# Two ‘Big Whites’ coming for the RF mount in 2021 [CR2]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Oct 5, 2020)

> I really wanted to know when we would be seeing our first RF mount ‘Big White’ lenses, so I reached out to a couple of sources and received a little bit of information on the topic.
> I was told by both sources I spoke with that Canon plans to announce at least two such lenses in 2021. These lenses will come alongside the Canon EOS R1, which looks to be coming in the 2nd half of 2021, though delays are obviously possible.
> One source said one of the new lenses would be an RF 300mm f/2.8L IS USM, but neither of them knew what the second lens would be.
> More to come…



Continue reading...


----------



## Aregal (Oct 5, 2020)

If big whites are being launched, an RF-mount pro sports body is sure to be launched as well.


----------



## padam (Oct 5, 2020)

A 500mm f/4 wouldn't be too surprising to see, since they have updated the EF 400mm f/2.8 and 600mm f/4 not too long ago.


----------



## xanbarksdale (Oct 5, 2020)

RF 300 2.8 IS...I'm guessing the price will be $7500, are you taking the over or the under?


----------



## AccipiterQ (Oct 5, 2020)

800 F4 DO


----------



## toodamnice (Oct 5, 2020)

This is great news but I hope Canon has the manufacturing/assembly capacity needed to add a 3rd new R family camera. They are struggling right now to get R5/R6s delivered to their retail partners. I have been waiting 2 months for my R5 and I am sure there are others that have been waiting longer than that.


----------



## nchoh (Oct 5, 2020)

toodamnice said:


> This is great news but I hope Canon has the manufacturing/assembly capacity needed to add a 3rd new R family camera. They are struggling right now to get R5/R6s delivered to their retail partners. I have been waiting 2 months for my R5 and I am sure there are others that have been waiting longer than that.



The delays are probably not Canon capacity related by the whole supply chain being disrupted due to Covid.


----------



## rbielefeld (Oct 5, 2020)

I really hope Canon sees the need for a lens that gets sports and wildlife/bird shooters to 600mm at a decently fast aperture without the need for a TC to get to or past that focal length mark. Shooting full-frame really brings on the need for 600mm as opposed to 500mm. This is all the talk among my circle of bird photographers. Seems a 600mm f/4 DO is a popular wish! It would be super expensive, but an awesome lens I am sure. I am shooting an adapted 600 f/4 IS II with both TCs now and although it works great, a DO in an RF mount would be sweet given it comes in lighter and shorter.


----------



## sfericean (Oct 5, 2020)

Oh man...$8K lens to go with my $8K camera. That should make the wife super happy!


----------



## MiJax (Oct 5, 2020)

I would assume the 300 would be accompanied by a 400 2.8's to appease the sports photogs in a Olympic run-up, but the fact that they recently created a new 400 on the EF mount weighs heavy. So +1 on the 300 f/2.8 and 500 f/4.


----------



## tcphoto (Oct 5, 2020)

I imagine with the Tokyo Olympics postponed till ‘21, canon will introduce an R Pro body and perhaps a 400/2.8 or 500/2.8 to compliment the sports shooter standard issue 300/2.8.


----------



## Jasonmc89 (Oct 5, 2020)

500mm f5.6L DO!!!


----------



## xps (Oct 5, 2020)

xanbarksdale said:


> RF 300 2.8 IS...I'm guessing the price will be $7500, are you taking the over or the under?


8500. at least


----------



## xps (Oct 5, 2020)

Jasonmc89 said:


> 500mm f5.6L DO!!!


I hope it stays 4. 5.6 would be easier for them to produce, but not fast enough for >10.000 Euros


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Oct 5, 2020)

Every new RF lens is bad news for me, because it makes it more likely than Canon will stop producing DSLRs very soon.


----------



## Bert63 (Oct 5, 2020)

toodamnice said:


> This is great news but I hope Canon has the manufacturing/assembly capacity needed to add a 3rd new R family camera. They are struggling right now to get R5/R6s delivered to their retail partners. I have been waiting 2 months for my R5 and I am sure there are others that have been waiting longer than that.




I ordered mid-day launch day and mine is being delivered today. Almost three months.

There was just a knock at the door so I’m sure that’s it. No kidding. It just arrived.


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Oct 5, 2020)

500 f/4 or f/5.6 L DO would certainly push a wildlife body, but I don't know if it'll push R1 sales like a 300 and 400 f/2.8 would.


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 5, 2020)

Skyscraperfan said:


> Every new RF lens is bad news for me, because it makes it more likely than Canon will stop producing DSLRs very soon.


That's just living in denial. RF is the future so get used to it, the way I look at it though is what does the EF system lack? The 5D IV is as capable a DSLR as you could ever want for practically anything, the 5Ds gives all the resolution useful at this point and the IQ stands up surprisingly well to even the most modern sensors, the 6D II is as cheap as chips (wonderful colloquial English saying), and the 1D series a bulletproof tool that simply never lets you down. The EF lenses are cheap compared to the RF versions and there is practically any lens you could ever desire. The future for EF users is good because it doesn't need anything.


----------



## navastronia (Oct 5, 2020)

tcphoto said:


> I imagine with the Tokyo Olympics postponed till ‘21, canon will introduce an R Pro body and perhaps a 400/2.8 or 500/2.8 to compliment the sports shooter standard issue 300/2.8.



I'm pessimistic about Canon getting an R1 into the hands of sports shooters in or before June, 2021. I feel like the R1 is going to miss the Olympics, but that most pro sports shooters won't mind, since they already have their 1DXs and pro EF glass.


----------



## Jasonmc89 (Oct 5, 2020)

xps said:


> I hope it stays 4. 5.6 would be easier for them to produce, but not fast enough for >10.000 Euros


I’d want to see both! 500mm f4 is inevitable. 500 5.6 DO would be affordable!


----------



## navastronia (Oct 5, 2020)

Bert63 said:


> I ordered mid-day launch day and mine is being delivered today. Almost three months.
> 
> There was just a knock at the door so I’m sure that’s it. No kidding. It just arrived.



Congrats!!


----------



## SteveC (Oct 5, 2020)

Bert63 said:


> I ordered mid-day launch day and mine is being delivered today. Almost three months.
> 
> There was just a knock at the door so I’m sure that’s it. No kidding. It just arrived.



Woo hoo!!! I know you've been climbing the walls (and understandably so).


----------



## AlanF (Oct 5, 2020)

Jasonmc89 said:


> I’d want to see both! 500mm f4 is inevitable. 500 5.6 DO would be affordable!


As well as affordable, portable for the frail like me.


----------



## bbasiaga (Oct 5, 2020)

These aren't something I will ever pay for, but I'm still excited to see what they come up with. Seems like the RF lenses have all had noticeable improvements over the EF counterparts (one or more of IQ, size, weight). Lets see what they can do with the big ones!

Or maybe the haters will be proven right and it'll just be white versions of the f/11 lenses! lol. But nah, they'd be 7.1 to justify the premium cost.  

-Brian


----------



## Andy Westwood (Oct 5, 2020)

RF “Big White’s” sound awesome but sadly out of my league.

However realistically I do fancy a clean used EF 100-400mm f4.5-5.6 L IS II USM for my R6 as a road back into sports photography, apparently the Mk II works well with the adapter. Used clean lenses are about 1500 so this to me is realistic, and gives a good range and reach.

I can understand why RF big whites will be a must when the R1 arrives for pro sports shooters


----------



## Hector1970 (Oct 5, 2020)

300mm and 500mm F4 would make the most sense.
The EF 300mm 2.8 II is a most wonderful lens. 
I'll really be curious if the RF version shows and improvement on it. 
I'm not sure how it could be bettered but I'm sure Canon will achieve something with it.


----------



## risto0 (Oct 5, 2020)

whatever the big white will come, if there is similar EF mount lens with similar picture quality, would you buy RF or EF for your R-series camera? 
At one point when you'd want to sell it, i imagine it would be easier to sell EF lens as it is compatible (with adapters) with more cameras, right?


----------



## slclick (Oct 5, 2020)

400 2.8. The 400 2.8L III is arguably the finest outdoor sports lens available. Seems like a great EF to RF move.


----------



## Aregal (Oct 5, 2020)

Andy Westwood said:


> RF “Big White’s” sound awesome but sadly out of my league.
> 
> However realistically I do fancy a clean used EF 100-400mm f4.5-5.6 L IS II USM for my R6 as a road back into sports photography, apparently the Mk II works well with the adapter. Used clean lenses are about 1500 so this to me is realistic, and gives a good range and reach.
> 
> I can understand why RF big whites will be a must when the R1 arrives for pro sports shooters


Not with that attitude, bro...

Haha. All kidding aside, I have the EF 100-400/4.5-5.6Lii and the IS is amazing when paired the R5. The only real benefit of the RF100-500 is the extra 100mm of reach over its EF cousin.


----------



## Memdroid (Oct 5, 2020)

A smaller and lighter RF 300 2.8 is a lens I would love to have.


----------



## usern4cr (Oct 5, 2020)

Does anyone have an idea what the max. magnification of the RF 300mm f2.8 L might be? I've never had anything close to a "big white" before, but would consider this lens if it gave me beautiful close-up shots as well as far-away shots (I'm not a professional and don't cover sports events).


----------



## navastronia (Oct 5, 2020)

usern4cr said:


> Does anyone have an idea what the max. magnification of the RF 300mm f2.8 L might be? I've never had anything close to a "big white" before, but would consider this lens if it gave me beautiful close-up shots as well as far-away shots (I'm not a professional and don't cover sports events).



FWIW, if you're looking for a macro lens, my advice is to buy a macro lens. The RF 85/2 has macro capability and costs a fraction of what an RF 300/2.8 might cost. If you do need both beautiful close and distant images, the RF 100-500 is available right now and reportedly has good close-focus capability (below)


----------



## HenWin (Oct 5, 2020)

toodamnice said:


> This is great news but I hope Canon has the manufacturing/assembly capacity needed to add a 3rd new R family camera. They are struggling right now to get R5/R6s delivered to their retail partners. I have been waiting 2 months for my R5 and I am sure there are others that have been waiting longer than that.


Eventually the pandemic is going to end, and a lot of things should return to a more "normal" (read "pre-pandemic") situation. That will include manufacturing.


----------



## RobbieHat (Oct 5, 2020)

Not sure I would have need for a 300 f2.8 but I am sure there are plenty that would. Something 500 mm or longer and fast f4.0 would encourage me to buy. I have the 100-500 but it is slow with extenders at 500mm. 

I would like something significantly lighter than the 600 mm f 4.0 L vII (which is my long lens today). If that happens as a DO or something lighter than the vIII then I am all in. IT would take extenders, still be fast for BIF and could be used without constantly being docked on a gimbal head for me. I hate hand holding the vII today as it is unbalanced and heavy. If something like that doesn't come along I will probably buy the 400mm f2.8 vII as everyone has been raving about that lens. 

I would ditch my 600 mm vII and 100-400mm for this option in a heartbeat. 

Bob


----------



## john1970 (Oct 5, 2020)

Hoping that the second lens is a 500 mm f4. I have previously owned a 300 mm f2.8, but of the two a 500 mm f4 would be ideal along with the 100-500 mm lens.


----------



## usern4cr (Oct 5, 2020)

navastronia said:


> FWIW, if you're looking for a macro lens, my advice is to buy a macro lens. The RF 85/2 has macro capability and costs a fraction of what an RF 300/2.8 might cost. If you do need both beautiful close and distant images, the RF 100-500 is available right now and reportedly has good close-focus capability (below)
> View attachment 193134


Thanks, Navastonia. But I already have a RF 100-500 on order (whenever it gets here) and I know that it will take very nice reasonably high-magnification shots with a smooth background due to the long tele compression of the background.

I prefer long telephoto high magnification photos to short mm 1:1 macro shots for the way the image looks and how it still smooths the background, and for the longer distance to the subject for ease of shooting and not scaring away insects. That's just my preference. That's why I'm wondering what the magnification might be expected to be for the RF 300mm f2.8 L. I might find that it's my favorite lens to use for beautiful flower photos, as well as for far telephoto shots.


----------



## StandardLumen (Oct 5, 2020)

Jasonmc89 said:


> I’d want to see both! 500mm f4 is inevitable. 500 5.6 DO would be affordable!



500 5.6 DO is a lens I'd definitely be in the market for.


----------



## jam05 (Oct 5, 2020)

toodamnice said:


> This is great news but I hope Canon has the manufacturing/assembly capacity needed to add a 3rd new R family camera. They are struggling right now to get R5/R6s delivered to their retail partners. I have been waiting 2 months for my R5 and I am sure there are others that have been waiting longer than that.


Mostly due to decreased personel on shifts all along the distribution chain. Covid -19 protocols


----------



## tlphoto (Oct 5, 2020)

toodamnice said:


> This is great news but I hope Canon has the manufacturing/assembly capacity needed to add a 3rd new R family camera. They are struggling right now to get R5/R6s delivered to their retail partners. I have been waiting 2 months for my R5 and I am sure there are others that have been waiting longer than that.


Where did you preorder order from? I had mine on preorder and got it in a week.


----------



## David - Sydney (Oct 5, 2020)

privatebydesign said:


> the 6D II is as cheap was chips (wonderful colloquial English saying),


to be slightly pedantic....
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/cheap-as-chips
That said, chips in the past tense would be a bargain-basement price


----------



## Stuart (Oct 5, 2020)

How big will a 'big white' be in RF mount?


----------



## degos (Oct 5, 2020)

Stuart said:


> How big will a 'big white' be in RF mount?



Big. Most of the interior of a big white prime is a void, even in the latest III versions.

Knocking 20mm off the register distance is fairly insignificant on those scales.

Only if they start introducing more DO elements will their length be reduced. Look at the RF 70-200 f/2.8, it's actually longer than the EF lens at 200mm. Physics is physics.


----------



## Bob Howland (Oct 5, 2020)

slclick said:


> 400 2.8. The 400 2.8L III is arguably the finest outdoor sports lens available. Seems like a great EF to RF move.


Originally, I thought 300 f/2.8 and 400 f/2.8, since those are the two most important lenses for photographing field sports. But we don't know how many pixels the R1 will have and whether it will have crop modes.


----------



## Bob Howland (Oct 5, 2020)

Aregal said:


> Not with that attitude, bro...
> 
> Haha. All kidding aside, I have the EF 100-400/4.5-5.6Lii and the IS is amazing when paired the R5. The only real benefit of the RF100-500 is the extra 100mm of reach over its EF cousin.


Have you tried the 100-400 with the R5 in 1.6x crop mode? How did it do?


----------



## lexptr (Oct 5, 2020)

Still not in my plans to buy a five-figure priced supertele, but I hope Canon will not sacrifice resolution this time. With mark III on EF they improved corners IQ (and, of course, weight) but lost some resolution. It is seen well when compared with x2 TC. The still-not-updated 300mm f/2.8 mk II is amazing! And 500mm f/4 mk II - too. It is, probably, very hard to make better. But worse is a possibility, unfortunately.


----------



## rightslot (Oct 5, 2020)

xanbarksdale said:


> RF 300 2.8 IS...I'm guessing the price will be $7500, are you taking the over or the under?


Hey Xanbarksdale, I'm taking the OVER. About $8400 I'm thinking the 2.8 is fabulous but this might be a NEVER IN MY KIT kinda thing!


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Oct 6, 2020)

lexptr said:


> Still not in my plans to buy a five-figure priced supertele, but I hope Canon will not sacrifice resolution this time. With mark III on EF they improved corners IQ (and, of course, weight) but lost some resolution. It is seen well when compared with x2 TC. The still-not-updated 300mm f/2.8 mk II is amazing! And 500mm f/4 mk II - too. It is, probably, very hard to make better. But worse is a possibility, unfortunately.



That's what the market dictates unfortunately. If your lens is even 1g heavier than the competitions product, you are a failure.


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 6, 2020)

David - Sydney said:


> to be slightly pedantic....
> https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/cheap-as-chips
> That said, chips in the past tense would be a bargain-basement price


Never one to object to a pedant but I don’t understand how I have used the saying incorrectly?


----------



## brad-man (Oct 6, 2020)

privatebydesign said:


> Never one to object to a pedant but I don’t understand how I have used the saying incorrectly?


You wrote "the 6D II is as cheap _was_ chips"...


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 6, 2020)

brad-man said:


> You wrote "the 6D II is as cheap _was_ chips"...


Oh! Forgive my errant ways  and my horrible constantly auto ‘correcting‘ touch keyboard....

Being a relocated Brit I do miss ‘proper’ fish and chips! Oh and I’ve had a hankering for a chip shop battered sausage for days!


----------



## brad-man (Oct 6, 2020)

privatebydesign said:


> Oh! Forgive my errant ways  and my horrible constantly auto ‘correcting‘ touch keyboard....
> 
> Being a relocated Brit I do miss ‘proper’ fish and chips! Oh and I’ve had a hankering for a chip shop battered sausage for days!


Would that then be a battered banger?


----------



## slclick (Oct 6, 2020)

brad-man said:


> Would that then be a battered banger?


And across the pond that would be a John who was knocked about by a pimp


----------



## David - Sydney (Oct 6, 2020)

W


privatebydesign said:


> Oh! Forgive my errant ways  and my horrible constantly auto ‘correcting‘ touch keyboard....
> 
> Being a relocated Brit I do miss ‘proper’ fish and chips! Oh and I’ve had a hankering for a chip shop battered sausage for days!


Well, that would be a battered sav (saveloy), a dagwood dog or a pluto pup in Australian parlance. An acquired taste to be sure 
I learnt far too much at 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saveloy
On topic... more big whites would be nice to see but perhaps they will be renamed for political sensibilities.


----------



## brad-man (Oct 6, 2020)

slclick said:


> And across the pond that would be a John who was knocked about by a pimp


Don't be so sexist. It could just as easily be a pimp giving a wallop to a trollop...


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 6, 2020)

David - Sydney said:


> W
> 
> Well, that would be a battered sav (saveloy), a dagwood dog or a pluto pup in Australian parlance. An acquired taste to be sure
> I learnt far too much at
> ...


That’s an interesting point, for years I owned motorcycles, big single trail and supermoto style bikes. The best suspension we had then was by a company called White Power, but after a while it was realized that the name had very negative connotations in world markets so was changed to WP.


----------



## David - Sydney (Oct 6, 2020)

privatebydesign said:


> That’s an interesting point, for years I owned motorcycles, big single trail and supermoto style bikes. The best suspension we had then was by a company called White Power, but after a while it was realized that the name had very negative connotations in world markets so was changed to WP.


I haven't heard anyone referring to the 600/800mm f11 lenses as big blacks... or maybe more accurately big greys


----------



## melgross (Oct 6, 2020)

That’s kind of true. But someone somewhere said that we’re in the golden age of lens design, and he’s right. The area in which DSLR’s will fall behind is with newer, better lenses. Not that present ones aren’t fine, but...


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 6, 2020)

melgross said:


> That’s kind of true. But someone somewhere said that we’re in the golden age of lens design, and he’s right. The area in which DSLR’s will fall behind is with newer, better lenses. Not that present ones aren’t fine, but...


The only real improvement in lens design is in sharpness, and in my opinion sharpness is vastly overrated in its importance. MILC ‘s do allow for more accurate auto focus as well as much wider scene coverage and lower light auto focus.Indeed I see AF improvements as the biggest advantage for MILC’s over DSLR’s.


----------



## slclick (Oct 6, 2020)

brad-man said:


> Don't be so sexist. It could just as easily be a pimp giving a wallop to a trollop...


Yes, that's much better, thank you./s


----------



## BeenThere (Oct 6, 2020)

privatebydesign said:


> The only real improvement in lens design is in sharpness, and in my opinion sharpness is vastly overrated in its importance. MILC ‘s do allow for more accurate auto focus as well as much wider scene coverage and lower light auto focus.Indeed I see AF improvements as the biggest advantage for MILC’s over DSLR’s.


Recently, the biggest improvement has been less weight In equivalent lens FLs.


----------



## mb66energy (Oct 6, 2020)

risto0 said:


> whatever the big white will come, if there is similar EF mount lens with similar picture quality, would you buy RF or EF for your R-series camera?
> At one point when you'd want to sell it, i imagine it would be easier to sell EF lens as it is compatible (with adapters) with more cameras, right?


Good question - had a hard time with RF or EF 1.8 or 2 lens to choose from. A very good offer of RP + RF 35 lens (the lens was more or less a free add on price wise) solved it.
EF is compatible to ALL my Canon cameras just the M series which I like for time lapses with Magic Lantern, the RF lens is not. EF lenses are compatible to the ND filter adapter on RF cameras, RF lenses are not (for video the C70 changes all with its built in ND filter system).

On the other hand Canon knows how to draw people into the RF system: The RF 35 1.8 is a super flexible lens with very good to excellent image quality. I really like the very effective stabilizer, f/1.8 AND 1:2 macro capability, the STM fast enough for photo/smooth enough for video in ONE compact and sturdy package ...


----------



## mb66energy (Oct 6, 2020)

privatebydesign said:


> The only real improvement in lens design is in sharpness, and in my opinion sharpness is vastly overrated in its importance. *MILC ‘s do allow for more accurate auto focus as well* as much wider scene coverage and lower light auto focus.Indeed I see AF improvements as the biggest advantage for MILC’s over DSLR’s.


That is the main reason I really like my basic M50 and RP so much over better DSLRs: Freedom of choice of AF field + ultra high reliability to get the right focus. Just my 10-22 could be improved vastly - it suffers a little bit of field curvature and now I can place the AF area on the important detail without recomposing which counteracts errors from field curvature etc.

About sharpness: While I like sharpness very much in general, contrast of a lens and other properties how the image is rendered are more important in my opinion if a photo looks "believable, real, great".
And I hate my very sharp meaningless photos most ...


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 6, 2020)

BeenThere said:


> Recently, the biggest improvement has been less weight In equivalent lens FLs.


That simply isn’t true.

EF 50 f1.2 19.2 oz (545g) 
RF 50 f1.2 33.2 oz (950g)

EF 85 f1.2 36.2 oz (1025g)
RF 85 f1.2 42.2 oz (1196g)

EF 24-70 f2.8 28.4 oz
RF 24-70 f2.8 31.8 oz

The RF 15-35 is heavier than the EF 16-35 as well, indeed the only real weight advance for the RF line is in the 70-200 f2.8’s where the RF version does make a good weight saving over the EF version. There is less than an ounce between even modest lenses like the 35 f1.8/2.


----------



## David - Sydney (Oct 6, 2020)

BeenThere said:


> Recently, the biggest improvement has been less weight In equivalent lens FLs.


The RF70-200mm is definitely smaller and lighter.
The RF100-500mm is lighter than the EF100-400mm, 14mm longer physically and adds 100mm reach and reviews indicate similar quality. Much lighter and shorter than if a 1.4x TC is added to the EF100-400mm.
The RF24-205mm is lighter and virtually the same size.
The wider angle/prime lenses have not been on such a diet though.


----------



## koenkooi (Oct 6, 2020)

David - Sydney said:


> [..]The RF100-500mm is lighter than the EF100-400mm, 14mm longer physically [..]



Apples-to-apples the RF100-500 is actually shorter, since the EF100-400 needs an adapter that's longer than 14mm. And it also makes the weight difference larger


----------



## Mr Majestyk (Oct 6, 2020)

500 f/16 most likely


----------



## Joules (Oct 6, 2020)

Mr Majestyk said:


> 500 f/16 most likely


What do you even want? I get that you are frustrated with low end offerings. Why that is an attitude I dislike I have explained in a different thread.

Now here comes a credible rumor about updated higher end offerings - and still all you have to contribute is silly complaints?


----------



## Antono Refa (Oct 6, 2020)

Jasonmc89 said:


> 500mm f5.6L DO!!!



IIRC, I've read Nikon released 500mm & 600mm f/5.6 PF (Nikon's equivalent of DO) for relatively low price, which sold as fast as Nikon could make them.


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Oct 6, 2020)

Antono Refa said:


> IIRC, I've read Nikon released 500mm & 600mm f/5.6 PF (Nikon's equivalent of DO) for relatively low price, which sold as fast as Nikon could make them.



300 f/4 PF and 500mm f/5.6 PF. The 500mm f/5.6 PF seems to be 'the' wildlife lens to buy and people will have a Nikon body just for it. I have a Nikon body just for it and will have mine in Feb. Its performance is right up there with and of the big f/4 primes but you are much more manoeuvrable. If Canon had one combined with the animal eye AF it would be a killer portable setup for BIF and just about anything where we need good portability.


----------



## Jasonmc89 (Oct 6, 2020)

Antono Refa said:


> IIRC, I've read Nikon released 500mm & 600mm f/5.6 PF (Nikon's equivalent of DO) for relatively low price, which sold as fast as Nikon could make them.


True, there was quite a long waiting list to get that lens. Tried a friends in Costa Rica and it was truly amazing.. so compact and light. COME ON CANON!!


----------



## CvH (Oct 6, 2020)

privatebydesign said:


> That simply isn’t true.
> 
> EF 50 f1.2 19.2 oz (545g)
> RF 50 f1.2 33.2 oz (950g)
> ...



The RF24-70 F2.8L is IS where the EF24-70 F2.8L II isn't. So isn't a fair comparison. 

You also forgot to mention the RF100-500 which is longer focal length and lighter than the EF100-400


----------



## degos (Oct 6, 2020)

David - Sydney said:


> The RF70-200mm is definitely smaller and lighter.



No it's fatter, and longer at 200mm

The old 70-300L is shorter when retracted, does that make it a miracle lens?


----------



## Michelef (Oct 6, 2020)

Didn't you mention a 500mm f2.8 recently ???


----------



## derpderp (Oct 6, 2020)

i'd buy a 600mm f1.8 in a heartbeat.


----------



## arbitrage (Oct 6, 2020)

It better be the RF version of the beauty alongside the 300/2.8....


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Oct 6, 2020)

Bert63 said:


> There was just a knock at the door so I’m sure that’s it. No kidding. It just arrived.


Congrats!
I ordered my R5 a few hours after it was available in the Australian stores and got it a couple of weeks ago as a surprise, because they expected the second batch from Canon in the end of October. 
It's of limited use anyway because of corona lockdown here.


----------



## Antono Refa (Oct 6, 2020)

Jasonmc89 said:


> True, there was quite a long waiting list to get that lens. Tried a friends in Costa Rica and it was truly amazing.. so compact and light. COME ON CANON!!



Either way, seems there's a healthy demand for said super tele primes.



Codebunny said:


> 300 f/4 PF and 500mm f/5.6 PF.



I stand corrected. A quick Google search shows a 600mm f/5.6 PF is rumored as well.



Codebunny said:


> The 500mm f/5.6 PF seems to be 'the' wildlife lens to buy and *people will have a Nikon body just for it. I have a Nikon body just for it and will have mine in Feb*. Its performance is right up there with and of the big f/4 primes but you are much more manoeuvrable. If Canon had one combined with the animal eye AF it would be a killer portable setup for BIF and just about anything where we need good portability.



Exactly - Nikon is making money on mid-speed (slower than Canon's fastest, faster than f/11) PF super teles. Seems to me like Canon has an incentive to compete, e.g. RF 300mm f/4L DO IS USM & RF 500mm f/5.6 DO IS USM.


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Oct 6, 2020)

Antono Refa said:


> Exactly - Nikon is making money on mid-speed (slower than Canon's fastest, faster than f/11) PF super teles. Seems to me like Canon has an incentive to compete, e.g. RF 300mm f/4L DO IS USM & RF 500mm f/5.6 DO IS USM.



Nikon did miss a trick by making these F lenses instead of Z mount. They could be even shorter without the FTZ and would have shifted a lot of Z6 and Z7 bodies. The 500mm f/5.6 'feels' like a mirrorless lens, so small and light yet able to take pictures that best the f/4 prime in everything but raw light gathering, but that doesn't matter as much because ISO 10,000 and even ISO 20 odd thousand produce rather clean pictures and the AF is quick. 

I haven't tried with the 1.4x or 2x converters yet, but all reviews point to the 1.4x having no sharpness loss and on the Z bodies you can still use every AF point without perceived slowdown. 

A 500mm f/5.6 L IS would just keep me locked into Canon, I don't want to buy for a old mount just now but will buy the Nikon one until there is a 'big' white that pulls me into RF.


----------



## Ale_F (Oct 6, 2020)

Why Canon cannot make two different version of the lens (EF and RF), like cinema in PL or EF mount?


----------



## usern4cr (Oct 6, 2020)

Ale_F said:


> Why Canon cannot make two different version of the lens (EF and RF), like cinema in PL or EF mount?


By 2 versions of the lens, do you mean a RF version which is just the EF version with extra spacer embedded like Sigma does? If so, then they're better of making just a new EF version which can also be used with converters on the RF mount. If you mean to have a new EF and also have a RF version optimized for the RF mount, it will not be the same lens at all since an "RF mount optimized lens" would have to be completely re-designed to take advantage of the much shorter mount to sensor distance.


----------



## AlanF (Oct 6, 2020)

Antono Refa said:


> Exactly - Nikon is making money on mid-speed (slower than Canon's fastest, faster than f/11) PF super teles. Seems to me like Canon has an incentive to compete, e.g. RF 300mm f/4L DO IS USM & RF 500mm f/5.6 DO IS USM.


The 500mm f/5.6 PF isn't cheap, but still close to half the price of the 400mm DO II and close to 2lb lighter when the hood is on. Apart from the 800mm f/11 having the serious advantage as being as cheap as French fries, the 500mm f/5.6 has an MFD of 3m, as opposed to 6m, can be used as a 700mm f/8 and a 1000mm f/11, with the 400mm DO similar but shorter focal lengths and wider apertured. Both can be used as general walk-round lenses. I'd love one at a price of $/£3500 or less.


----------



## AlanF (Oct 6, 2020)

privatebydesign said:


> Oh! Forgive my errant ways  and my horrible constantly auto ‘correcting‘ touch keyboard....
> 
> Being a relocated Brit I do miss ‘proper’ fish and chips! Oh and I’ve had a hankering for a chip shop battered sausage for days!


Great fish and chips in Nova Scotia and even cheaper than back in Blighty. Can't wait to visit my Canadian in-laws when this damn covid is over.


----------



## jolyonralph (Oct 6, 2020)

AlanF said:


> the 500mm f/5.6 has an MFD of 3mm,


 
Now that's some serious macro


----------



## AlanF (Oct 6, 2020)

jolyonralph said:


> Now that's some serious macro


That's one typo I wouldn't mind being reality. Reluctantly, I've corrected it.


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Oct 6, 2020)

AlanF said:


> the 500mm f/5.6 has an MFD of 3mm, as opposed to 6m



3 meters  

If a Canon one could pull of 2.2 meters that would have me covered on the shots I missed when the wee buggers got a wee bit too close to the hide.


----------



## Ale_F (Oct 6, 2020)

usern4cr said:


> ... cut ... take advantage of the much shorter mount to sensor distance.



Prime tele lenses have not problem of BF, so they could theoretically make two versions.


----------



## Dragon (Oct 6, 2020)

AccipiterQ said:


> 800 F4 DO


DO or no DO, that is an 8" objective.


----------



## AlanF (Oct 6, 2020)

Ale_F said:


> Prime tele lenses have not problem of BF, so they could theoretically make two versions.


One way would be to have a removable white adapter on the RF version.


----------



## usern4cr (Oct 6, 2020)

Ale_F said:


> Prime tele lenses have not problem of BF, so they could theoretically make two versions.


I assume you mean that the RF version would add additional RF electrical protocols.

Would you have them add an extension to the back of the body and leave the rest the same?
If not, would you have them alter spacings of the lens elements, and/or the power of the lens elements, and/or change the printing of the focus distance markings?


----------



## Dragon (Oct 6, 2020)

If pro sports doesn't get off the political bandwagon, the market for these will be limited.


----------



## Dragon (Oct 6, 2020)

navastronia said:


> I'm pessimistic about Canon getting an R1 into the hands of sports shooters in or before June, 2021. I feel like the R1 is going to miss the Olympics, but that most pro sports shooters won't mind, since they already have their 1DXs and pro EF glass.


Why do you think they are going to miss that target? There is also the reality that even a 2021 Olympics is far from certain.


----------



## Dragon (Oct 6, 2020)

toodamnice said:


> This is great news but I hope Canon has the manufacturing/assembly capacity needed to add a 3rd new R family camera. They are struggling right now to get R5/R6s delivered to their retail partners. I have been waiting 2 months for my R5 and I am sure there are others that have been waiting longer than that.


The total market for R1's is about the size of the dealer demo market for R5's, so it shouldn't affect manufacturing much. Given how bad camera sales have been lately, the R5 order book took Canon by surprise, which is actually a good thing. My R5 came in last week, and it was well worth the wait.


----------



## navastronia (Oct 6, 2020)

Dragon said:


> Why do you think they are going to miss that target? There is also the reality that even a 2021 Olympics is far from certain.



I just don't think that target is important, since the 1DX mk. III only debuted 8 months ago and will, in summer 2021, be less than 1.5 years old. TBH, Canon already hit its target, which was to have the 1DX mk. III ready for the 2020 Olympics. That those Olympics didn't take place doesn't imply that they need to ready a new pro camera for 2021.

I predict that Canon will give an R1 development announcement in September/October 2021 and will release the R1 in February/March 2022, with select photographers shooting on it for the Beijing 2022 Winter Olympics


----------



## SteveC (Oct 6, 2020)

privatebydesign said:


> Oh! Forgive my errant ways  and my horrible constantly auto ‘correcting‘ touch keyboard....
> 
> Being a relocated Brit I do miss ‘proper’ fish and chips! Oh and I’ve had a hankering for a chip shop battered sausage for days!



I unfortunately missed out on my chance to try a ploughman's lunch (which, BTW looks to American eyes as if it should be pronounced "pluffman's" based on "tough", "ploffman's" based on "cough" or perhaps "ploomans" based on "through"--I don't think we spell any "ow" word with ough here ["cough" for bovine?], but no doubt someone will make me smack my head by providing an example) on brief layovers in London. Never heard of battered sausage/bangers.


----------



## SteveC (Oct 6, 2020)

Joules said:


> What do you even want? I get that you are frustrated with low end offerings. Why that is an attitude I dislike I have explained in a different thread.
> 
> Now here comes a credible rumor about updated higher end offerings - and still all you have to contribute is silly complaints?



It's what he does. That's _all_ he does. (Though as I've pointed out recently, at least he's diversifying from bashing the EF-M series to bashing other things as well.)


----------



## Joules (Oct 6, 2020)

SteveC said:


> I unfortunately missed out on my chance to try a ploughman's lunch (which, BTW looks to American eyes as if it should be pronounced "pluffman's" based on "tough", "ploffman's" based on "cough" or perhaps "ploomans" based on "through"--I don't think we spell any "ow" word with ough here ["cough" for bovine?], but no doubt someone will make me smack my head by providing an example) on brief layovers in London. Never heard of battered sausage/bangers.


How about the sound of the ough make in 'though' and 'thought'? Seems 'ow'-ish to me. That may just be my head pronouncing things non-American (I'm German, although I fortunatly don't have the "zhe and zhat" accent ).


----------



## Joules (Oct 6, 2020)

SteveC said:


> It's what he does. That's _all_ he does. (Though as I've pointed out recently, at least he's diversifying from bashing the EF-M series to bashing other things as well.)


Sure enough. I just felt like doing some complaining myself in the moment of reading that particular comment


----------



## SteveC (Oct 6, 2020)

Joules said:


> How about the sound of the ough make in 'though' and 'thought'? Seems 'ow'-ish to me. That may just be my head pronouncing things non-American (I'm German, although I fortunatly don't have the "zhe and zhat" accent ).



Ah, Deutsch. That's actually helpful, as I took some a while ago and you all are apparently MUCH more consistent with your vowels than we are. (Though I no doubt need work with my umlauts; they still make Germans cringe.)

When I wrote "ow" I meant the sound you spell "au." "Though," at least in my neck of the woods, most closely resembles your "o" (but rounds a bit at the end). and "thought" is a sound closer to, but not identical to your "a" (certainly nothing like "au"), though in England it sounds a lot closer to "o" to me, in extreme cases it sounds to my Yankee ear more like an "o" than an "a". An Englishman pronouncing "thought" sounds to me sounds like he's trying to rhyme it with "oat" and "wrote" though they're likely to deny that because they don't pronounce "-oat" the same way I do.

English has seriously, serious messed around with its vowels for the last six centuries, and now we have different branches of people messing around with those vowels in different ways, just to cause massive confusion!


----------



## Joules (Oct 6, 2020)

SteveC said:


> Ah, Deutsch. That's actually helpful, as I took some a while ago and you all are apparently MUCH more consistent with your vowels than we are. (Though I no doubt need work with my umlauts; they still make Germans cringe.)
> 
> When I wrote "ow" I meant the sound you spell "au." "Though," at least in my neck of the woods, most closely resembles your "o" (but rounds a bit at the end). and "thought" is a sound closer to, but not identical to your "a" (certainly nothing like "au"), though in England it sounds a lot closer to "o" to me, in extreme cases it sounds to my Yankee ear more like an "o" than an "a". An Englishman pronouncing "thought" sounds to me sounds like he's trying to rhyme it with "oat" and "wrote" though they're likely to deny that because they don't pronounce "-oat" the same way I do.
> 
> English has seriously, serious messed around with its vowels for the last six centuries, and now we have different branches of people messing around with those vowels in different ways, just to cause massive confusion!


Oh, now I see it. I messed up the pronounciation of the 'ough' in ploughman. You are right, having listened to it on the internet, the German 'au' sound much more appropriate. Not sure what gave me the impression it would sound like something else than what you described.

I'm not sure if I see where 'thought' sound like the German 'a' though 

Local differences in language are really amazing. At work we had a conference recently, where participants from all parts of Germany and neighboring countries participated (With masks and distance and proper ventilation, of course). It was quite the contrast hearing the different speakers give their talks with only short interruptions, as of course the language is all similar enough to understand it, but those dialects do influence the tone and flow quite a lot.


----------



## vrpanorama.ca (Oct 6, 2020)

Likely will affect the used prices of all EF big white. This will bring an era to an end in which it was accepted that the retail value of used big white was steady and that good investment. There is also a significant number of people selling their old canon part now to make place for mirrorless.


----------



## SteveC (Oct 6, 2020)

Joules said:


> Oh, now I see it. I messed up the pronounciation of the 'ough' in ploughman. You are right, having listened to it on the internet, the German 'au' sound much more appropriate. Not sure what gave me the impression it would sound like something else than what you described.
> 
> I'm not sure if I see where 'thought' sound like the German 'a' though
> 
> Local differences in language are really amazing. At work we had a conference recently, where participants from all parts of Germany and neighboring countries participated (With masks and distance and proper ventilation, of course). It was quite the contrast hearing the different speakers give their talks with only short interruptions, as of course the language is all similar enough to understand it, but those dialects do influence the tone and flow quite a lot.



We have a number of what we call (mistakenly) "short a" sounds, and there really isn't an exact match in German for any of them. "hat" (Deutsch, second person plural haben) is sort of, but not really, like our "hot" to my ears, and as far as I know there's just no German match for the vowel in "hot" [and I am talking about my particular accent, which will be different from the UK's "received pronunciation"/"Queen's English"], meanwhile our word also spelled "hat" (head covering) has a sound (which linguists call "ash" and represent with æ) which really doesn't appear in many languages, it's the stereotypical "English" vowel because it appears in no other really major language. [Apparently we all, regardless of country, pronounce the word "trap" with that sound.]


----------



## kcfp (Oct 6, 2020)

With the Olympics next year (hopefully) 300mm 2.8 and 600mm f/4 would be my guess with R1's in select Canon sports shooters hands at the Olympics.


----------



## Joules (Oct 6, 2020)

kcfp said:


> With the Olympics next year (hopefully) 300mm 2.8 and 600mm f/4 would be my guess with R1's in select Canon sports shooters hands at the Olympics.


I wonder if the thought of these olympics having much impact on these products is not misguided.

The Tokyo olympics were delayed for a reason, the same reason is likely to also delay product launches. And since Canon would not originally have aimed for these products to launch right around an olympic, I don't see it as likely that they would pour in extra resources in these already trying times just to change their plans. On the other hand, if these products were orignally schedules to be released before the fall of 2021 anyway, it does sound plausible that they would at least make greater efforts to keep on track.


----------



## kcfp (Oct 6, 2020)

Joules said:


> I wonder if the thought of these olympics having much impact on these products is not misguided.
> 
> The Tokyo olympics were delayed for a reason, the same reason is likely to also delay product launches. And since Canon would not originally have aimed for these products to launch right around an olympic, I don't see it as likely that they would pour in extra resources in these already trying times just to change their plans. On the other hand, if these products were orignally schedules to be released before the fall of 2021 anyway, it does sound plausible that they would at least make greater efforts to keep on track.



These days, I think it would be tough for any Corporation to plan and time anything other than to keep innovating and pushing products out as best you can. I am sure Canon would love not to be having the extended backorder status on EOS R/RF products right about now.


----------



## Richard Anthony (Oct 6, 2020)

The R5 is a superb photographers camera , it will be interesting to see what the R1 brings to the table .


----------



## neonlight (Oct 6, 2020)

Suspect it will be a 500 f/4, partly because the 400, 600 have been updated, and that may well go with both an R1 and R7.
Think that the 400 RF f/2.8, 600 RF f/4 and 800 RF f/4 will be DO,


----------



## David - Sydney (Oct 6, 2020)

degos said:


> No it's fatter, and longer at 200mm
> 
> The old 70-300L is shorter when retracted, does that make it a miracle lens?


I didn't say that there are miracle lenses. The RF70-200mm is shorter when retracted which is the common measurement and what makes the difference when traveling or storage. Fatter due to extending design. I don't think that anyone has complained about the extended length.
The OP was comparing EF and RF versions. Perhaps a RF70-300mm will be shorter than the EF70-300mm


----------



## Methodical (Oct 6, 2020)

toodamnice said:


> This is great news but I hope Canon has the manufacturing/assembly capacity needed to add a 3rd new R family camera. They are struggling right now to get R5/R6s delivered to their retail partners. I have been waiting 2 months for my R5 and I am sure there are others that have been waiting longer than that.



I feel like I cut in line. I got on a wait list with a small retailer and about 1 week or so, I was placing my order for the R5, which arrived on October 3rd.


----------



## secant (Oct 7, 2020)

Is it just me or anybody else liking the parallel between the Canon R1 and R6 and the Yamaha R1 and R6? I have an urge to just get the R6 just to match my Yamaha R6 lol.


----------



## Dragon (Oct 7, 2020)

navastronia said:


> I just don't think that target is important, since the 1DX mk. III only debuted 8 months ago and will, in summer 2021, be less than 1.5 years old. TBH, Canon already hit its target, which was to have the 1DX mk. III ready for the 2020 Olympics. That those Olympics didn't take place doesn't imply that they need to ready a new pro camera for 2021.
> 
> I predict that Canon will give an R1 development announcement in September/October 2021 and will release the R1 in February/March 2022, with select photographers shooting on it for the Beijing 2022 Winter Olympics


Given the traditional lifetime of 1 series designs, you may well be correct, but the R5 AF would be pretty compelling in a sports camera. Maybe they will just encourage some folks to use the R5 for certain events.


----------



## Methodical (Oct 7, 2020)

usern4cr said:


> Does anyone have an idea what the max. magnification of the RF 300mm f2.8 L might be? I've never had anything close to a "big white" before, but would consider this lens if it gave me beautiful close-up shots as well as far-away shots (I'm not a professional and don't cover sports events).



A 300 f4 IS would give you all of that. I consider it a pseudo macro lens.


----------



## usern4cr (Oct 7, 2020)

Methodical said:


> A 300 f4 IS would give you all of that. I consider it a pseudo macro lens.


Thanks, Methodical. I agree completely, *if* the 300 f4 IS has a large max. magnification. In fact, my previous Olympus MFT 300mm f4 IS pro lens had a max. magnification of 0.24X which is on a 2x crop sensor, so the image when displayed has the FF equivalent size of 0.48X magnification. It takes the most beautiful flower & insect pictures I could hope for in an easily handheld lens without need for flash assistance and with a very comfortable distance to the subject. I'll attach a few examples of images from it:










Now if they would give us a RF 300mm f4L IS (half) macro lens, with 0.5X max magnification, then it should be able to take photos like this with the added benefit of a 45MB image on my R5 with all the new AF & other technology (like 8K raw video enabling extracting 8KPixel wide still frames).

I would like to mention that I'm getting the RF 100-500mm f4.5-7.1L IS lens (whenever it shows up) which should take close up photos like this as well. 

If Canon came out with a RF 300mm f4L IS 1:1 macro then it would be even better than either of those mentioned above and would take *spectacular* close up (true macro) photos, and I would definitely buy one in addition to the RF 100-500 that I'm expecting soon.

Oh my, Canon, you're coming out with so many great lenses now. Maybe you could squeeze one more in and give us a RF 300mm f4L IS 1:1 macro, please?


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 7, 2020)

usern4cr said:


> Thanks, Methodical. I agree completely, *if* the 300 f4 IS has a large max. magnification. In fact, my previous Olympus MFT 300mm f4 IS pro lens had a max. magnification of 0.24X which is on a 2x crop sensor, so the image when displayed has the FF equivalent size of 0.48X magnification.


No that's not how it works, max magnification is literal size as projected onto the sensor. The projection doesn’t care what sized sensor is behind it but a 1:4 projection makes the subject the same size regardless of sensor size.


----------



## Bert63 (Oct 7, 2020)

usern4cr said:


> Thanks, Methodical. I agree completely, *if* the 300 f4 IS has a large max. magnification. In fact, my previous Olympus MFT 300mm f4 IS pro lens had a max. magnification of 0.24X which is on a 2x crop sensor, so the image when displayed has the FF equivalent size of 0.48X magnification. It takes the most beautiful flower & insect pictures I could hope for in an easily handheld lens without need for flash assistance and with a very comfortable distance to the subject. I'll attach a few examples of images from it:
> 
> View attachment 193191
> 
> ...





Oh my.

This is exactly what I needed to see this morning.

Most excellent and beautiful color. Wow.


----------



## usern4cr (Oct 7, 2020)

privatebydesign said:


> No that's not how it works, max magnification is literal size as projected onto the sensor. The projection doesn’t care what sized sensor is behind it but a 1:4 projection makes the subject the same size regardless of sensor size.


You can argue all you want about definitions, but I was careful to explain what I'm talking about. A FF sensor with 1/4 magnification will have in focus a 36/4 x 24/4 = 9 x 6mm image. a 2x crop sensor with 1/2 magnification will have in focus (if a 3:2 aspect ratio) a 18/2 x 12/2 = 9 x 6mm image. If you print both images to an equal size print, they will both print the same focused 9 x 6mm object in view. That's why I'm calling them equivalent.

Now if you want to go further, and consider depth of view in the OOF foreground and background so that those components have to be identical also, then a 2x crop sensor (if it was a 3:2 aspect ratio) with a 300mm f4 lens would be exactly the same image as a FF sensor with a 600mm f8 lens. Furthermore, both those cameras & lenses will have the same aperture (300/4 = 75mm = 600/8) and since they have the same aperture to input photons, of the same image, then they will have the same number of photons hitting their respective *total* sensor. Now, I will agree, that the FF sensor will have a 4x greater well depth (assuming the same sensor sensitivity) and thus you have the option to expose the FF image 4x longer if you wish to get a 4x better IQ. But as far as the what's in view in the image and OOF foreground & background, they're the same.

By the way, I don't think anyone here wants a long argument over equivalency. How about if we agree to disagree and then comment on the gist of the post - which is hoping Canon can come out with a RF 300mm f4L IS lens with 0.5x(or 1:1) max magnification? Wouldn't you think that it would be a stunningly beautiful lens? I think so - so maybe we can agree on that - what do you say?


----------



## usern4cr (Oct 7, 2020)

Bert63 said:


> Oh my.
> 
> This is exactly what I needed to see this morning.
> 
> Most excellent and beautiful color. Wow.


Thanks, Bert63. I really like the smooth gradation between different colors in the OOF background and I always strive to align my camera and subject so that the background (in-line) has a couple of different colors (preferably darker) to blend together which brings your eye to the subject in focus first, and then it can move around the pleasingly smooth gradients of the OOF background.

Thanks again for your kind words!


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 7, 2020)

usern4cr said:


> You can argue all you want about definitions, but I was careful to explain what I'm talking about. A FF sensor with 1/4 magnification will have in focus a 36/4 x 24/4 = 9 x 6mm image. a 2x crop sensor with 1/2 magnification will have in focus (if a 3:2 aspect ratio) a 18/2 x 12/2 = 9 x 6mm image. If you print both images to an equal size print, they will both print the same focused 9 x 6mm object in view. That's why I'm calling them equivalent.
> 
> Now if you want to go further, and consider depth of view in the OOF foreground and background so that those components have to be identical also, then a 2x crop sensor (if it was a 3:2 aspect ratio) with a 300mm f4 lens would be exactly the same image as a FF sensor with a 600mm f8 lens. Furthermore, both those cameras & lenses will have the same aperture (300/4 = 75mm = 600/8) and since they have the same aperture to input photons, of the same image, then they will have the same number of photons hitting their respective *total* sensor. Now, I will agree, that the FF sensor will have a 4x greater well depth (assuming the same sensor sensitivity) and thus you have the option to expose the FF image 4x longer if you wish to get a 4x better IQ. But as far as the what's in view in the image and OOF foreground & background, they're the same.
> 
> By the way, I don't think anyone here wants a long argument over equivalency. How about if we agree to disagree and then comment on the gist of the post - which is hoping Canon can come out with a RF 300mm f4L IS lens with 0.5x(or 1:1) max magnification? Wouldn't you think that it would be a stunningly beautiful lens? I think so - so maybe we can agree on that - what do you say?


All I am pointing out was that your terminology, however well you think you explained around it and don’t want to get into any kind of discussion, is wrong.

There is no crop factor applied to a reproduction ratio when used as you did. If a bug is 15mm long and you shoot it at 1:1 it is 15mm long on your sensor, it doesn’t matter if that is a crop sensor or a full frame sensor. 1:1 is 1:1.

A Canon 100mm f2.8 IS Macro lens is a 1:1 macro lens regardless of wether you use it on a ff camera or a crop camera.

We can choose to disagree about anything you like, but to choose to disagree with a fact seems obtuse.


----------



## usern4cr (Oct 7, 2020)

privatebydesign said:


> All I am pointing out was that your terminology, however well you think you explained around it and don’t want to get into any kind of discussion, is wrong.
> 
> There is no crop factor applied to a reproduction ratio when used as you did. If a bug is 15mm long and you shoot it at 1:1 it is 15mm long on your sensor, it doesn’t matter if that is a crop sensor or a full frame sensor. 1:1 is 1:1.
> 
> ...


A 15mm bug will indeed be 15mm long *on the sensor* of a true 1:1 FF macro lens and sensor, as well as on a true 1:1 2x crop lens and sensor. But if you print the image from each of these, then that 15mm bug from the FF camera will only fill 15/36 = 42% the width of the picture, while the same 15mm bug from the 2x crop camera (assuming a 3:2 aspect ratio) will fill 15/18 = 83% the width of the picture.

Now if you you print both of those photos to a 12x8 size and ask an average person if they're the same picture, I don't think they'd say so.

As far as calling me "obtuse", I will refrain from acting in the same way, and thus I won't call you anything.

By the way, you didn't once comment on the benefit of the Canon RF 300mm f4L IS, so I guess you aren't interested in that part of the post. After all, that's the reason I posted the pictures in the first place. I'm hoping that Canon might see the post and possibly decide to make that lens. It's a long shot, but that's the main reason I posted it.


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 7, 2020)

usern4cr said:


> A FF sensor with 1/4 magnification will have in focus a 36/4 x 24/4 = 9 x 6mm image. a 2x crop sensor with 1/2 magnification will have in focus (if a 3:2 aspect ratio) a 18/2 x 12/2 = 9 x 6mm image. If you print both images to an equal size print, they will both print the same focused 9 x 6mm object in view. That's why I'm calling them equivalent.


If your bug is 12mm long, if it is shot at 1:4 on a ff camera (truth is it doesn’t matter what size the sensor is) it will be 3mm long on the sensor. If you shoot that same sized bug at 1:2 with crop sensor it will be 6mm long on the sensor. If you then print to the same size the bug will be over 10 times larger (by area) in the crop camera print because you shot it at twice the magnification and you then enlarged it 1.6 times more (2x2) x(1.6x1.6)= 10.24

Your mistake is you are comparing a 36mm x 24mm sized object as well as sensor, for the crop example you are comparing a different sized object, 18mm x 12mm. That isn’t a valid comparison.


----------



## AEWest (Oct 7, 2020)

Skyscraperfan said:


> Every new RF lens is bad news for me, because it makes it more likely than Canon will stop producing DSLRs very soon.


Unfortunately i think you are right.


----------



## Adam Shutter Bug (Oct 8, 2020)

A 200-600mm f/4 Or f/5.6 would be nice.


----------



## Fischer (Oct 8, 2020)

RobbieHat said:


> Not sure I would have need for a 300 f2.8 but I am sure there are plenty that would. Something 500 mm or longer and fast f4.0 would encourage me to buy. I have the 100-500 but it is slow with extenders at 500mm.
> 
> I would like something significantly lighter than the 600 mm f 4.0 L vII (which is my long lens today). If that happens as a DO or something lighter than the vIII then I am all in. IT would take extenders, still be fast for BIF and could be used without constantly being docked on a gimbal head for me. I hate hand holding the vII today as it is unbalanced and heavy. If something like that doesn't come along I will probably buy the 400mm f2.8 vII as everyone has been raving about that lens.
> 
> ...


300mm + large MPIX R + 1.4x & 2x extenders = no need for longer FL options for the 99%.

Only thing the 5DS/R w/300mm f/2.8 lacks vs the 5DIV w/400mm f/2.8 is more fps. Add the 1.4x & 2x extenders to the 5DS/R packages and you are far ahead in shooting options. With the large MPIX R the speed issue will be gone.


----------



## Fischer (Oct 8, 2020)

lexptr said:


> Still not in my plans to buy a five-figure priced supertele, but I hope Canon will not sacrifice resolution this time. With mark III on EF they improved corners IQ (and, of course, weight) but lost some resolution. It is seen well when compared with x2 TC. The still-not-updated 300mm f/2.8 mk II is amazing! And 500mm f/4 mk II - too. It is, probably, very hard to make better. But worse is a possibility, unfortunately.


Resolution of the 300mm f/2.8 L III is better than the II. Not by much, but you can see it on a 5DS/R. And it will be even more obvious on the high MPIX "R" - maybe it is already with the 5R.


----------



## lexptr (Oct 8, 2020)

Fischer said:


> Resolution of the 300mm f/2.8 L III is better than the II. Not by much, but you can see it on a 5DS/R. And it will be even more obvious on the high MPIX "R" - maybe it is already with the 5R.


300mm f/2.8 L III was not released yet. Did you mean some different lens?


----------



## scottkinfw (Oct 9, 2020)

sfericean said:


> Oh man...$8K lens to go with my $8K camera. That should make the wife super happy!


I can give you the names of a few good divorce lawyers.


----------



## Fischer (Oct 9, 2020)

lexptr said:


> 300mm f/2.8 L III was not released yet. Did you mean some different lens?


Should be III since I had 3 of them  - but you're right, there's only two 300mm IS L's - so I was thinking between the original 300mm IS L and the 300mm IS L II. For the older model, the non IS 300m f/2.8 it still had the lead elements that had several optical advantages it took several years to match.

Good thing is that the change away from lead made lens makers focus a lot more on reducing optical flaws through design improvements and new coatings.


----------



## RobbieHat (Oct 9, 2020)

Fischer said:


> 300mm + large MPIX R + 1.4x & 2x extenders = no need for longer FL options for the 99%.
> 
> Only thing the 5DS/R w/300mm f/2.8 lacks vs the 5DIV w/400mm f/2.8 is more fps. Add the 1.4x & 2x extenders to the 5DS/R packages and you are far ahead in shooting options. With the large MPIX R the speed issue will be gone.


I would rather not add that much glass between my native lens and sensor. Introduces all sorts of potential issues around loss of resolution, weather sealing, stress points, size, weight, etc. I get the point that it can be done, but I would rather have a native longer focal length lens that is lighter and faster and then consider what extenders I want to put on it to enhance reach at the requisite loss of speed and resolution. 

Bob


----------



## Globetrotter Rick (Oct 10, 2020)

Curious about what new RF lenses may be possible, but right now I need a pancake travel lens. Would love an RF 20mm f/2


----------



## Fischer (Oct 11, 2020)

RobbieHat said:


> I would rather not add that much glass between my native lens and sensor. Introduces all sorts of potential issues around loss of resolution, weather sealing, stress points, size, weight, etc. I get the point that it can be done, but I would rather have a native longer focal length lens that is lighter and faster and then consider what extenders I want to put on it to enhance reach at the requisite loss of speed and resolution.
> 
> Bob


You miss the point. More MPIX lets you forgo the extra 100mm FL from the 300 to 400 f/2.8. No need for extra glass. 

If you also get the extenders to supplement your high MPIX camera with the 300mm f/2.8 you are far ahead in options compared to shooting with a lower MPIX camera and a 400mm lens - and with more money in your pocket to boot!


----------

