# Five Canon RF lenses show up for certification



## Canon Rumors Guy (Feb 19, 2020)

> Five SKUs for upcoming Canon RF lenses have appeared at a Russian certification agency.
> 
> 3986C005
> 3987C005
> ...



Continue reading...


----------



## Chaitanya (Feb 19, 2020)

24-105mm macro might be one of those.


----------



## frisbfreek (Feb 19, 2020)

Chaitanya said:


> 24-105mm macro might be one of those.


No I think that one is 4111C002.


----------



## Ozarker (Feb 19, 2020)

Never thought I would be interested in a slow lens again, but this RF 100-500mm has me intrigued.


----------



## Maximilian (Feb 19, 2020)

This chart posted here recently shows five empty lines for lenses yet to come in 2020. 
So maybe we can expect and hope for even more to come than named here by CR Guy


----------



## Bangrossi (Feb 19, 2020)

I expect this year canon will release low-end to mid-range kind of lenses. Not something ground breaking similar to 28-70 f2. Hopefuly canon will make another f/1.2 primes soon


----------



## Cochese (Feb 19, 2020)

I don't quite understand all of these 7.1 L series lenses. Why? And no, sensor stabilization is not a good reason.


----------



## Viggo (Feb 19, 2020)

Cochese said:


> I don't quite understand all of these 7.1 L series lenses. Why? And no, sensor stabilization is not a good reason.


I have to agree with this, it waters down the L-designation ..


----------



## Sharlin (Feb 19, 2020)

Cochese said:


> I don't quite understand all of these 7.1 L series lenses.



All one of them?


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Feb 19, 2020)

Viggo said:


> I have to agree with this, it waters down the L-designation ..



I would argue that any variable aperture lens would water down the L-designation. However, it is just not practical to have every L lens being f/4 at the slowest, and the L-designation seams to mean build quality, water sealing, and focus speed.


----------



## Viggo (Feb 19, 2020)

Codebunny said:


> I would argue that any variable aperture lens would water down the L-designation. However, it is just not practical to have every L lens being f/4 at the slowest, and the L-designation seams to mean build quality, water sealing, and focus speed.


f5,6 has always been an L-aperture, but 6.3 is low end Sigma, and 7.1? No thanks... no matter IS and this and that, that is super slow and unusable in a lot of scenarios.


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Feb 19, 2020)

Viggo said:


> f5,6 has always been an L-aperture, but 6.3 is low end Sigma, and 7.1? No thanks... no matter IS and this and that, that is super slow and unusable in a lot of scenarios.



The easy solution is to not buy lenses that you deem too slow. I am going to get this 100-500 and a 200-400, one I can keep in my bag at all times.


----------



## AlanF (Feb 19, 2020)

Viggo said:


> f5,6 has always been an L-aperture, but 6.3 is low end Sigma, and 7.1? No thanks... no matter IS and this and that, that is super slow and unusable in a lot of scenarios.


Fortunately, you are not in charge of Canon's lens naming department. A 50mm f/1.2 L would be unusable for just about anything I do as it is too short and it's soft at the edges wide open so by your criteria it's unusable in a wide range of scenarios and not an L.


----------



## AlanF (Feb 19, 2020)

400mm f/5.6 vs 500mm f/7.1 is the same situation as 500mm f/5.6 vs 600mm f/6.3. By analogy, 500mm f/7.1 is advantageous because it can put more pixels on target and lets in the same amount of light. See for discussion:





Iso, noise, extenders, cropping, and 600mm f/6.3 vs 500mm f/5.6 zooms


Another one of my geek notes that may be of some practical use. This has been stimulated by discussion in the threads about 600mm f/6.3 vs 500mm f/5.6 telephoto lenses. It is usually thought that the larger f-number of the longer lens means either a slower shutter speed or introducing more...




www.canonrumors.com




_"So, all things being equal, shooting the 500mm at f/7.1 at the same shutter speed as a 400mm f/5.6 but at 2/3 stops higher iso puts 56% more pixels on target and similar noise when viewing images at the same size!"_


----------



## Viggo (Feb 19, 2020)

AlanF said:


> Fortunately, you are not in charge of Canon's lens naming department. A 50mm f/1.2 L would be unusable for just about anything I do as it is too short and it's soft at the edges wide open so by your criteria it's unusable in a wide range of scenarios and not an L.


The 50 L is an L because Aperture and build, and it’s the worst L in terms of IQ so I half way agree. But it’s not the overall standard of L’s, it’s far below. Besides, it’s 14 years old and has been replaced in RF mount and REALLY shines now. That’s what I don’t get, why do RF lenses that are worse than the EF-version. Granted, there is no 100-500 in EF, but I think 5,6 is the slowest an L should be. Just my opinion. Fortunately there are and will be f2.8 zooms and even f2.0 zooms. Guess it’s just disappointing when they started off so epic with RF-L’s...


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Feb 19, 2020)

Viggo said:


> The 50 L is an L vevside Aperture and build, and it’s the worst L in terms of IQ so I half way agree. But it’s not the overall standard of L’s, it’s far below. Besides, it’s 14 years old and has been replaced in RF mount and REALLY shines now. That’s what I don’t get, why do RF lenses that are worse than the EF-version. Granted, there is no 100-500 in EF, but I think 5,6 is the slowest and L should be. Just my opinion. Fortunately there are and will be f2.8 zooms and even f2.0 zooms. Guess it’s just disappointing when they started off so epic with RF-L’s...



The announced teleconverters don’t have anything viable to attach to yet. I suspect we’re getting a fast tele photo along with the lightweight one.


----------



## dominic_siu (Feb 19, 2020)

Let’s wait until the official announcement and see how it performs then decide whether buy or not


----------



## AlanF (Feb 19, 2020)

Viggo said:


> The 50 L is an L because Aperture and build, and it’s the worst L in terms of IQ so I half way agree. But it’s not the overall standard of L’s, it’s far below. Besides, it’s 14 years old and has been replaced in RF mount and REALLY shines now. That’s what I don’t get, why do RF lenses that are worse than the EF-version. Granted, there is no 100-500 in EF, but I think 5,6 is the slowest an L should be. Just my opinion. Fortunately there are and will be f2.8 zooms and even f2.0 zooms. Guess it’s just disappointing when they started off so epic with RF-L’s...


Whether it's the 50L or any other L lens is not the point. All lenses are restricted to scenarios where they can be used and just because you would not use one does not mean it is should not be an L. And, as I have tried to point out, when it comes to narrow apertures, increasing the focal length at the expense of increasing the f-number does not necessary mean a loss of quality in IQ and is often advantageous. Loads of nature people here are perfectly happy to use a 400mm DO II with a 2xTC at f/8 since the gain in resolution more than makes up for the doubling of the f-number. Sony A9 shooters are getting fantastic shots with their 200-600mm f/6.3s with 2xTCs at f/12.6 on A9s. I am looking forward to the 100-500.


----------



## brad-man (Feb 19, 2020)

dominic_siu said:


> Let’s wait until the official announcement and see how it performs then decide whether buy or not


That's just crazy talk...


----------



## AlanF (Feb 19, 2020)

dominic_siu said:


> Let’s wait until the official announcement and see how it performs then decide whether buy or not


Absolutely right. There is too much negativity and writing off in advance. And, it's happening in the Sony and Nikon forums as well.


----------



## Billybob (Feb 19, 2020)

So, let's speculate about future lenses. 

I'd love to see an "affordable" DO lens similar to Nikon's offering. Perhaps a 600mm f/5.6 DO for $6000-$6500. 

Am I dreaming? Would such a lens be more like $9000?


----------



## amorse (Feb 19, 2020)

Viggo said:


> The 50 L is an L because Aperture and build, and it’s the worst L in terms of IQ so I half way agree. But it’s not the overall standard of L’s, it’s far below. Besides, it’s 14 years old and has been replaced in RF mount and REALLY shines now. That’s what I don’t get, why do RF lenses that are worse than the EF-version. Granted, there is no 100-500 in EF, but I think 5,6 is the slowest an L should be. Just my opinion. Fortunately there are and will be f2.8 zooms and even f2.0 zooms. Guess it’s just disappointing when they started off so epic with RF-L’s...


I think there's good reason for a 7.1 aperture in some situations. In the case of the 100-500, if it keeps the weight and price down, that will be a very versatile lens if it's sharp. The images make it look similar to the form factor of the 100-400 which would be a feat compared to the size and weight of comparable lenses which are nearly all 2kg or over.

Also, I believe Canon stuck with f/5.6 on EF glass as the upper limit because not all Canon cameras had many (or any) f/8 auto focus points - higher apertures just wouldn't be possible to autofocus for some of their line. That's no longer true with RF: the whole focal area can focus at f/11, so the penalties for using a higher apertures are smaller.

That's not to say 7.1 will perform like 5.6, but if they compromise the aperture to reduce size/weight/cost but not quality; I'd probably buy one.


----------



## Sharlin (Feb 19, 2020)

The max aperture at tele end of every EF L zoom that goes to 300mm or above: f/5.6

The max aperture at tele end of ever EF _non_-L lens that goes to 300mm or above: f/5.6.

Aperture is not what an L lens makes.


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 19, 2020)

Viggo said:


> The 50 L is an L because Aperture and build, and it’s the worst L in terms of IQ


The EF 50 f1.2L was designed as a no compromise portrait lens, the aberrations it has are deliberate, in that context IQ is subjective and the EF 50 f1.2L renders exactly as it was intended to. That you, and many others, don't appreciate that rendering is a personal opinion that seems to have grown from the endless and soulless measurable metrics tested nowadays.

If your idea of IQ is sharpness and contrast and your measure of build quality is weatherproofing and AF speed then the RF 50 f1.2L lights your fire, personally I find most modern lenses far too clinical and soulless, the EF 70-200 f2.8 IS MkII and MkI were the perfect illustration of that, the MkI is a much nicer portrait lens, the MkII is sharper and faster to focus but I'd argue by my standards the IQ is worse because the oof rendering is often distracting and 'odd' looking, that is why I still own and use a MkI.


----------



## mb66energy (Feb 19, 2020)

Cochese said:


> I don't quite understand all of these 7.1 L series lenses. Why? And no, sensor stabilization is not a good reason.



DPAF makes it possible while PD-AF sensors at most DSLRs haven't.

While I do not like the idea to go beyond f/5.6 I like the idea of e.g. a 100-500mm lens which has f/5.6 up to 400mm (I hope it does but I am not shure) but gives me 25% more magnification while sacrificing half an f-stop.
And if it has the same price and IQ like EF 100-400 maybe it is the light and moderately priced long range tele for the RF system - later they might add a 70-400 4.0-5.6 RF which I would like very much.

Maybe that is the thinking of the people @ Canon.


----------



## koenkooi (Feb 19, 2020)

mb66energy said:


> DPAF makes it possible while PD-AF sensors at most DSLRs haven't.
> 
> While I do not like the idea to go beyond f/5.6 I like the idea of e.g. a 100-500mm lens which has f/5.6 up to 400mm (I hope it does but I am not shure) but gives me 25% more magnification while sacrificing half an f-stop.
> And if it has the same price and IQ like EF 100-400 maybe it is the light and moderately priced long range tele for the RF system - later they might add a 70-400 4.0-5.6 RF which I would like very much.
> ...



The 100-400mm L II is on my "to buy" list for this year, I've rented it before and liked it very much. The RF100-500mm announcement makes me strongly consider the RF one. I guess I'll rent both and see which I like best. The EF has the advantage of being compatible with my M6II and 7D1 and being able to the the CPL in the RF adapter.


----------



## Viggo (Feb 19, 2020)

privatebydesign said:


> The EF 50 f1.2L was designed as a no compromise portrait lens, the aberrations it has are deliberate, in that context IQ is subjective and the EF 50 f1.2L renders exactly as it was intended to. That you, and many others, don't appreciate that rendering is a personal opinion that seems to have grown from the endless and soulless measurable metrics tested nowadays.
> 
> If your idea of IQ is sharpness and contrast and your measure of build quality is weatherproofing and AF speed then the RF 50 f1.2L lights your fire, personally I find most modern lenses far too clinical and soulless, the EF 70-200 f2.8 IS MkII and MkI were the perfect illustration of that, the MkI is a much nicer portrait lens, the MkII is sharper and faster to focus but I'd argue by my standards the IQ is worse because the oof rendering is often distracting and 'odd' looking, that is why I still own and use a MkI.


I understand you can’t know me or where I’m coming from. But, be owned 5-6 copies of the EF 50 L and know it extremely well. It’s not suited for closer portraits, unless you don’t want to show no ears and really get that huge nose. For looser portraits and full body it’s better suited , but still, and 85 would often be the better choice. And while it’s designed for best bokeh the price one pays for that is extreme softness, focus shift, distortion etc, and slow AF that’s not very precise.

I 100% agree with the 70-200 mk2 being poor, it’s sharp, but that’s it. I don’t like the mk1 as much as I really like the non-IS version, great pop and smooth background and sharp enough.

the thing I love about the RF 50 and 85 is precisely that they have the superb combination of wicked sharpness right into the corners that really matters for composition and the nice rendering and pop. And that is also why I love the Zeiss 100 f2. But of course MF and it suffers from pretty bad purple fringing.

So I get the 50 L, but I’m not exactly the only one who thinks it’s a pretty bad lens, especially as a 50 that’s used by everyone for everything. It’s a one trick pony.


----------



## SecureGSM (Feb 19, 2020)

[


mb66energy said:


> DPAF makes it possible while PD-AF sensors at most DSLRs haven't.
> 
> While I do not like the idea to go beyond f/5.6 I like the idea of e.g. a 100-500mm lens which has f/5.6 up to 400mm (I hope it does but I am not shure) but gives me 25% more magnification while sacrificing half an f-stop.
> And if it has the same price and IQ like EF 100-400 maybe it is the light and moderately priced long range tele for the RF system - later they might add a 70-400 4.0-5.6 RF which I would like very much.
> ...


the thinking of people at Canon is likely around OVF becoming dark and uncomfortable to use at F7.1. 
EVF focusing however is not affected by a darker lens aperture.


----------



## navastronia (Feb 19, 2020)

privatebydesign said:


> The EF 50 f1.2L was designed as a no compromise portrait lens, the aberrations it has are deliberate, in that context IQ is subjective and the EF 50 f1.2L renders exactly as it was intended to. That you, and many others, don't appreciate that rendering is a personal opinion that seems to have grown from the endless and soulless measurable metrics tested nowadays.
> 
> If your idea of IQ is sharpness and contrast and your measure of build quality is weatherproofing and AF speed then the RF 50 f1.2L lights your fire, personally I find most modern lenses far too clinical and soulless, the EF 70-200 f2.8 IS MkII and MkI were the perfect illustration of that, the MkI is a much nicer portrait lens, the MkII is sharper and faster to focus but I'd argue by my standards the IQ is worse because the oof rendering is often distracting and 'odd' looking, that is why I still own and use a MkI.



Damn, wish my 70-200 mk. II was too sharp (see my thread in the lens discussion forum, if you like)


----------



## bbasiaga (Feb 19, 2020)

So if its 500 F 7.1, that's about a 70mm objective. At 400mm, that's F5.6. Now I know that there are other considerations in these zooms that mean the aperture it not just a function of focal length and objective size, but its at least in the realm of possibility this lens is 5.6 or 6.3 at 400mm. That would be like the 100-400L plus an extra 100mm on the tele end. That wouldn't be so bad. 

And I think that high iso pefromance and IBIS/ lens IS ARE reasons to add features like this. The reality is they do increase the effectiveness of lenses in low light, and on top of that you have sensor driven focusing which improves AF functionality in low light. If you're a 500mm shooter and you need F5.6 or 6.3 (or faster), you're going to have a prime to do that, or a more expensive zoom like the 200-600. If you're a lot of other people, that extra 100mm on the long end of this zoom would be handy. Its all about the target audience (and the audience's target, if you're looking for a nice pun). 

-Brian


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 19, 2020)

Viggo said:


> I understand you can’t know me or where I’m coming from. But, be owned 5-6 copies of the EF 50 L and know it extremely well. It’s not suited for closer portraits, unless you don’t want to show no ears and really get that huge nose. For looser portraits and full body it’s better suited , but still, and 85 would often be the better choice. And while it’s designed for best bokeh the price one pays for that is extreme softness, focus shift, distortion etc, and slow AF that’s not very precise.
> 
> I 100% agree with the 70-200 mk2 being poor, it’s sharp, but that’s it. I don’t like the mk1 as much as I really like the non-IS version, great pop and smooth background and sharp enough.
> 
> ...


Yes and none of that disagrees with my point that 'image IQ' is a subjective term that we should not fall into the trap of narrowing down to sharpness and contrast. It might seem unbelievable but the aberrations in the EF 50mm f1.2L are deliberate, they wanted it to look like that so should that be judged as a fault or just a lens you don't like because Canon's idea of rendering for that one lens isn't the same as yours. For sure other lenses have compromises for cost, features etc etc, but the EF 50 f1.2L, the EF 85 f1.2L and the EF 200 f1.8 L were no compromise lenses.

There are countless working pros who love the EF 50 f1.2L and the look it gives them, indeed as time moves on I think image character will be a bigger and bigger defining aspect between pro and non pro images, after all anybody can buy sharp lenses and good AF, but you can't post process the look an EF 50 f1.2L gives a portfolio.


----------



## Viggo (Feb 19, 2020)

privatebydesign said:


> Yes and none of that disagrees with my point that 'image IQ' is a subjective term that we should not fall into the trap of narrowing down to sharpness and contrast. It might seem unbelievable but the aberrations in the EF 50mm f1.2L are deliberate, they wanted it to look like that so should that be judged as a fault or just a lens you don't like because Canon's idea of rendering for that one lens isn't the same as yours. For sure other lenses have compromises for cost, features etc etc, but the EF 50 f1.2L, the EF 85 f1.2L and the EF 200 f1.8 L were no compromise lenses.
> 
> There are countless working pros who love the EF 50 f1.2L and the look it gives them, indeed as time moves on I think image character will be a bigger and bigger defining aspect between pro and non pro images, after all anybody can buy sharp lenses and good AF, but you can't post process the look an EF 50 f1.2L gives a portfolio.


The 50 L is a “no compromise lens”?? No, the 200 f2.0 L is a no compromise lens, it’s nearly flawless in every aspect, but it is very heavy and very expensive. Same goes for the 28-70 f2.0 and RF85 etc. Same goes for the Otus range. To me the EF 50 L is all about compromise.


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 19, 2020)

navastronia said:


> Damn, wish my 70-200 mk. II was too sharp (see my thread in the lens discussion forum, if you like)


In general the MkII tests sharper than the MkI, it also has much harsher background rendering. The MkII also focuses faster so truthfully is better designed for action style images, sports, PJ's etc, not portrait shooters.


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 19, 2020)

Viggo said:


> The 50 L is a “no compromise lens”?? No, the 200 f2.0 L is a no compromise lens, it’s nearly flawless in every aspect, but it is very heavy and very expensive. Same goes for the 28-70 f2.0 and RF85 etc. Same goes for the Otus range. To me the EF 50 L is all about compromise.


Yes, because it was designed to render like it does, that you and many others don't like it or it doesn't work like you want a 50L to work is irrelevant, it is what it is supposed to be. I've been trying to find the article I read about the designer and the thought process behind the lens design, I can't seem to find it, but in it they are categorical that they were given completely free reign to design 'the best portrait lens' and that all the aberrations are deliberate. The 'look', sharpness and overall IQ is what they wanted.


----------



## zonoskar (Feb 19, 2020)

About those extenders, the images that have been shown look like the EF counterparts. Do we know for sure there will be protruding elements in the RF extenders? If not, any lens could be attached, even the RF 70-200L, for which these extenders would be a great use.


----------



## koenkooi (Feb 19, 2020)

zonoskar said:


> About those extenders, the images that have been shown look like the EF counterparts. Do we know for sure there will be protruding elements in the RF extenders? If not, any lens could be attached, even the RF 70-200L, for which these extenders would be a great use.



The images are the same on all official Canon websites, so are you saying that all of those have had the wrong images up for *days* now?


----------



## Viggo (Feb 19, 2020)

privatebydesign said:


> Yes, because it was designed to render like it does, that you and many others don't like it or it doesn't work like you want a 50L to work is irrelevant, it is what it is supposed to be. I've been trying to find the article I read about the designer and the thought process behind the lens design, I can't seem to find it, but in it they are categorical that they were given completely free reign to design 'the best portrait lens' and that all the aberrations are deliberate. The 'look', sharpness and overall IQ is what they wanted.


I’ve never said it wasn’t intentional...


----------



## briangus (Feb 19, 2020)

koenkooi said:


> The images are the same on all official Canon websites, so are you saying that all of those have had the wrong images up for *days* now?


Maybe EF to RF converter extenders


----------



## snoke (Feb 19, 2020)

Where RF f/4L lens? Waiting.


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Feb 19, 2020)

zonoskar said:


> About those extenders, the images that have been shown look like the EF counterparts. Do we know for sure there will be protruding elements in the RF extenders? If not, any lens could be attached, even the RF 70-200L, for which these extenders would be a great use.



I think the only lens they currently fit on are the 100-500, but that may be optimised for size and lack the room for extenders. For certain they protrude into the lens which puts them off limits for all current RF lenses. I expect to see 'a' big white released, most likely the 300mm and/or 500mm, or perhaps a new zoom that borrows from the 200-400 to cover the largest range.


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Feb 19, 2020)

snoke said:


> Where RF f/4L lens? Waiting.



I am with you there, for my lesser used focal lengths I would like f/4 versions. 16-35 f/4 and 24/70 f/4 (macro).


----------



## SteB1 (Feb 19, 2020)

What Canon needs is a DO 500mm f5.6 similar to the Nikon PF, but able to make it in high enough numbers to meet demand. It would give huge kudos amongst nature shooters to the RF system.


----------



## AlanF (Feb 19, 2020)

SteB1 said:


> What Canon needs is a DO 500mm f5.6 similar to the Nikon PF, but able to make it in high enough numbers to meet demand. It would give huge kudos amongst nature shooters to the RF system.


A Nikon FX->R adapter would be nice.


----------



## sanj (Feb 19, 2020)

Cochese said:


> I don't quite understand all of these 7.1 L series lenses. Why? And no, sensor stabilization is not a good reason.


Cost. Size. Cameras with better high ISO. Shrinking sizes of final output - small sizes do not show noise (grain) so much so higher ISO's are not an issue.


----------



## Optics Patent (Feb 19, 2020)

Billybob said:


> So, let's speculate about future lenses.
> 
> I'd love to see an "affordable" DO lens similar to Nikon's offering. Perhaps a 600mm f/5.6 DO for $6000-$6500.
> 
> Am I dreaming? Would such a lens be more like $9000?



Think in terms of filter sizes. I'll bet the machinery takes a step up for each size.


*77mm* gets you the 100-400(500), the 70-200, etc. In the $2000 range for top quality. And the Nikon 300 f4 PF (754g) for that price and the Canon 300 f4 and 400 f5.6 for much less.
*82mm* is found on the new RF wide and mid zooms for $2000+
*95mm* filter gets you a Nikon 500mm f5.6 PF/DO for ~$3600 (at 1463 g, 46% of the weight of the canon f4, and 40% of the cost), and the RF 28-70 f2 for $3000.  Also Questar 3.5" telescopes and the 700mm f8 mirror lens(!)
Not filter size, but ~*110-120mm* is 300 f2.8, 400 f4, for $6000-7000.
~*150mm* for the 400 f2.8, 600 f4 for $8000-13000.

I think that 95mm size might be a sweet spot Canon could exploit. How about a 200-500mm DO f4-5.6 zoom? 300 f3.5 DO? (I'm making up rough numbers not doing calculations.

There is a traditional pricing chasm between the 77mm filter pro-sumer telephoto lenses that top out at about $2000, and the big ones that start at about $6000. Pros spend 1-2x the cost of a new body for a tele. Enthusiasts buying $2000-3000 bodies have essentially no options in that range.

Maybe Canon's question should be: "For the buyer for whom the R5 is the do-anything no-brainer, can we make a do-everything telephoto for $3500-5000?"

My answer (at least for my own wishes) is:

a long zoom
pairs well with the RF70-200 to extend the trinity to a quaternity. 
takes teleconverters,
uses DO technology to keep the weight down to <2kg, and
95mm filters to provide reasonable speed (better than the 100-400/500) at a reasonable price (starts with a 3 or 4) without cannibalizing the big whites.
How about an L version of the Nikon 200-500 f5.6 (2kg, $1257 too low of a bar to aim for?)


----------



## Kit. (Feb 19, 2020)

Viggo said:


> And while it’s designed for best bokeh the price one pays for that is extreme softness, focus shift, distortion etc,


Oh, I've always wanted to talk about focus shift as a _desired_ property of a portrait lens!

Let's start?


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Feb 19, 2020)

SteB1 said:


> What Canon needs is a DO 500mm f5.6 similar to the Nikon PF, but able to make it in high enough numbers to meet demand. It would give huge kudos amongst nature shooters to the RF system.



A L 200-500 f/5.6 would be more versatile. The Nikon 200-500 is not as tuff as a L lens and has a strong copy to copy variation that I would not expect of a Canon L.


----------



## Act444 (Feb 19, 2020)

dominic_siu said:


> Let’s wait until the official announcement [of the 100-500] and see how it performs...



Yeah, that’s kinda where I’m at now. 

As I said in a previous post - if this is accompanied by another L tele zoom that is less slow, I think this lens could fill an interesting niche in the lineup. Price too - it would be received much better as a $1500 lens than as a $2500 one, for instance.


----------



## Optics Patent (Feb 19, 2020)

Codebunny said:


> A L 200-500 f/5.6 would be more versatile. The Nikon 200-500 is not as tuff as a L lens and has a strong copy to copy variation that I would not expect of a Canon L.



Agreed. Now, sit down before you consider this: The Nikon 200-500 is less than HALF the price of the RF70-200! That suggests there is room to add quality, enhanced design, and profit.

I think what I'm saying is: "Canon, take what you know from the 100-400 (and the coming RF version), and make a fatter one with 95mm filter - you decide which FL limits make sense."

Other lenses taking 95mm filters:
Sigma 150-600 f5-6.3
Sigma APO 50-500mm f/4.5-6.3


----------



## AlanF (Feb 19, 2020)

Optics Patent said:


> Agreed. Now, sit down before you consider this: The Nikon 200-500 is less than HALF the price of the RF70-200! That suggests there is room to add quality, enhanced design, and profit.
> 
> I think what I'm saying is: "Canon, take what you know from the 100-400 (and the coming RF version), and make a fatter one with 95mm filter - you decide which FL limits make sense."


Canon is not likely to market both a 100-500mm L and a 200-500mm L, and they have already decided upon a100-500mm. And, as I have written in a thread, 200-600mm f/6.3 is advantageous over a 200-500 f/5.6, both having a 95mm filter mount. A 200-600mm is more likely to be on the cards.


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Feb 19, 2020)

Optics Patent said:


> Agreed. Now, sit down before you consider this: The Nikon 200-500 is less than HALF the price of the RF70-200! That suggests there is room to add quality, enhanced design, and profit.
> 
> I think what I'm saying is: "Canon, take what you know from the 100-400 (and the coming RF version), and make a fatter one with 95mm filter - you decide which FL limits make sense."



Yip the 200-500 and a d500 are about the same cost as a RF 70-200 at the moment, and it keeps whispering dark secrets to my credit card.


----------



## Ozarker (Feb 19, 2020)

Codebunny said:


> A L 200-500 f/5.6 would be more versatile. The Nikon 200-500 is not as tuff as a L lens and has a strong copy to copy variation that I would not expect of a Canon L.


And the Nikon weighs 5 lbs.


----------



## Optics Patent (Feb 19, 2020)

AlanF said:


> Canon is not likely to market both a 100-500mm L and a 200-500mm L, and they have already decided upon a100-500mm. And, as I have written in a thread, 200-600mm f/6.3 is advantageous over a 200-500 f/5.6, both having a 95mm filter mount. A 200-600mm is more likely to be on the cards.



That certainly meets my criterion of: "Give me the best tele you can with 95mm of glass"!



CanonFanBoy said:


> And the Nikon weighs 5 lbs.



For reference, less than a Canon 300mm f2.8 IS II. Amazingly, the Nikon 500 5.6 weighs ~3 pounds - less than the 100-400 IS II.

I'll look forward to see what the creators of the light RF70-200 can do with the weight on a long tele zoom. Keep it short at the close end, close to the 7.5" of the 100-400?


----------



## AlanF (Feb 19, 2020)

Codebunny said:


> Yip the 200-500 and a d500 are about the same cost as a RF 70-200 at the moment, and it keeps whispering dark secrets to my credit card.


It's a very difficult time to know what to buy at present as the future is so uncertain. But, I've decided to live in the present and I bought used copies of the 500mm f/5.6 PF and D500, which won't lose me much if I offload. I'm really hoping that Canon will deliver the goods on an R5 and 100-500mm as I am firmly in Canon with the rest of my gear.


----------



## Optics Patent (Feb 19, 2020)

AlanF said:


> It's a very difficult time to know what to buy at present as the future is so uncertain. But, I've decided to live in the present and I bought used copies of the 500mm f/5.6 PF and D500, which won't lose me much if I offload. I'm really hoping that Canon will deliver the goods on an R5 and 100-500mm as I am firmly in Canon with the rest of my gear.



I was going to have CPS send a 300 f2.8 and the 400 f4 DO (I see both in your collection) to try on the possibility of making a used decision between them, but when I'm honest with myself I know I'll just neglect or sell it once I get the RF tele I really want (which might be the 100-500, but probably isn't).


----------



## AEWest (Feb 19, 2020)

Codebunny said:


> I am with you there, for my lesser used focal lengths I would like f/4 versions. 16-35 f/4 and 24/70 f/4 (macro).


Hey Canon,
F/4 Holy Trinity please and thank you.


----------



## Graphic.Artifacts (Feb 19, 2020)

Codebunny said:


> The announced teleconverters don’t have anything viable to attach to yet. I suspect we’re getting a fast tele photo along with the lightweight one.


It’s posible that an RF tele with a RF/EF converter will out perform an RF/EF with and EF tele. Don’t know why but I suppose there could be a reason.
it will also make it easier to stack Tele’ s and allow teleconverters on a couple EF lenses that can’t accept them now.


----------



## AlanF (Feb 19, 2020)

Optics Patent said:


> I was going to have CPS send a 300 f2.8 and the 400 f4 DO (I see both in your collection) to try on the possibility of making a used decision between them, but when I'm honest with myself I know I'll just neglect or sell it once I get the RF tele I really want (which might be the 100-500, but probably isn't).


My advice for what it is worth is to wait. I have had fantastic use from both of those great lenses. I bought the 300/2.8 when it was the only way to get to high quality 420 and 600mm at a lightish weight and with top grade optics. But, that was changed with the 100-400mm II and the 400mm DO II. The latter lens is now very good value used. But, it's so nice for me to have even lighter lenses. If you are really serious, then maybe a 500 or 600mm is better.


----------



## joestopper (Feb 19, 2020)

Bangrossi said:


> I expect this year canon will release low-end to mid-range kind of lenses. Not something ground breaking similar to 28-70 f2. Hopefuly canon will make another f/1.2 primes soon



There are still some unknown slots.
I hope for a 14-28 f/2 to continue the f/2 trinity of zooms ...


----------



## Billybob (Feb 19, 2020)

Optics Patent said:


> Think in terms of filter sizes. I'll bet the machinery takes a step up for each size.
> 
> 
> *77mm* gets you the 100-400(500), the 70-200, etc. In the $2000 range for top quality. And the Nikon 300 f4 PF (754g) for that price and the Canon 300 f4 and 400 f5.6 for much less.
> ...


I believe a 600mm f/5.6 DO would require the same filter size as the 300 f/2.8, so 110-120mm. This would be a high quality lens, perhaps 5lbs for $6k-$7k. It would be a reach for me, but it would get me to fork out for an R5. Right now, a lot of Canon nature shooters have bought the Nikon 500mm pf version along with a used Nikon body. I'm in that camp, but I would definitely move back to Canon for the right lens option. I guess Canon could do a "me too" 500mm DO f/5.6 but where's the excitement in that? Canon would definitely sell a lot more lenses in the sub-$4000 range, but they would get converts with a $6500 600mm DO lens.


----------



## Optics Patent (Feb 19, 2020)

Graphic.Artifacts said:


> It’s possible that an RF tele with a RF/EF [adapter/]converter will out perform an RF/EF [adapter] with and EF tele. Don’t know why but I suppose there could be a reason.
> it will also make it easier to stack Tele’ s and allow teleconverters on a couple EF lenses that can’t accept them now.



The notion of *three *bayonet joints between a $12,000 lens and a $3500 body makes me cringe.


----------



## Optics Patent (Feb 19, 2020)

Billybob said:


> I guess Canon could do a "me too" 500mm DO f/5.6 but where's the excitement in that?



The excitement is right here! Build to L standards, use superior DO (immersion fresnel) optics, optimise size and weight for RF, and paint that sucker white!


----------



## joestopper (Feb 19, 2020)

AlanF said:


> Absolutely right. There is too much negativity and writing off in advance. And, it's happening in the Sony and Nikon forums as well.



Agree.

Funny to see that several posters complain solely on spec sheet numbers and do not appreciate actual advantages.
Example:The RF 100-500 is clearly a successor of the EF 100-400 II and it is almost certain it has at least the same quality. But the bonus we get i.e. 100mm more reach, is not acknowledged by them. Instead, the 7.1 aperture is heavily criticized.("this cannot be an L then...").
Shows to me: There are people in this forum who a) do serious photography work and know how to make money with it and appreciate innovations that improve their work/business and b) Spec sheet criticizers who want to make others believe that 1/2 stop is the key to superior photography (while not providing any evidence).

Very funny ...


----------



## ncvarsity3 (Feb 19, 2020)

Viggo said:


> f5,6 has always been an L-aperture, but 6.3 is low end Sigma, and 7.1? No thanks... no matter IS and this and that, that is super slow and unusable in a lot of scenarios.


I think they went with the 7.1 so that they could keep it lighter and smaller, which is supposed to be the norm with mirrorless cameras. Like how Tamron (I think) is releasing a 70-180 instead of a 70-200 to keep the lens size down.


----------



## dwarven (Feb 19, 2020)

The 100-500 is going to have to be cheap and light to make up for how slow it is.


----------



## ncvarsity3 (Feb 19, 2020)

joestopper said:


> Agree.
> 
> Funny to see that several posters complain solely on spec sheet numbers and do not appreciate actual advantages.
> Example:The RF 100-500 is clearly a successor of the EF 100-400 II and it is almost certain it has at least the same quality. But the bonus we get i.e. 100mm more reach, is not acknowledged by them. Instead, the 7.1 aperture is heavily criticized.("this cannot be an L then...").
> ...


I'm actually really excited for this lens. I think the move to make it go to 7.1 for weight's sake. It'll make it more manageable for gear bags and people who might need to hand hold it for extended periods of time.


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 19, 2020)

Sharlin said:


> The max aperture at tele end of every EF L zoom that goes to 300mm or above: f/5.6
> 
> The max aperture at tele end of ever EF _non_-L lens that goes to 300mm or above: f/5.6.
> 
> Aperture is not what an L lens makes.


Whilst I agree aperture is not what makes an L lens I think the EF200-400 f4 L is honestly listed as an f4, even though with the built in extender it becomes a 560mm f5.6.


----------



## Graphic.Artifacts (Feb 19, 2020)

Optics Patent said:


> The notion of *three *bayonet joints between a $12,000 lens and a $3500 body makes me cringe.


Not for the faint of heart but for video, where I have to stop way down anyway, I use stacked teles sometimes. It won’t be perfectly sharp but that’s less of an issue for video. Three bayonets since I have to use an extension ring between the teles.


----------



## Sharlin (Feb 19, 2020)

privatebydesign said:


> Whilst I agree aperture is not what makes an L lens I think the EF200-400 f4 L is honestly listed as an f4, even though with the built in extender it becomes a 560mm f5.6.



Clearly there's always an exception to any rule  Thanks, totally forgot about the 200–400.


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Feb 19, 2020)

CanonFanBoy said:


> And the Nikon weighs 5 lbs.


That’s a downside? I am sure my gripped 5d and 300 2.8 non IS is significantly heavier. I am also sure the 200-400 f/4 I am considering would be heavier still.


----------



## Ozarker (Feb 19, 2020)

Codebunny said:


> That’s a downside? I am sure my gripped 5d and 300 2.8 non IS is significantly heavier. I am also sure the 200-400 f/4 I am considering would be heavier still.


It is a downside yes, for me, compared to RF 100-500.


----------



## Czardoom (Feb 19, 2020)

I am just guessing, but my guess is that all the folks complaining about 7.1 and how they make some shots impossible - or would never buy such a lens unless it was f/5.6 (or even 6.3) - have taken numerous shots in their life that are 2/3 stop underexposed and that they lighten slightly in post on the computer without even a second thought.


----------



## Optics Patent (Feb 19, 2020)

dwarven said:


> The 100-500 is going to have to be cheap and light to make up for how slow it is.



The 100-500 is going to be just as good as the 100-400, with a bonus reach to 500. The laws of physics (shortly to be refined by experts here) tell us that with the 77mm filter size, you can't hold f5.6 much past 400, so the lens will be slightly slower in the bonus zoom range.

The above is made with certainty based on common sense physics, optical engieering, and marketing assumptions, and I'll bet the value of the lens with anyone who thinks it will be slower at 400 than the existing 100-400.


----------



## AdmiralFwiffo (Feb 19, 2020)

Do we have a good reason to believe the 100-500 will be 5.6 at 400mm?


----------



## Optics Patent (Feb 19, 2020)

AdmiralFwiffo said:


> Do we have a good reason to believe the 100-500 will be 5.6 at 400mm?



Because the 100-400 is, this lens is its replacement for the RF market, and Canon folks aren't insane enough to reduce performance in order to extend range.


----------



## AdmiralFwiffo (Feb 19, 2020)

My experience with large organizations is that a group of sane, intelligent, rational people can come up with some pretty bananas ideas when making decisions collectively.


----------



## FramerMCB (Feb 19, 2020)

Viggo said:


> The 50 L is an L because Aperture and build, and it’s the worst L in terms of IQ so I half way agree. But it’s not the overall standard of L’s, it’s far below. Besides, it’s 14 years old and has been replaced in RF mount and REALLY shines now. That’s what I don’t get, why do RF lenses that are worse than the EF-version. Granted, there is no 100-500 in EF, but I think 5,6 is the slowest an L should be. Just my opinion. Fortunately there are and will be f2.8 zooms and even f2.0 zooms. Guess it’s just disappointing when they started off so epic with RF-L’s...


I think you are forgetting (or don't care) that Canon is in business to make a profit. Is it more profitable to sell limited quantities of high-end gear with more margin or to sell mass quantities of mid-tier gear to the masses? Unless one is a professional, or a well-heeled enthusiast, much of the RF glass, whilst amazing, is out of the practical price-range. 

Canon needs to sell Mirrorless bodies/lenses in-mass - you can only do that if you also have lenses that an average consumer (that is into photography), or one who is considering getting into, would buy. And lenses that all exceed $2,000, and some by a wide margin, is not going to appeal to these consumers.


----------



## Chavim (Feb 19, 2020)

I'm just gonna throw it out there that the folks that say the EF 50 1.2 doesn't have good IQ chose the wrong lens to take pictures with.


----------



## SecureGSM (Feb 19, 2020)

Chavim said:


> I'm just gonna throw it out there that the folks that say the EF 50 1.2 doesn't have good IQ chose the wrong lens to take pictures with.



IQ is a subjective term. For some it is about artistic properties of the image and for others it is about ability to recognise mosquito nose in moonie shot. Hey, just look how sharp that thing is!


----------



## Billybob (Feb 19, 2020)

Optics Patent said:


> Because the 100-400 is, this lens is its replacement for the RF market, and Canon folks aren't insane enough to reduce performance in order to extend range.


I'm not nearly so sanguine about this lens staying at f/5.6 through 400mm. Except for the constant aperture Nikon 200-500, none of the consumer super zoom lenses maintain 5.6 at 400mm, and they go a 100mm longer and are 1/3 stop brighter at the longest focal length. So, you think that Canon has somehow managed to avoid this problem and then drop 2/3 of a stop in 100mm when all other zooms reach their slowest maximum aperture more than 100mm below their longest focal length? 

I'm not saying that it can't be done--I don't have the expertise--but I'm extremely doubtful.


----------



## tron (Feb 20, 2020)

Billybob said:


> So, let's speculate about future lenses.
> 
> I'd love to see an "affordable" DO lens similar to Nikon's offering. Perhaps a 600mm f/5.6 DO for $6000-$6500.
> 
> Am I dreaming? Would such a lens be more like $9000?


I do not know but allow me to say it must not! I prefer your first guess a lot more! Oh and the suggested lens too


----------



## tron (Feb 20, 2020)

Optics Patent said:


> The excitement is right here! Build to L standards, use superior DO (immersion fresnel) optics, optimise size and weight for RF, and paint that sucker white!


I agree because I make sinful thoughts about turning to the dark side! (only for the D500/500PF combination though).
However be certain that should Canon make a 500 5.6 DO they would ask 6 to 7K for it. Not that it wouldn't be tempting aloooooot!


----------



## Ozarker (Feb 20, 2020)

tron said:


> I do not know but allow me to say it must not! I prefer your first guess a lot more! Oh and the suggested lens too


I carry $6k in my shirt pocket at all times. Sounds affordable to me.


----------



## Optics Patent (Feb 20, 2020)

Billybob said:


> I'm not nearly so sanguine about this lens staying at f/5.6 through 400mm. Except for the constant aperture Nikon 200-500, none of the consumer super zoom lenses maintain 5.6 at 400mm, and they go a 100mm longer and are 1/3 stop brighter at the longest focal length. So, you think that Canon has somehow managed to avoid this problem and then drop 2/3 of a stop in 100mm when all other zooms reach their slowest maximum aperture more than 100mm below their longest focal length?
> 
> I'm not saying that it can't be done--I don't have the expertise--but I'm extremely doubtful.



My confidence is driven by these two alternative scenarios. Imagine a Dilbert style meeting in Japanese culture as the chief designer reports to the VP of new products:

1. “Good news boss! Not only was the team able to successfully adapt our successful 100-400 design to the RF mount, but Jenkins actually came up with a way to stretch it to 500 without compromising existing performance.” Boss: “Well done! Let’s get it into production and inform Marketing!”

2. “Boss, in our 100-400 project, Jenkins found a way to stretch it to 500, but there’s a problem. You see, we need to make it slower than the original as it reaches 400.” Boss: “Tell Jenkins good job for trying but we aren’t going to sell a worse lens. All those internet nerds will make laughing stocks of us and no one will buy the lens. They keep talking about a cripple hammer or something. How else can we expect to sell that sucker for $2800?! Just make the damn 100-400 like I instructed and stop with the silly distractions. And be sure to paint it the pretty new white color marketing came up with.” 

My reasoning is that if they are announcing a 100-500 they clearly solved the technical challenge feared by the pearl-clutchers.


----------



## Pape (Feb 20, 2020)

We all would shoot 95% shots with 500mm anyway ,when shooting birds.
Who we are trying to fool  When used shorter it prolly would be 300-100mm not 400mm


----------



## SecureGSM (Feb 20, 2020)

Optics Patent said:


> My confidence is driven by these two alternative scenarios. Imagine a Dilbert style meeting in Japanese culture as the chief designer reports to the VP of new products:
> 
> 1. “Good news boss! Not only was the team able to successfully adapt our successful 100-400 design to the RF mount, but Jenkins actually came up with a way to stretch it to 500 without compromising existing performance.” Boss: “Well done! Let’s get it into production and inform Marketing!”
> 
> ...


Unfortunately scenario #2 was not the case with RF 24-200. Vignetting like a mad cow at wide end with lens correction switched off in camera. It is going to be a Scenario #3 Instead. Introduce compromises to meet mid market expectations.


----------



## AlanF (Feb 20, 2020)

Pape said:


> We all would shoot 95% shots with 500mm anyway ,when shooting birds.
> Who we are trying to fool  When used shorter it prolly would be 300-100mm not 400mm


That’s the reality. Who gives a damn about 400mm when you have 500mm!


----------



## Kit. (Feb 20, 2020)

Optics Patent said:


> Because the 100-400 is, this lens is its replacement for the RF market,


That's what you assume, but we don't know for sure.

What if this lens is _cheaper_ than 100-400?


----------



## uri.raz (Feb 20, 2020)

AdmiralFwiffo said:


> My experience with large organizations is that a group of sane, intelligent, rational people can come up with some pretty bananas ideas when making decisions collectively.



A friend once said that any large enough group of people behaves, collectively, like a toddler.


----------



## koenkooi (Feb 20, 2020)

Kit. said:


> That's what you assume, but we don't know for sure.
> 
> What if this lens is _cheaper_ than 100-400?



I think I can summarize that as: "SHUT UP AND TAKE MY MONEY!!"


----------



## AlP (Feb 20, 2020)

Personally I'd be glad to give up 5.6 at 400 mm for the extra 100 mm if the price is in a similar range as the EF 100-400. As mentioned above, with an EVF and the R focusing system this is likely not going to be an issue for the typical user of this lens.

Was shooting at an airshow last year and 500 mm instead of 400 mm at the long end would have been handy. For some shots 100 mm were just wide enough so that a 200-600 would not have been an alternative. I had the 1.4 Extender with me, but apart from the fact that it is not very practical to remove the extender every time a wider focal length is necessary, I had AF accuracy issues (with a 5D4) so that I ended up shooting at 400 mm and crop in post.

A ~40 MP R5 with the 100-500 would have been perfect!

The lens is likely going to be a bit longer at 100 mm vs. the EF version (based on a very rough picture comparison with the RF 70-200 which is similar close to the mount), but probably only about 10-15 mm, which is not a lot and less than the EF-Adapter required for using the EF version on a RF camera. If Canon is using a similar construction as for the RF 70-200 (mostly very robust plastic, see Lensrentals' teardown), the 100-500 might even end up being lighter than the EF 100-400. We'll see...


----------



## i_SH (Feb 20, 2020)

AlP said:


> Personally I'd be glad to give up 5.6 at 400 mm for the extra 100 mm if the price is in a similar range as the EF 100-400. As mentioned above, with an EVF and the R focusing system this is likely not going to be an issue for the typical user of this lens.
> 
> Was shooting at an airshow last year and 500 mm instead of 400 mm at the long end would have been handy. For some shots 100 mm were just wide enough so that a 200-600 would not have been an alternative. I had the 1.4 Extender with me, but apart from the fact that it is not very practical to remove the extender every time a wider focal length is necessary, I had AF accuracy issues (with a 5D4) so that I ended up shooting at 400 mm and crop in post.
> 
> ...



My measurements of the RF 100-500 lens with a ruler on the monitor and, with an almost identical filter diameter of 77 mm, give results of a lens size of about 92x192 mm.


----------



## AlanF (Feb 20, 2020)

uri.raz said:


> A friend once said that any large enough group of people behaves, collectively, like a toddler.


A camel is a horse designed by a committee.
There was an anecdote that the Aga Khan asked some physicists to design a better racehorse. After several years, they claimed they had reached the theory of a designing a spherical one.


----------



## tron (Feb 20, 2020)

CanonFanBoy said:


> I carry $6k in my shirt pocket at all times. Sounds affordable to me.


Still $6K is better than the suggested $9k


----------



## SteB1 (Feb 20, 2020)

AlanF said:


> Canon is not likely to market both a 100-500mm L and a 200-500mm L, and they have already decided upon a100-500mm. And, as I have written in a thread, 200-600mm f/6.3 is advantageous over a 200-500 f/5.6, both having a 95mm filter mount. A 200-600mm is more likely to be on the cards.


I agree on both counts.


----------



## Optics Patent (Feb 20, 2020)

uri.raz said:


> A friend once said that any large enough group of people behaves, collectively, like a toddler.



The real question is whether this applies to Canon's camera department, or to the collective hive mind here? ;-)


----------



## Optics Patent (Feb 20, 2020)

AlP said:


> Was shooting at an airshow last year and 500 mm instead of 400 mm at the long end would have been handy. For some shots 100 mm were just wide enough so that a 200-600 would not have been an alternative. I had the 1.4 Extender with me, but apart from the fact that it is not very practical to remove the extender every time a wider focal length is necessary, I had AF accuracy issues (with a 5D4) so that I ended up shooting at 400 mm and crop in post.



This makes me think of the presumed 100-500 as a 100-400 with a built in 1.25x extender!


----------



## slclick (Feb 20, 2020)

We're more than happy to shoot at f/8 at 560mm all day long (100-400 + 1.4tc) yet now 500mm @ 7.1 is freaking people out?

1/2 and 2/3 stops are not the end of the world! Stop reading dpr. Boy, some people need a time machine and go back to Ye Olden Tymes of film and 8 megapickles to really appreciate the amazing gear we have in this era, we are truly spoiled.


----------



## Ozarker (Feb 20, 2020)

slclick said:


> We're more than happy to shoot at f/8 at 560mm all day long (100-400 + 1.4tc) yet now 500mm @ 7.1 is freaking people out?
> 
> 1/2 and 2/3 stops are not the end of the world! Stop reading dpr. Boy, some people need a time machine and go back to Ye Olden Tymes of film and 8 megapickles to really appreciate the amazing gear we have in this era, we are truly spoiled.


Obviously the days when I walked 5 miles to school in 3 feet of wind driven snow (up hill in both directions) were much better. There is absolutely nothing worth buying these days. Truly, we are a Prozac nation.


----------



## AdmiralFwiffo (Feb 20, 2020)

Canon's, in recent years, has proved they can lay an egg. And there will be somebody in marketing saying "A 5x lens will obviously sell better than a 4x. 5 is bigger than 4! 5x! See how great that sounds?"

And the extra reach is going to be useful for some people, even if there are some compromises.


----------



## Ozarker (Feb 20, 2020)

AdmiralFwiffo said:


> Canon's, in recent years, has proved they can lay an egg.


Today I took possession of the Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III ($12 pawn shop find). It will be the "birding" lens for my wife's Olympus. If we'd like to talk about rotten eggs being laid, I think that lens is a good start. Somehow I don't believe the upcoming RF 100-500mm will be in that category by a long shot. On the other hand a photo is what we make it. No amount of money or lens design expertise can fix a rotten photo. A good photographer will do well most times, when he's trying.


----------



## KeithBreazeal (Feb 20, 2020)

Offering affordable lenses with appealing focal lengths is the only way to attract that portion of prospective mirrorless buyers that don't have the ability to throw down 10-15K for a couple of the amazingly good RF lenses. These lower cost lenses will also help compete with third party RF mounts. Slower lenses on a DSLR results in a dim image through the viewfinder whereas the EVF remains bright, making them the equivalent brightness of a faster lens, resulting in easier subject tracking and using manual focus. This is what I experienced when I mounted my 100-400L on my M5 and is one of the major factors in my decision to move to the R series mirrorless.


----------



## slclick (Feb 20, 2020)

Everything to do with the 7.1 be it on the 24-105 or the 100-500 is a load of nothing until they get tried and tested. 98% of all posts could use a good dose of 'might be' and "I'm guessing that..." instead of the ignorant determination and soothsaying we are experiencing.


----------



## AlanF (Feb 20, 2020)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Today I took possession of the Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III ($12 pawn shop find). It will be the "birding" lens for my wife's Olympus. If we'd like to talk about rotten eggs being laid, I think that lens is a good start. Somehow I don't believe the upcoming RF 100-500mm will be in that category by a long shot. On the other hand a photo is what we make it. No amount of money or lens design expertise can fix a rotten photo. A good photographer will do well most times, when he's trying.


I see from your signature you have sold the RF 50/1.2. Any particular reason?


----------



## slclick (Feb 20, 2020)

AlanF said:


> I see from your signature you have sold the RF 50/1.2. Any particular reason?


----------



## Ozarker (Feb 20, 2020)

AlanF said:


> I see from your signature you have sold the RF 50/1.2. Any particular reason?


It is a great lens. I think, though, my 28-70 covers that focal length more than well enough for me. A good friend is always telling me I need a 50mm fast prime for portrait and fashion work. I tried, but I just don't like 50mm for portraits. So, I sold the 50 and hope to hang onto the cash for when a 135mm gets issued. Nothing against the lens at all.


----------



## AlanF (Feb 20, 2020)

CanonFanBoy said:


> It is a great lens. I think, though, my 28-70 covers that focal length more than well enough for me. A good friend is always telling me I need a 50mm fast prime for portrait and fashion work. I tried, but I just don't like 50mm for portraits. So, I sold the 50 and hope to hang onto the cash for when a 135mm gets issued. Nothing against the lens at all.


Thanks.


----------



## David - Sydney (Feb 21, 2020)

Optics Patent said:


> This makes me think of the presumed 100-500 as a 100-400 with a built in 1.25x extender!


but hopefully sharper @ 500mm! As long as it is close to f5.6 @400mm, people won't complain too much.


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Feb 21, 2020)

David - Sydney said:


> but hopefully sharper @ 500mm! As long as it is close to f5.6 @400mm, people won't complain too much.



This is the lens they did a development release for, I think it is going to be rather exceptional. At least Canon seem to think it is a big deal, more so than what the teleconverters are getting shoved on.


----------



## uri.raz (Feb 23, 2020)

Optics Patent said:


> The real question is whether this applies to Canon's camera department, or to the collective hive mind here? ;-)



That depends on how many people are there in each of those groups.


----------



## scyrene (Feb 23, 2020)

Viggo said:


> The 50 L is a “no compromise lens”?? No, the 200 f2.0 L is a no compromise lens, it’s nearly flawless in every aspect, but it is very heavy and very expensive. Same goes for the 28-70 f2.0 and RF85 etc. Same goes for the Otus range. To me the EF 50 L is all about compromise.



There's no such thing as no compromise. The 200L f/2's chief compromises _are_ its size and cost.


----------



## derpderp (Mar 18, 2020)

privatebydesign said:


> Yes and none of that disagrees with my point that 'image IQ' is a subjective term that we should not fall into the trap of narrowing down to sharpness and contrast. It might seem unbelievable but the aberrations in the EF 50mm f1.2L are deliberate, they wanted it to look like that so should that be judged as a fault or just a lens you don't like because Canon's idea of rendering for that one lens isn't the same as yours. For sure other lenses have compromises for cost, features etc etc, but the EF 50 f1.2L, the EF 85 f1.2L and the EF 200 f1.8 L were no compromise lenses.
> 
> There are countless working pros who love the EF 50 f1.2L and the look it gives them, indeed as time moves on I think image character will be a bigger and bigger defining aspect between pro and non pro images, after all anybody can buy sharp lenses and good AF, but you can't post process the look an EF 50 f1.2L gives a portfolio.



Whatever drug you're taking, I want some of that. 

'IQ', or image quality, has always been primarily about sharpness and contrast. It is quantifiable and objective. Aberrations often arise because of (1) technical capabilities at the time, (2) as a result of compromises made between weight, price and other salient considerations, or (3) limitations due to physics. So please don't try to confuse others by suggesting that IQ is not mostly about sharpness and contrast, or as if the presence of aberrations that lends 'character' to the resultant image means that u can place a lens that is not as sharp to be on equal footing with a sharper lens.

Image character, however, is certainly subjective. The combination of aberrations, sharpness, contrast and all of the other optical qualities will certainly change the rendering of the same image by different lenses. 

I'm glad you like your EF 50 f1.2L, but no one in the right mind would say that the IQ of that lens is on par with the RF 50 f1.2L, because it certainly isn't by a mile.


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 18, 2020)

derpderp said:


> .... EF 50 f1.2L, but no one in the right mind would say that the IQ of that lens is on par with the RF 50 f1.2L, because it certainly isn't by a mile.



In your subjective opinion. Personally it sounds to me like you have fallen into the trap I outlined....

Now from a usability point of view I might agree with you but from a detached IQ point of view I don't see it, and given the fact the street price puts the RF 50 at twice the price of the EF version I'm sure there will be many EF 50 f1.2 owners for many years.


----------



## SecureGSM (Mar 21, 2020)

“Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him” (26:4)

Or

“Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit” (26:5)

hmmmm... confusing


----------

