/super-telephoto/ef-600mm-f-4l-is-iii-usm

And a picture from that link:


----------



## efmshark (Oct 16, 2018)

Wouldn't a 600mm DO lens for the RF mount practically the same size and weight as the equivalent EF 600mm DO lens with an EF-RF adapter? What would be the point of making RF-only supertelephoto lenses?


----------



## Lurker (Oct 16, 2018)

Not sure how I feel, I'm all in on EF at this point and I would like to see the EF 600 DO. I doubt I could afford/justify a new 600 of any flavor anyway. My wife and I only spent $7000 to get engaged and married, I think she'd be a little miffed if I spent more on a lens then I spent on her. If this is for the R then I don't have to think about it which makes my life easier.

My only hope is that when/if it comes it will lower the price of used EF 600s, either the II or III. Hope I can snag an EF for cheap from one of those young whippersnappers that have more money to burn than I, and more time, and love to invest in new technologies.


----------



## mirage (Oct 17, 2018)

efmshark said:


> What would be the point of making RF-only supertelephoto lenses?



simple: future proofness. EF = on way out. RF = on way in. And many folks dislike adapters. lol


----------



## MrFotoFool (Oct 17, 2018)

Thankfully I have no need for supertelephotos (in fact I recently bought a cheap used 300 2.8L IS and am selling it after a few months because I don't need it). However if I did want a long lens there is almost no question I would sell my Canon gear and get the new Nikon 500 f5.6 PF. I think Canon is really going to have a hard time competing with that (and the previous 300 f4 PF).


----------



## applecider (Oct 17, 2018)

NorskHest said:


> I own a 600 f4 v2 and a 300 2.8v2, the new offerings give me nothing that I don’t already have, if a 600do comes out those of us with version 2’s and 3’s of the telephotos will not be rushing out to get rid of or replace our gear. Sure a couple pounds lighter might be nice, but put yourself on a diet and you just shaved a few pounds off. It always fascinates me when people talk about weight of a lens and camera and talk about a few pounds being heavy. I mean are you really that weak or just that much of a bourgeoisie ? I know we all love tech but guess what, tech doesn’t always matter, a t5i and a 100-400 in the right hands will yield better results that a 1d and a 600 in the rookies hands. Yes this is a bit of a negative rant which a few will read but, at the end of the day I and many professionals will not be trading out our 1ds for a long time. If camera history has taught us anything the first few cycles of new bodies are not worth purchasing. I’ll take a heavier and more ergonomic friendly 1d series of that trash eosr with a ring on a lens and no joystick and one turn wheel and a apple Touch Bar and some goofy button layout any day. I love canon and I have given them lots of money and there are many DSLR users like me that will use the DSLR setup for many years to come. DSLR death will not be fast, and why replace what is near perfection. End of my rant



Yes I’m a fat American, and in my seventh decade, the transport weight of the lens is secondary to the ability to move the lens to follow say birds in flight the inertia as well as the shoulder height holding. I’m guessing that you are young and hale. Reassess your lens preferences after a knee replacement a couple of broken arms and shoulder surgery, bourgeoisie or not, time takes its toll. A 500ii with a 1.4 extender at f 5.6 is in a different class than a 100-400, which with a 1.4ext starts at f8. 
Maybe the DO production is the bottleneck and an EF vs R fork cannot be supported simultaneously.


----------



## Talys (Oct 17, 2018)

mirage said:


> no. i want them in RF mount. Smaller, lighter, good IQ. And "mirrorfree all the way."
> 
> EF = dinosaurs, soon extinct.



Because, you know, reducing the FFD makes super telephoto lenses WAY WAY smaller and lighter, and vastly improves theirimage quality. You know, like how all Sony FE telephoto lenses are way smaller, lighter, and render way better image quality than EF telephoto lenses.


----------



## Talys (Oct 17, 2018)

dak723 said:


> Just wondering if you have indeed contacted Canon thru their website or other means and let them know. You do understand that this site has no connection with Canon, I hope.
> 
> If people really want to let Canon know their opinion, they can. This is not the place. I wonder how many folks here actually contact Canon with their complaints. It would be interesting to know.


I suspect that ultimately, this will be a game of dollars.

If Canon keeps selling DSLRs to their pro sports crowd photographers and that group doesn't transition to mirrorless, or if RF supertelephotos simply don't sell well, Canon will release fewer super telephotos in RF.


----------



## danski0224 (Oct 17, 2018)

tron said:


> One more time: They have already done that in version III 400mm and 600mm EF lenses. At leat the 600 III case has been discussed a lot befo
> Here is a Canon link:
> 
> https://www.usa.canon.com/internet/...s/ef/super-telephoto/ef-600mm-f-4l-is-iii-usm
> ...



That looks like a 300mm...


----------



## mirage (Oct 17, 2018)

Talys said:


> Because, you know, reducing the FFD makes super telephoto lenses WAY WAY smaller and lighter, and vastly improves theirimage quality. You know, like how all Sony FE telephoto lenses are way smaller, lighter, and render way better image quality than EF telephoto lenses.



no. We know that size of long tele lenses is not dependent on FFD 20 vs. 44mm. It is just that EF is dead. New glass will be RF. Mirrorslapping is finally coming to an end now. 

I like.


----------



## MrFotoFool (Oct 17, 2018)

Talys said:


> I suspect that ultimately, this will be a game of dollars.
> 
> If Canon keeps selling DSLRs to their pro sports crowd photographers and that group doesn't transition to mirrorless, or if RF supertelephotos simply don't sell well, Canon will release fewer super telephotos in RF.


I thought one of the advantages of mirrorless is a higher FPS rate, which is exactly suited to pro sports photographers. For this reason alone I could see a 1DR for the sports crowd.


----------



## NorbR (Oct 17, 2018)

That's one CR1 I don't really believe.

I certainly believe that these new lenses would come for _both_ EF and RF mounts. As far as I understand (which is admittedly not much) it wouldn't be technologically difficult at all for this type of telephoto lenses, just change the body of the lens a bit, built-in RF adapter basically.

But no EF mount? Seems very dubious. Even if it's for 2020, and even with hypothetical new R bodies released by then, there will still be _a lot_ of EF users out there, and perhaps even more so in the pool of potential customers for such expensive lenses. No way they'd cut themselves out of that target.


----------



## tron (Oct 17, 2018)

Once more CR guy managed to create a lot of controversy which equals to a lot of hits 

Now we just have to wait for one to two years to see what will happen 

But no complaints it's a rumors site after all ... with a few really good threads about ... birds ... and a few (or more) good guys who offer really good and honest advice.
This is what I like most in this forum.


----------



## tron (Oct 17, 2018)

mirage said:


> simple: future proofness. EF = on way out. RF = on way in. And many folks dislike adapters. lol


Simply because many folks dislike adapters we need EF lenses to put on our DSLRs


----------



## NancyP (Oct 17, 2018)

So how good is the electronic viewfinder on the R? That would seem to be one important consideration for action photographers. Another major consideration is camera build quality. Action photographers (at least the pros) prefer water-resistant tanks. And why isn't 14 per second good enough for 99% of non-scientific uses involving high quality still photos?

A serious consideration is whether the video world will welcome a transition away from EF. People don't seem to realize that EF mount lenses (by Canon, Zeiss, etc) are a substantial part of the video lens market. I have no idea how often people use 600 mm lenses for 4K or 8K video. 

I have no dog in this fight. I am not buying a USD $13,000.00 lens, and I don't expect that the EF mount cameras are going to disappear fast. When one has a lot invested in Canon EF lenses, why on earth would one want to switch? It's one thing if your kit is a 80D or a 6D original and a 24-105 mm f/4 lens and a 50 mm f/1.8 lens. It's entirely another thing if one has the triple threat f/2.8 zoom set or a few TS-E lenses. I am somewhere in the middle. I like the ergonomics of the DSLR. I need to get better at using what I have (though I can always be tempted by another macro lens). Pros especially are not keen to change for the sake of change - their question is "will it make me more money?".


----------



## dsut4392 (Oct 17, 2018)

Lurker said:


> Not sure how I feel, I'm all in on EF at this point and I would like to see the EF 600 DO. I doubt I could afford/justify a new 600 of any flavor anyway. My wife and I only spent $7000 to get engaged and married, I think she'd be a little miffed if I spent more on a lens then I spent on her.



All the evidence points to cheaper weddings leading to longer lasting marriages. The more you spend on lenses instead of your wedding, the more it proves you love her


----------



## takesome1 (Oct 17, 2018)

mirage said:


> EF = dinosaurs, soon extinct.



They will keep selling dSLR's and EF lenses until the old dinosaurs stop buying them.


----------



## NancyP (Oct 17, 2018)

Note that one can add an EF to R adapter onto an EF lens, but a non-optical (no glass elements) R to EF adapter is impossible, due to flange to sensor distance being shorter in mirrorless cameras than in DSLRs. As I understand it, the optical (lens-containing) adapters on the market aren't very good for high quality photography.


----------



## tpatana (Oct 17, 2018)

MrFotoFool said:


> I thought one of the advantages of mirrorless is a higher FPS rate, which is exactly suited to pro sports photographers. For this reason alone I could see a 1DR for the sports crowd.



I'm 1DX sports-hobbyist and while I'd welcome less weight to carry around 6-10h on the field, I don't accept sacrifices. For me 1DR needs to have:
-AF comparable to 1DX including dim-ish gym lighting (my typical settings is ISO6400 1/500 F2.8)
-fairly sizable body (for proper gripping, although this would contradict with the weight reduction)

Everything else is minor wishlist like super high fps, dual card slots, battery life >4h.


----------



## dtaylor (Oct 17, 2018)

Yeah...not buying this rumor. At most Canon will introduce new super teles in both mounts.

As for the "mirror is dead" crowd, a daily reminder: DSLRs continue to out sell MILCs by a wide margin every where except Japan. And in Japan they're mainly buying Olympus m43 and EOS M's, not FF.

Mirrorless still has a ways to go to convince the buying public.


----------



## Talys (Oct 17, 2018)

MrFotoFool said:


> I thought one of the advantages of mirrorless is a higher FPS rate, which is exactly suited to pro sports photographers. For this reason alone I could see a 1DR for the sports crowd.


I've never heard of a professional sports photographer (or, really, any photographer) complain about 14fps being insufficient to capture the magical moment. You hit a point of diminishing returns, where even if mirrorless doubled it to 28 frames per second, would anyone really care? Would it do anything other than generate twice as many photos to cull? It's kind of like the RAW buffer on the 1DXII at 270. If it were at 500, would anyone care?


----------



## Talys (Oct 17, 2018)

dtaylor said:


> Yeah...not buying this rumor. At most Canon will introduce new super teles in both mounts.
> 
> As for the "mirror is dead" crowd, a daily reminder: DSLRs continue to out sell MILCs by a wide margin every where except Japan. And in Japan they're mainly buying Olympus m43 and EOS M's, not FF.
> 
> Mirrorless still has a ways to go to convince the buying public.


But introducing facts into the conversation just spoils all the fun  

I think the next 6-12 months are a critical juncture for Mirrorless full frame. Either Canon and Nikon FF MILCs will sell like hotcakes and mirrorless will really take off, at least for the mid-market -- or it won't. The best case for FF MILC would be if FF DSLR sales diminished somewhat while MILC sales rocketed. I think the EOS R is a pretty compelling camera and at its price point, has the best chance to make this happen of the three lower-end FF MILCs. 

On the other hand, the worst case for FF MILCs would be if, like APSC, FF DLSR sales still handily outsold MILCs despite new and exciting products, and Canon/Nikon MILC sales basically stole from Sony MILC sales. I mean, obviously, it's possible that EOS R and Z6/Z7 are total flops on the market, and that would be an even worse outcome for MILC FF, but I don't think that's a very probable result.


----------



## Del Paso (Oct 17, 2018)

Whether we favor mirrorless over DSLR or not, fact is that if Canon wants to compete with Sony, they need "native" super tele lenses, or, to put it differently, a full line of EOS R lenses.
I think this has already started with with what could be the world's best standard zoom (2/28-70) and the 1,2/50 mm, maybe the DO superteles will follow....


----------



## mirage (Oct 17, 2018)

Talys said:


> The best case for FF MILC would be if FF DSLR sales diminished somewhat while MILC sales rocketed. I think the EOS R is a pretty compelling camera and at its price point, has the best chance to make this happen of the three lower-end FF MILCs.



i don't see what Canon EOS R has over Nikon Z6 (overall at least as capable, less expensive) or Z7 (more capable, more expensive) or Sony A7 III (more capable, less expensive) ? Except for existing Canon users with glass.

Adoption of mirrorfree FF is solely a function of supply. While supply has improved dramatically now - as finally ! there are mirrorfree FF products from 5 brands - there are many caveats, especially when it comes to price/value, that have negative impacts on transition speed:
* sony a7 iii - good price value for body, not for lens lineup (FE glass way more expensive than Canon EF and Nikon F lenses) plus still some ergonomics/UI issues
* Canon EOS R - not a mirrorfree 5D V or at least 5D4 equivalent, but only a mirrorfree 6D III at a 40% higher price than 6D-class mirrorslappers and 25% higher than competitors (Z6, A73)
* Nikon Z6 - about equivalent to D750, but 40% more expensive / Z7 - less capable than a D850, but same high price

IF camera makers would pass on at least some of the cost savings they make with highly automated mirrorfree camera production compared to traditional, labour-intensive mirrorslappers .. and had priced A73, EOS R, Z6 commensurate with what they really are: "entry level mirrorfree FF cameras" ... around canon 6D / Nikon D610 class ... around USD/€ 1500 mark ... transition would happen very, very rapidly.

but even with the makers trying to use mirrorfree FF as another opportunity for their typical, excessive (oligopolist) profit making, mirrorslapping will come to its end soon (enough). for mainstream FF products within 2 years. even when a 1D/D5 class slapper may be for sale another few years.

everything else with mirror a-slapping may see one last, final iteration and that was it.

in Canon terms:
5D5 - probably, 5D6 - no way.
6D3 - maybe, 6D4 - no way.
90D - probably, 91D - no way.
7D3 - surely, 7D4 - dont think so.


----------



## dtaylor (Oct 17, 2018)

mirage said:


> i don't see what Canon EOS R has over Nikon Z6 (overall at least as capable, less expensive) or Z7 (more capable, more expensive) or Sony A7 III (more capable, less expensive) ? Except for existing Canon users with glass.



Canon glass is what it has over them whether you have existing glass or not. That and ergonomics + DPAF.



> IF camera makers would pass on at least some of the cost savings they make with highly automated mirrorfree camera production compared to traditional, labour-intensive mirrorslappers ..



Is this more than a meme? Anyone have actual numbers? The bottom end of the 35mm film SLR market, before digital took over, would seem to prove that an SLR is not expensive to manufacture. Heck, some of those bodies may have been cheaper than an EVF all by itself.



> mirrorslapping will come to its end soon (enough). for mainstream FF products within 2 years.



You've never looked at CIPA sales reports, have you?


----------



## mirage (Oct 17, 2018)

dtaylor said:


> You've never looked at CIPA sales reports, have you?



I know CIPA numbers quite well. in short: sometimes past / current numbers are no good prediction of future. 

longer: demand for capable, FF-sensored, intuitive, smaller, lighter, vibration-free, noise-free, moving-mechanical parts-free, less expensive, mirror-free vcameras is there. Supply side is the problem. Demand still only partially met.


----------



## Sean C (Oct 17, 2018)

(having fun with speculation since we're here on the rumors site)

Sony essentially abandoned mirrored bodies/lenses.
Canon completely abandoned FD for EF.

If these rumors have merit, will they discourage photographers from any investment in EF glass for fear of an near FD situation? aka What will the result of the uncertainty about future EF bodies be? The RF mount is vendor locked (at least for now). Whether adapters work on new RF bodies, and how well is up to them. I only have to move a lens from a 1D body to a 5D or 7D and compare focus speed to see they do alter lens performance to product differentiate bodies. Will they artificially restrict future EF in some way to incentivize RF adoption? (AF speed, lens tech/coatings only on RF/memory card or processor updates/delay body release cycle so EF is always a gen behind - whichever)

Aka - Canon hasn't announced their intentions going forward. How will that uncertainty affect us?


----------



## snoke (Oct 17, 2018)

traveller said:


> Other than removing the need to use an adaptor, I can't see that an RF mount version of this lens would offer any substantial advantages over an EF mount version.



Must buy Canon camera. EF lens I buy adapter + Sony body.


----------



## mirage (Oct 17, 2018)

Sean C said:


> Aka - Canon hasn't announced their intentions going forward. How will that uncertainty affect us?



Luckily and nicely it affects Canon much more than us (potential) customers. 

Myself and many others are holding off buying EF. And we will also wait before buying R/RF until things become clearer ... and street prices fall. 
The longer Canon takes, the later they will do business with folks like me and the higher is their risk that we shop elsewhere. 
It would be in Canon's best interest to clarify their product strategy and publish a [fairly specific] road map for upcoming EOS R cameras and RF lenses.


----------



## traveller (Oct 17, 2018)

snoke said:


> Must buy Canon camera. EF lens I buy adapter + Sony body.



Again, I can’t see many 1D series users being satisfied with the EOS R, so either Canon are condemning the 600 DO to poor sales, or they are planning to release an “EOS R Pro” around the same time. 

Regarding your “adapter + Sony body” comment, at first I dismissed this as internet conspiracy talk, but then I remembered the fuss about RF not being adaptable to EOS M and the thought struck me that perhaps it _was_ a conscious decision made by Canon, but it was actually to ensure that RF lenses are incompatible with _Sony FE mount.... _Wow, now I’m starting internet conspiracy theories!


----------



## Talys (Oct 17, 2018)

dtaylor said:


> Canon glass is what it has over them whether you have existing glass or not. That and ergonomics + DPAF.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yeah, if only mirrorless cameras were much cheaper and had features they don't, and were just better the things they're not so good at, we'd all have them and never look back. 

It's just goalpost shifting: mirrorless cameras were going to totally dominate DSLR until they didn't, when it became all about full frame mirrorless, until everybody made them, and not it's all about them not being good enough and cheap enough. 

If DSLRs were going to spiral to a quick death, it would have started with APSCs, but t6 remains firmly the best selling crop ILC. It really doesn't matter how many hundreds of times AvTvM/fullstop/Mirage and the like repeat it, mirrors and optical viewfinders aren't going to go to the grave anytime soon. 

The a6500, m6 and m50 are all super capable cameras, yet DSLR crop cameras soldier on. If they can't do it, how are $2000+bodies going to?


----------



## Talys (Oct 17, 2018)

snoke said:


> Must buy Canon camera. EF lens I buy adapter + Sony body.


Adapter + EF + Sony body <<< Canon R. 

The autofocus and the 'it just works factor' is so much better that usability isn't really comparable. If you want a Sony sensor, just sell the Canon and buy FE.


----------



## tron (Oct 17, 2018)

traveller said:


> Again, I can’t see many 1D series users being satisfied with the EOS R, so either Canon are condemning the 600 DO to poor sales, or they are planning to release an “EOS R Pro” around the same time.
> 
> Regarding your “adapter + Sony body” comment, at first I dismissed this as internet conspiracy talk, but then I remembered the fuss about RF not being adaptable to EOS M and the thought struck me that perhaps it _was_ a conscious decision made by Canon, but it was actually to ensure that RF lenses are incompatible with _Sony FE mount.... _Wow, now I’m starting internet conspiracy theories!


Even EOS R Pro wouldn't cut it. Unless they make a high Mpixel mirrorless I for example would stay with my 5DsR + 400 DO II combination. Much cheaper (actually free since I already have it), smaller and most probably lighter. Also they should realize that they have a serious mirror compatible lense competitor: the Nikkor 500mm f/5.6 and act accordingly.


----------



## BeenThere (Oct 17, 2018)

efmshark said:


> Wouldn't a 600mm DO lens for the RF mount practically the same size and weight as the equivalent EF 600mm DO lens with an EF-RF adapter? What would be the point of making RF-only supertelephoto lenses?


Because EF mount is being phased out. In two years time, practically all new ff lenses will be R mount. The older lens will still work with the adapter, but who wants to use an adapter if you don’t have to use it.


----------



## tron (Oct 17, 2018)

BeenThere said:


> Because EF mount is being phased out. In two years time, practically all new ff lenses will be R mount. The older lens will still work with the adapter, but who wants to use an adapter if you don’t have to use it.


That's why they introduced new version III EF telephoto lenses...


----------



## BeenThere (Oct 17, 2018)

tron said:


> That's why they introduced new version III EF telephoto lenses...


Yes, the new v3 teles are end of the line for EF. They will be perfectly fine lenses for many years to come, and those who cling to their mirror slappers will make extraordinary images with them. But next gen will be R only.


----------



## Stuart (Oct 17, 2018)

Whats the twist - RF?
Or a new DO tech?


----------



## snoke (Oct 17, 2018)

traveller said:


> but then I remembered the fuss about RF not being adaptable to EOS M and the thought struck me that perhaps it _was_ a conscious decision made by Canon, but it was actually to ensure that RF lenses are incompatible with _Sony FE mount.... _Wow, now I’m starting internet conspiracy theories!



Not conspiracy. Business plan.

Canon, Nikon, Sony. All want sell camera + lens. Not just camera. Not just lens.

Use Sony + adapters then any lens. Bad business plan for Sony/Nikon/Canon. Give consumer big lens choice. Good for us.


----------



## tron (Oct 17, 2018)

I wonder if all of you fortune tellers that predict the end of DSLRs and the EF line use Canon equipment or you are mostly internet surfers... SONY lovers - but of course not Sony owners - included...


----------



## stochasticmotions (Oct 17, 2018)

What I am really interested in is the other part of the rumour...a couple other DO lenses. I'm hoping that something like the nikon 500 5.6 might be coming and even more interesting would be a new DO zoom. This time it would be great to see something longer than the 70-300, maybe a 200-600 DO at 5.6. Either way, a lighter and longer travel kit that can come with me on planes where they weigh you with your kit would be amazing with what ever the next EOS R camera brings.


----------



## criscokkat (Oct 17, 2018)

Stuart said:


> Whats the twist - RF?
> Or a new DO tech?


Both, I think.

https://cpn.canon-europe.com/conten...es/multi_layer_diffractive_optical_element.do

If you look at the canon page above on the DO 400 there are additional considerations to think about. The light is bent on a much more severe path on the DO lens, which means it needs to be straightened out again to deal with the longer distance on the EF lens to the sensor. Since mirrorless is closer to the rear lens, they might be able to actually get rid of the straightening lens that you see in the EF DO lens illustration as the location of that lens element is pretty close to where the sensor will be.

We know canon made very little changes to the electronics on the sensor compared to the 5dIV, but there were reports that one of the changes were on the microlenses on the surface of the sensor. Maybe they've optimized it to work with more severe light angles? That means it could dramatically shorter. It also seems like it's much harder to do IS in a DO lens than a normal lens - but if the other rumors of future cameras having in-camera IS it could be quite a package.


----------



## nchoh (Oct 17, 2018)

Talys said:


> Yeah, if only mirrorless cameras were much cheaper and had features they don't, and were just better the things they're not so good at, we'd all have them and never look back.
> 
> It's just goalpost shifting: mirrorless cameras were going to totally dominate DSLR until they didn't, when it became all about full frame mirrorless, until everybody made them, and not it's all about them not being good enough and cheap enough.
> 
> ...



The T6 is the best selling ILC because it hits the sweet spot of price, IQ and usability. For example, I had a couple of years playing with my T2i with some really nice glass. When it came time I couldn't justify the price of a 7D2 and settled for the T6s. I had a bump up in fps, a bump up in mp and a bump up in usability (more focus points and a tilty-flippy touch screen).

I believe that Canon will move as fast as possible to establish the EOS R in order to thwart Sony's market share expansion. However, I also believe that Canon will manage their market segmentation carefully, hence, they will not ditch EF lenses nor DSLRs just because it seems like the hot topic on this site. Indeed, Canon will keep producing DSLRs as long as consumers want to buy them and they are profitable to sell.

The question remains as to what the future Canon lineup will look like. Nobody has really ventured a guess because nobody really knows. Take the 7D2 for example, we all know it's Canon BIF shooter. We know what the 5D series is for; serious photographers. Will a single capable R camera replace them both? How about the 6D? It's the low-end FF DSLR. With cheaper camera prices, does it make sense to have a low end MILC? How will the 2 lines coexist? I think it will take at least 2 years for Canon to figure out their longer term strategy on how to position their DSLR and MILC lines alongside each other.


----------



## Adrianf (Oct 17, 2018)

Canon has to remember that with mirrorless it is now competing not only with other manufacturers but also with its own DSLR products. I just hope that its loyal customers are not pushed into something inferior just to get rid of a mirror. The new stuff has to be better than the equivalent DSLR in every respect. As for the big whites, who really cares about a few grams when the kit weighs kilograms. IMHO they should stick to EF mount until pro DSLR sales are dead, thus leaving everyone's options open.


----------



## tron (Oct 17, 2018)

Adrianf said:


> Canon has to remember that with mirrorless it is now competing not only with other manufacturers but also with its own DSLR products. I just hope that its loyal customers are not pushed into something inferior just to get rid of a mirror. The new stuff has to be better than the equivalent DSLR in every respect. As for the big whites, who really cares about a few grams when the kit weighs kilograms. IMHO they should stick to EF mount until pro DSLR sales are dead, thus leaving everyone's options open.


Right now EOS R competes with 6D2. Even 5DIV is better not only in battery and in having dual cards but on sensor too having more DR - the EOS R sensor shows banding sooner than 5DIV a step backward. Intrestingly enough this is the same with NIkon. D850's sensor being better than Z7's (in the same way).


----------



## NancyP (Oct 17, 2018)

The mirrorless camera that I want is the full-frame Foveon sensor Sigma Quattro ILC, and its announced EF to Quattro adapter (and Nikon F mount to Quattro adapter). The Sigma sensor has its own look, and if you work within its limitations (needs low ISO), the files are lovely. This is a camera intended for landscape, architecture, static macro, other non-action photography. However, I hope that Sigma also works on its ergonomics, on the in-camera processing speed, and on the Sigma Photo Pro (SPP) RAW converter / editor. And, maybe a battery grip, because mirrorless cameras, esp. Sigma Foveon, are battery eaters. Yes, upcoming Quattro full frame will have DNG option, but SPP editor is designed for the sensor native RAW file, and ought to be polished up (admittedly, my experience is with the relatively small Sigma DP Merrill APS-C size sensor fixed-prime-lens cameras, which produce native RAW files (.x3f) approx. 50 M each). 

For action and general use, the mirrorslappers are my go-to.


----------



## NancyP (Oct 17, 2018)

The 6D is also the camera for low light and astrolandscape photography, adapted lenses, manual focus lenses (because it has interchangeable screens). I am using it until it dies, same with 7D2. So far, 20 MP is enough for the small prints I make.


----------



## Valvebounce (Oct 17, 2018)

Hi Sean.
I think what you are actually seeing is the difference poking 11.1v (1 series) in to a focus motor versus the 7.2v (7,6,5 series) normally used makes when driving the focus system. I believe I have read from Canon that is why the 1 series drive the lenses faster.
I guess they could give all their cameras the built in grip needed for the bigger battery, then they could all drive the lenses at the same speed but then they would all be 1 Series bodies and they would have to differentiate them some other way. 
It’s just the same as leaving out the aircon and central locking on a base model car! 

Cheers, Graham.



Sean C said:


> I only have to move a lens from a 1D body to a 5D or 7D and compare focus speed to see they do alter lens performance to product differentiate bodies.


----------



## Sean C (Oct 17, 2018)

Valvebounce said:


> Hi Sean.
> I think what you are actually seeing is the difference poking 11.1v (1 series) in to a focus motor versus the 7.2v (7,6,5 series) <snip> 1 Series bodies and they would have to differentiate them some other way.
> It’s just the same as leaving out the aircon and central locking on a base model car!


Yep. That's an intentional design choice though. If they chose, they could have a standard voltage and drive with more current on the 1D or a lower series with a battery grip. You just adjust the focus motor winding gauge/turns to the voltage.
My point was that they play segmentation games now to artificially make one body better. If they want a quick transition, they could 'fix' RF performance disparities by artificially limiting new EF bodies. They do that now...


----------



## Talys (Oct 17, 2018)

Del Paso said:


> Whether we favor mirrorless over DSLR or not, fact is that if Canon wants to compete with Sony, they need "native" super tele lenses, or, to put it differently, a full line of EOS R lenses.
> I think this has already started with with what could be the world's best standard zoom (2/28-70) and the 1,2/50 mm, maybe the DO superteles will follow....


All Canon has to do to create native super telephotos is build the converter into the existing EF and add an additional control ring. Presto, native RF. There's nothing optically wrong with the existing EF supertelephotos, they're not going to get smaller, and they're not going to get lighter (due to a RF mount change). 

The real question is, who is going to rush out to buy an RF 200-400.

I hope everyone, so that I can buy a cheap EF 200-400  While they are at it, they can sell me their 1DX2 for cheap too


----------



## Talys (Oct 17, 2018)

Sean C said:


> Yep. That's an intentional design choice though. If they chose, they could have a standard voltage and drive with more current on the 1D or a lower series with a battery grip. You just adjust the focus motor winding gauge/turns to the voltage.
> My point was that they play segmentation games now to artificially make one body better. If they want a quick transition, they could 'fix' RF performance disparities by artificially limiting new EF bodies. They do that now...


But then the batteries wouldn't last as long on the smaller bodies, or, all bodies would need bigger batteries, which isn't really desirable to some people (not everyone wants a 1D sized body, right?). They could get creative and make it so a gripped 5D performed better than an ungripped 5D, too. 

But anyways, the successful manufacturer balances featureset and price point across their portfolio, which Canon does pretty well, in my opinion. For everyone that complains that lower end bodies are more limited than higher end bodies, would it be preferable if Sony, Nikon and Canon only made one camera each, their best camera, and they were all priced at $3,500?

I think most people who say, "I don't like how Canon artificially limits..." are really saying, "There are features I really like in the 1D, but I don't want to pay that much for it."


----------



## nchoh (Oct 17, 2018)

Talys said:


> All Canon has to do to create native super telephotos is build the converter into the existing EF and add an additional control ring. Presto, native RF.



So you are basically saying that Canon is lying about the advantages that come with the RF mount.



Talys said:


> There's nothing optically wrong with the existing EF supertelephotos,...



Not at all, but does that mean that no improvements are possible? To take your statement to the logical conclusion - is Canon shouldn't be releasing any more improved versions?



Talys said:


> ... they're not going to get smaller, and they're not going to get lighter (due to a RF mount change).



I don't really know for a fact as there aren't enough RF lens to prove one way or another. Perhaps you can show us how you came to that conclusion.


----------



## Talys (Oct 17, 2018)

nchoh said:


> So you are basically saying that Canon is lying about the advantages that come with the RF mount.


I'm saying that the biggest change in RF, the shorter FFD, is of little benefit to telephotos. If you look at Sony lenses, as the focal length gets longer, the lenses end up exactly the same as their longer DSLR lens counterparts + spacer. The other features, like control ring, aperture blade control , and additional communication pins are cool, but these lenses are a big investment, and if someone's going to replace one, they're going to be looking at AF speed, image quality and size/weight, none of which will dramatically change.



nchoh said:


> Not at all, but does that mean that no improvements are possible? To take your statement to the logical conclusion - is Canon shouldn't be releasing any more improved versions?



Not at all, but that's not what I said. I said that to get a native RF lens, all Canon has to do is build the converter into the EF lens, and that for the current generation supertelephotos, the optical image quality is excellent. Of course, if Canon can make a better optics, they should do so, but this has nothing to do as to whether it's an RF or EF mount.



nchoh said:


> I don't really know for a fact as there aren't enough RF lens to prove one way or another. Perhaps you can show us how you came to that conclusion.


I came to the conclusion that lenses for mirrorless FF aren't particularly smaller by looking at Sony and Canon's FF mirrorless lens portfolios. As focal lengths get longer, none of the lenses get smaller or lighter in a meaningful way. If you want a long focal length or a wide aperture, it's going to be a big, heavy lens, period. There are no free rides. Basically, if you want a lighter/smaller lens, you need a more efficient optical formula or lighter materials.

Anyways, we'll see in two years from now. If all the RF, FE, Z, and EF lenses of the same class are about the same size, then the size/weight thing will be moot.


----------



## tron (Oct 17, 2018)

Talys said:


> All Canon has to do to create native super telephotos is build the converter into the existing EF and add an additional control ring. Presto, native RF. There's nothing optically wrong with the existing EF supertelephotos, they're not going to get smaller, and they're not going to get lighter (due to a RF mount change).
> 
> The real question is, who is going to rush out to buy an RF 200-400.
> 
> I hope everyone, so that I can buy a cheap EF 200-400  While they are at it, they can sell me their 1DX2 for cheap too


I prefer they will introduce first 1DxIII and then its owners to become crazy for mirrorless cameras. I like my DSLRs up to date


----------



## Talys (Oct 17, 2018)

tron said:


> I prefer they will introduce first 1DxIII and then its owners to become crazy for mirrorless cameras. I like my DSLRs up to date



lol, I hope so too 

I think there is a possibility for one before Tokyo 2020


----------



## beegee (Oct 17, 2018)

The competetion in this sector has been ramped up by Nikon's 500 f/5.6 DO (they call it Fresnell Prism) which for one extra stop disadvantage costs less than 50% of the Canon 400 DI II. As a serious hobbyist, I think twice about putting in $7000 in to a lens. I rent it and love the 400 DO. Was waiting for the 600 DO because I did not want to spend $12K for the 600 MkIII. Now Canon might have to deal with the price pressure for the longer DO or may be do a f/5.6 at the same price point as the Nikon offering. Folks wanting the f/4 DO can cough up $3000 more than the mid-$3000 f/5.6 DO offerings.


----------



## TAF (Oct 18, 2018)

NorskHest said:


> Sure a couple pounds lighter might be nice, but put yourself on a diet and you just shaved a few pounds off...rant



What an interesting non-sequitur.

Take that 1D and 600 and track birds for a while. Unless you are a body builder, your hand-hold stability will begin to deteriorate within a few minutes. The same with a 5D and you'll have a few more minutes. And I rather suspect that with an EOR-R, you'll have even a few more minutes.

It is a rare person who wouldn't benefit from a somewhat lower weight for the equipment they are using.

No matter what they personally weigh.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Oct 18, 2018)

efmshark said:


> Wouldn't a 600mm DO lens for the RF mount practically the same size and weight as the equivalent EF 600mm DO lens with an EF-RF adapter? What would be the point of making RF-only supertelephoto lenses?



I do not think that from a size and weight standpoint, there would be a lot of difference, perhaps not from a IQ standpoint either, except perhaps at extreme edges due to the larger glass at the rear, and less chromatic abberation.

The major difference would be faster AF speed due to the faster lens communications, better tracking due to depth data being sent real time, and better balance for a R due to the lack of the adapter, the lens / camera combination could be shorter.


----------



## RGF (Oct 18, 2018)

Good story. I doubt that they will have a 600 DO in an RF mount unless they have 1Dx M3 R announced long before the lens. 

Might have both - have an adapter as part of the lens. Now that is a better idea!!


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Oct 18, 2018)

NancyP said:


> So how good is the electronic viewfinder on the R? That would seem to be one important consideration for action photographers. Another major consideration is camera build quality. Action photographers (at least the pros) prefer water-resistant tanks. And why isn't 14 per second good enough for 99% of non-scientific uses involving high quality still photos?
> 
> A serious consideration is whether the video world will welcome a transition away from EF. People don't seem to realize that EF mount lenses (by Canon, Zeiss, etc) are a substantial part of the video lens market. I have no idea how often people use 600 mm lenses for 4K or 8K video.
> 
> I have no dog in this fight. I am not buying a USD $13,000.00 lens, and I don't expect that the EF mount cameras are going to disappear fast. When one has a lot invested in Canon EF lenses, why on earth would one want to switch? It's one thing if your kit is a 80D or a 6D original and a 24-105 mm f/4 lens and a 50 mm f/1.8 lens. It's entirely another thing if one has the triple threat f/2.8 zoom set or a few TS-E lenses. I am somewhere in the middle. I like the ergonomics of the DSLR. I need to get better at using what I have (though I can always be tempted by another macro lens). Pros especially are not keen to change for the sake of change - their question is "will it make me more money?".




You are assuming that the $20,000 lens would be intended for a R. I don't think so, it will be intended for a pro level camera. You could use one with a R, but if such a thing comes to pass, it will be for a pro level mirrorless.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Oct 18, 2018)

tron said:


> And after 2 years from the prototype display we have just a CR1 rumor. So let's wait 2 more years until we see .... a CR2 one


That's a subtle point, but significant. It takes Canon years to develop a new super telephoto lens, so unless they were already developing it for a R before they showed the prototype, its hard to believe that it could be developed and fully tested for a not as yet existent pro level mirrorless. Telephoto lenses that are about as perfect as a mortal could afford are not just popped off the designers desk and into production, years of test / redesign iterations.


----------



## tron (Oct 18, 2018)

TAF said:


> What an interesting non-sequitur.
> 
> Take that 1D and 600 and track birds for a while. Unless you are a body builder, your hand-hold stability will begin to deteriorate within a few minutes. The same with a 5D and you'll have a few more minutes. And I rather suspect that with an EOR-R, you'll have even a few more minutes.
> 
> ...


On par with the "logic" of EOS R lovers (I wonder if you have preordered one) you think it is too important to have a camera 200grams (=0.2KG) less but with obviously much worse handling (otherwise it would be bigger and heavier) when the total weight (lens + camera) is close to 4Kg! Congraculations! FYI I have used lenses of this class of weight (500mm, 400DOII) with 5 and 7 class cameras. Only 400DO II cuts it. Otherwise a few minutes or more with handholding the 500II (EOS R or 5DsR) would create the same issues. The solution for handholding is the DO technology and nothing else. Because in addition to the less weight the less length makes your holding increadibly easier. I have walked many hours with a 5DsR and a 400DOII with no issues and I am someone who takes the 500 only when in car or when using a tripod. When I used it on a 2 hour boat trip (obviously not holding it all the time) I had issues with my hand for 2 to 3 months. The next time I took it on a boat I also put a tripod with a Gimbal head in front


----------



## scyrene (Oct 18, 2018)

djack41 said:


> This is awesome news! If the R-mount is chosen, it means that Canon is developing a pro-level mirrorless for sports/wildlife. Bet that DSLRs will be extinct within 5 years.



I'd take that bet. Easy money.


----------



## scyrene (Oct 18, 2018)

adamfilip said:


> makes sense EF mount is obselete



LOL


----------



## scyrene (Oct 18, 2018)

efmshark said:


> Wouldn't a 600mm DO lens for the RF mount practically the same size and weight as the equivalent EF 600mm DO lens with an EF-RF adapter? What would be the point of making RF-only supertelephoto lenses?



Presumably to tempt people across to the R series? (People who dislike adapters or really want the 600 DO).


----------



## scyrene (Oct 18, 2018)

MrFotoFool said:


> Thankfully I have no need for supertelephotos (in fact I recently bought a cheap used 300 2.8L IS and am selling it after a few months because I don't need it). However if I did want a long lens there is almost no question I would sell my Canon gear and get the new Nikon 500 f5.6 PF. I think Canon is really going to have a hard time competing with that (and the previous 300 f4 PF).



With respect, as you don't use these lenses your comment is missing the point a little. A 500 5.6 is not competing with a 600 f/4, whether DO or otherwise. The former is for the budget end of the market, relatively speaking (or for those for whom size and weight reductions are paramount). Some people need the widest aperture possible at these long focal lengths, and are prepared to pay for it (or their employers are).


----------



## Bob Howland (Oct 18, 2018)

When I look at the back of my Canon 300 f/2.8 IS and Sigma 150-600 S lenses, I see lots of space. In both lenses, the rear elements are recessed into the lens barrels by at least 25mm. So what is the advantage of making the supertelephoto lenses RF instead of EF? This is especially true if many of the potential buyers are still using EF cameras and are unable to use RF lenses?

Second, my guess is that some time before the 2020 Olympics, both Nikon and Canon (and maybe Panasonic) will introduce FF mirrorless bodies that make their current sports DSLRs look glacial in comparison. I'm thinking 18+ FPS, full frame images, with superb focusing of moving targets. From a marketing standpoint, anything else would be just plain stupid. By then, they will also have introduced the holy trinity of f/2.8 lenses.

I got to handle the EOS R with the 24-105 lens at the local Best Buy. The combination is much lighter than my 5D3 and 24-70 lens which is critically important to me, and the body is large enough. (The M5 body is too small.) I still want an RF 24-180 f/4 L lens to put on it. I could use my Tamron 28-300 lens with an adapter but I want something better, even if it costs $1500.


----------



## djack41 (Oct 18, 2018)

NorskHest said:


> I own a 600 f4 v2 and a 300 2.8v2, the new offerings give me nothing that I don’t already have, if a 600do comes out those of us with version 2’s and 3’s of the telephotos will not be rushing out to get rid of or replace our gear. Sure a couple pounds lighter might be nice, but put yourself on a diet and you just shaved a few pounds off. It always fascinates me when people talk about weight of a lens and camera and talk about a few pounds being heavy. I mean are you really that weak or just that much of a bourgeoisie? I know we all love tech but guess what, tech doesn’t always matter, a t5i and a 100-400 in the right hands will yield better results that a 1d and a 600 in the rookies hands. Yes this is a bit of a negative rant which a few will read but, at the end of the day I and many professionals will not be trading out our 1ds for a long time. If camera history has taught us anything the first few cycles of new bodies are not worth purchasing. I’ll take a heavier and more ergonomic friendly 1d series of that trash eosr with a ring on a lens and no joystick and one turn wheel and a apple Touch Bar and some goofy button layout any day. I love canon and I have given them lots of money and there are many DSLR users like me that will use the DSLR setup for many years to come. DSLR death will not be fast, and why replace what is near perfection. End of my rant


I would sell my 600 F4 II in a second if Canon produces the 600 F4 DO with same or better IQ. Precise handling makes a huge difference for many free-hand applications such as BIF. Convenience when shooting from a blind or car. Smaller size when packing for travel photography is a big advantage.


----------



## tron (Oct 18, 2018)

djack41 said:


> I would sell my 600 F4 II in a second if Canon produces the 600 F4 DO with same or better IQ. Precise handling makes a huge difference for many free-hand applications such as BIF. Convenience when shooting from a blind or car. Smaller size when packing for travel photography is a big advantage.


I agree that all these are advantages and in fact I am quite fond of my 400DOII. But in contrast scenes the non DO white teles shine. I shot a bird with both 400DOII and a 500II from my balcony (quite rare I admit but it was staying so I had the chance after I took the first photos with my 400 to switch to tripod and 500 - that time!). It was late afternoon with the light behind the bird. The photos with 500 were obviously better. In all other cases the result is distant dependent but the 400's IQ is top.


----------



## AlanF (Oct 18, 2018)

tron said:


> I agree that all these are advantages and in fact I am quite fond of my 400DOII. But in contrast scenes the non DO white teles shine. I shot a bid with both 400DOII and a 500II from my balcony (quite rare I admit but it was staying so I had the chance after I took the first photos with my 400 to switch to tripod and 500 - that time!). It was late afternoon with the light behind the bird. The photos with 500 were obviously better. In all other cases the result is distant dependent but the 400's IQ is top.


The DO is not at its best working against the light.


----------



## tron (Oct 18, 2018)

AlanF said:


> The DO is not at its best working against the light.


Indeed! Fortunately it could be corrected via Adobe's CR Haze removal. The results aren't 100% perfect but they are decent. For the rest of the cases this 400DOII - witch I know you like very much too - really shines. Its IS is very good. I just have to try it with teleconverters in the future although only for static themes and good light.


----------



## AlanF (Oct 18, 2018)

tron said:


> Indeed! Fortunately it could be corrected via Adobe's CR Haze removal. The results aren't 100% perfect but they are decent. For the rest of the cases this 400DOII - witch I know you like very much too - really shines. Its IS is very good. I just have to try it with teleconverters in the future although only for static themes and good light.


It's an incredible lens that sparkles with TCs. Native, the 100-400mm II gives it a run for its money, put a 1.4xTC on it and it is a league ahead on a 5DSR, and with a 2xTC is a killer on a 5DIV. Its AF with a 1.4xTC is also spectacular. It may be expensive, but it is far more versatile than a 500mm f/5.6.


----------



## tron (Oct 19, 2018)

AlanF said:


> It's an incredible lens that sparkles with TCs. Native, the 100-400mm II gives it a run for its money, put a 1.4xTC on it and it is a league ahead on a 5DSR, and with a 2xTC is a killer on a 5DIV. Its AF with a 1.4xTC is also spectacular. It may be expensive, but it is far more versatile than a 500mm f/5.6.


I may need to AFMA it with 1.4XIII But I need ample space for that (20x to 40x the 560mm = 11.2 to 22.4 meters). I had some failures with 5DsR+1.4XIII with 5DsR and some with 7DII but with 7D2 I had also some successes.


----------



## degos (Oct 26, 2018)

Talys said:


> I've never heard of a professional sports photographer (or, really, any photographer) complain about 14fps being insufficient to capture the magical moment. You hit a point of diminishing returns, where even if mirrorless doubled it to 28 frames per second, would anyone really care?



14fps gives an inter-frame interval of 71 milliseconds in which two aeroplanes with a closing speed of 1400km/h ( an opposition pass at an airshow ) move 28 metres. When you're tracking one during a pass that's the difference between getting the other one in-frame and not-in-frame; a cropper with a 600mm lens has a FoV of 17 metres at CAA airshow display-line distance.

So yes, more FPS is always welcome from that perspective; it's an example of how luck plays a part no matter how experienced you are. 28fps would guarantee the other aircraft in frame.


----------



## Graphic.Artifacts (Oct 26, 2018)

Cross-section of the new 4002.8L IS III with the ver. II in the background. Hard to see how much additional weight reduction benefit this lens could gain from DO as pretty much all of the glass is much further back in the lens. I had the chance to handle them side by side and the weight and handling are significantly better. Canon wouldn't let my try the 600mm but they claimed the improvements there were similar. If these lenses are as sharp as the version II's it's hard to imagine they would revise them again as DO. Maybe as an RF I suppose. This display case was in the RF exhibit at New York's Photo Plus Expo so I wasn't sure what to make of that. I'm no expert on lens design but those compound elements appear to be similar to Canon's DO tech to my eye.


----------



## AlanF (Oct 27, 2018)

A big difference the DO design makes is on length: the 400mm f/2.8 III is 343mm, 13.5" long whereas the 400mm DO II is 233mm, 9.2" long - a very significant difference. You don't have that huge void between the front element and the next.


----------



## djack41 (Oct 28, 2018)

If the DO image has lower contrast, it is easily corrected in post.


----------



## djack41 (Oct 28, 2018)

scyrene said:


> Presumably to tempt people across to the R series? (People who dislike adapters or really want the 600 DO).


No. Canon says the larger diameter r-mount allows them to reduce the diameter of the objective glass.


----------



## AlanF (Oct 28, 2018)

djack41 said:


> No. Canon says the larger diameter r-mount allows them to reduce the diameter of the objective glass.


The diameter of the entrance pupil, which is usually the front element, cannot be less than that determined by the f-number of the lens, and that rule of optics cannot be changed by changing the diameter of the mount. The f-number = focal length divided by diameter of entrance pupil, and the lens mount diameter doesn’t come into the equation. A 600mm f/4 lens has to have a diameter of 150mm or more at its far end whatever the size of mount.

Short focal length lenses have some special problems in design and perhaps Canon can make some of those smaller with a larger mount and shorter flange to sensor distance, but the telephoto lenses are not going to become narrower with the R mount.


----------



## RGF (Oct 30, 2018)

Not in 2019. possible but unlikely in 2020. Do I hear 2021? Long time to wait not that Nikon has the 500P.

Wonder if this new twist will be worth a 2-3 year wait.


----------



## canonmike (Nov 1, 2018)

traveller said:


> If that is the case, then we can surely expect a 1D-level EOS R body very shortly. It would also imply that Canon intend the EF-RF transition period to be much shorter than a lot of people have anticipated. Other than removing the need to use an adaptor, I can't see that an RF mount version of this lens would offer any substantial advantages over an EF mount version.


Unless the RF mount version could be much smaller, lighter, etc....


----------



## AlanF (Nov 1, 2018)

canonmike said:


> Unless the RF mount version could be much smaller, lighter, etc....


A supertelephoto cannot be made smaller and lighter for an RF rather than an EF mount. Please read some of the earlier posts. The width of a telephoto is determined primarily by the diameter of the front element needed to provide the desired f-number, not the mount, and the RF lens length will be a few mm greater to accommodate the need for a long focal length.


----------



## canonmike (Nov 1, 2018)

AlanF said:


> A supertelephoto cannot be made smaller and lighter for an RF rather than an EF mount. Please read some of the earlier posts. The width of a telephoto is determined primarily by the diameter of the front element needed to provide the desired f-number, not the mount, and the RF lens length will be a few mm greater to accommodate the need for a long focal length.


Interesting, so it appears there will be no smaller and lighter RF anything.


----------



## AlanF (Nov 1, 2018)

canonmike said:


> Interesting, so it appears there will be no smaller and lighter RF anything.


Wideangle and shorter focal length lenses could be smaller and lighter. But, with the big telephotos, the body is just a dongle on the end of a huge great lens.


----------



## canonmike (Nov 1, 2018)

AlanF said:


> Wideangle and shorter focal length lenses could be smaller and lighter. But, with the big telephotos, the body is just a dongle on the end of a huge great lens.


Lovin all these new, albeit big RF lenses but they won't work for me on the trail while hiking, even as I drool over their specs and capabilities. Guess I'll just stick with my M50 for that purpose as we wait and see what Canon has up its sleeve for future EOS R series cameras and lenses, not to mention all the other mfgs. plethora of offerings. Exciting times.


----------



## Michael Clark (Nov 4, 2018)

Graphic.Artifacts said:


> The current super tele's are mostly air on the back end so It's hard to see what the benefit would be. I'd prefer an interchangeable bolt on mount than could be either native EF or RF but I don't expect that to happen. That being said, I don't think adapters are a good long term solution for the larger tele's so Canon will have to come up with some sort of native RF solution sooner rather than later if they intend to sell a lot of mirrorless sports/wildlife cameras. Big cameras and lenses put a lot of strain on the mount. A EF/RF converter coupled to a 1.4x or 2x teleconverter and you are starting dealing with a lot of strain/flex at the mount. Not the sort of thing you want to be worried about when you are trying to get out of the way of a 320lb defensive back who missed a sideline tackle.



320 lb DB?


----------



## neonlight (Nov 4, 2018)

Well, no surprise that the DO's are heading to RF, they've been so long in appearing.
Just typical. Bought a film camera in FD era. Four years later, EF.
Bought a 7DII a couple of years ago. Now RF. Thank you Canon. Didn't want to buy a third set of lenses, but at least RF bodies will take EF glass with an adapter.
Seems that Canon will try to entice people over to RF by introducing better-than-EF lenses. 
Probably EF lenses will appear but after the RF intro, or maybe not. This is certainly the beginning of the end of EF.


----------



## neonlight (Nov 4, 2018)

... but I liked the joke. They'll have the new twisty ring of the RF lenses


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Dec 22, 2021)

The twist turned out to be f/11 which would have been completely impractical with a DSLR.
The RF 400 f/2.8 and RF 600 f/4 are pretty much just adapted versions of their EF counterparts.


----------

