# Announcement Soon: Canon RF 16mm f/2.8 and Canon RF 100-400mm f/5.6-7.1 IS USM



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jun 21, 2021)

> The long-rumored Canon RF 14-35mm f/4L IS USM will be announced soon as reported easrlier this week, and it was a longtime part of the Canon RF lens roadmap.
> Canon will also be announcing a Canon RF 100-400mm f/5.6-7.1 IS USM in the near future. This is a non-L lens. While I cannot confirm the aperture range of this lens yet, I have reported it as an f/5.6-7.1 IS USM on the roadmap.
> The third lens will be a Canon RF 16mm f/2.8 prime lens. This is a non-L prime lens and has not appeared on the roadmap until now. This is an interesting prime lens for a full-frame sensor. If an APS-C RF mount camera is coming, this would be a nice and compact 25mm f/2.8.
> More to come…



Continue reading...


----------



## H. Jones (Jun 21, 2021)

I actually really hope the 16mm is a nice cheap full-frame compatible prime, that would be an incredibly full frame popular lens if it was around $500-600.

But that said--the combination of the 70-400 and 16mm make me think an APS-C camera is coming soon. Both lenses would make an excellent start to a crop camera if they were cheap enough. The 70-400 sounds like an upgrade over the typical APS-C 70-300 sorta kit lens, though I'm sure that's a full frame lens as well and will make an excellent small travel zoom, especially with the wide end being 70mm.


----------



## john1970 (Jun 21, 2021)

Was really hoping that one of the lens would be a 35 mm f1.2.


----------



## Aaron D (Jun 21, 2021)

That 16mm would be a great focal length for dance floor photos or all kinds of in-your-face group shots......


----------



## Rpaulsen (Jun 21, 2021)

I’m really hoping the 16mm will be IS, though I guess IBIS would negate the need, but a tiny 16mm would be perfect for gimbal/handheld dance floor videos. My wedding videos got so much better when I started handholding my camera with a light super wide and just one of those tiny Aperture LED lights.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Jun 22, 2021)

But why 7.1 at 400mm? I could understand it and make sense perfectly at 500mm but it's just too dark at 400mm. The 400mm on FF is too short for wildlife most of the time and already at 7.1 will limit the use of TC's.

I don't understand this obsession of Canon making huge 1kg lenses and then trying to save weight on everything affordable by making lenses super dark.


----------



## H. Jones (Jun 22, 2021)

blackcoffee17 said:


> But why 7.1 at 400mm? I could understand it and make sense perfectly at 500mm but it's just too dark at 400mm. The 400mm on FF is too short for wildlife most of the time and already at 7.1 will limit the use of TC's.
> 
> I don't understand this obsession of Canon making huge 1kg lenses and then trying to save weight on everything affordable by making lenses super dark.


Not unlike the 100-500 4.5-7.1 basically being a 100-400 f/5.6 with extra reach, this is a EF 70-300 F/5.6 with 100mm tacked onto the end. I'm sure it will be roughly F/5.6 at 300mm. 

400mm at F/7.1 is a 58mm filter thread, so this is going to be a very small and cheap lens.


----------



## Frodo (Jun 22, 2021)

Hoping the 16mm/2.8 is a full frame lens with low coma and sharp wide open as this would be a great astro lens to take hiking. If so, I'd get one.


----------



## Andy Westwood (Jun 22, 2021)

I hope the 16mm doesn’t have IS so making it smaller, lighter and hopefully cheaper, given many RF Mount bodies now and in the future will have IBIS and at 16mm IBIS should be enough


----------



## Chaitanya (Jun 22, 2021)

I hope both these lenses have a good mag ratio(higher than .3x) which would be great for crop bodies. That 16mm lens with high mag ratio would be a good option to Venus 15mm f/4 macro for ultrawide macros.


----------



## rontele7 (Jun 22, 2021)

400mm and 500mm at f/7.1 is just terrible.

Sony has a 200-600 f/6.3 for $2k. And it’s a great lens.

Why can’t Canon at least match Sony?


----------



## usern4cr (Jun 22, 2021)

rontele7 said:


> 400mm and 500mm at f/7.1 is just terrible.
> 
> Sony has a 200-600 f/6.3 for $2k. And it’s a great lens.
> 
> Why can’t Canon at least match Sony?


If you think 500mm f7.1 is just terrible, you must have never taken photos with the RF 100-500 f5.6-7.1L lens.
It is the best & most useful RF lens they've made so far for my purposes.

With that said, it will be nice to see future super tele RF lenses that get closer to 100mm entrance pupils for those with bigger wallets & biceps.


----------



## usern4cr (Jun 22, 2021)

Craig mentioned the 16mm f2.8 might be for a crop sensor which would be 25mm f2.8.
But a 1.6x crop would make it a FF equivalent ~26mm f4.5.


----------



## goldenhusky (Jun 22, 2021)

While I am not a fan of ultra wide lenses 16mm sounds like an exciting lens. 70-400 is also a very versatile focal length. I am still not a fan of f/7.1. Regardless if the price is right this will be a good beginner wildlife lens for some folks.


----------



## SnowMiku (Jun 22, 2021)

Why are the consumer RF lenses such as the Canon RF 70-400mm f/5.6-7.1 IS USM so slow? I understand they have to make these lenses cheaper, but if they want people to upgrade and move on from EF then they should match the EF apertures. I guess since the RF system can focus at more narrow apertures they can get away with slower and cheaper lenses that are more profitable. 

If this was f/5.6 at 300mm or even f/6.3 at 400mm I would consider buying an RF crop body in the future. Since it starts at f/5.6 I doubt it's going to be f/5.6 at 300mm.

I wish they would have made a consumer EF 100-400mm F/4.5 - f/5.6.


----------



## Mr Majestyk (Jun 22, 2021)

blackcoffee17 said:


> But why 7.1 at 400mm? I could understand it and make sense perfectly at 500mm but it's just too dark at 400mm. The 400mm on FF is too short for wildlife most of the time and already at 7.1 will limit the use of TC's.
> 
> I don't understand this obsession of Canon making huge 1kg lenses and then trying to save weight on everything affordable by making lenses super dark.


me neither, totally absurd. I could get it if the 100-500L say weren't an L and was half the price, and they also announced a 150-500 f/5.6L IS, but so far we are only getting slow apertures L or not. Sure build the 70-400 as slow as you like, but where is the RF repalcement for the EF 100-400L II f4.5-5.6. Maybe put that on the road map to given people confidence you haven't entirely lost the plot.


----------



## David - Sydney (Jun 22, 2021)

rontele7 said:


> 400mm and 500mm at f/7.1 is just terrible.
> 
> Sony has a 200-600 f/6.3 for $2k. And it’s a great lens.
> 
> Why can’t Canon at least match Sony?


I don't think that Canon needs to match Sony. They march to their own drum.
The RF100-500mm is a great lens. Sharp at 500mm and perfect for moon shots  
f7.1 is still manageable even at higher ISO. 
Works well with 1.4/2x teleconvertors as well which will give you very narrow apereture.
The 600/800 f11 lenses show that you don't need wide apereture to get good shots in good light.
Not as great in low light/wide aperture though. Big whites will give you that at an appropriate price.


----------



## David - Sydney (Jun 22, 2021)

Mr Majestyk said:


> me neither, totally absurd. I could get it if the 100-500L say weren't an L and was half the price, and they also announced a 150-500 f/5.6L IS, but so far we are only getting slow apertures L or not. Sure build the 70-400 as slow as you like, but where is the RF repalcement for the EF 100-400L II f4.5-5.6. Maybe put that on the road map to given people confidence you haven't entirely lost the plot.


Not sure what you mean... The RF100-500mm is the replacement EF100-400 with 100mm tacked on. It is approximately f5.6 @400mm. I am glad that they added the extra 100mm even at the expense of ~2/3 stop difference. The choice is mine whether to limit the reach to 400mm/5.6 like the EF100-400mm or enjoy the extra reach at a higher ISO.... hint the latter one


----------



## rontele7 (Jun 22, 2021)

usern4cr said:


> If you think 500mm f7.1 is just terrible, you must have never taken photos with the RF 100-500 f5.6-7.1L lens.
> It is the best & most useful RF lens they've made so far for my purposes.
> 
> With that said, it will be nice to see future super tele RF lenses that get closer to 100mm entrance pupils for those with bigger wallets & biceps.


$3k for an f/7.1 lens is objectively bad.

If your uses are exclusively shooting at noon on sunny days, then that’s great, but slow lenses break down as soon as the light drops, even a partly cloudy day at f/7.1 requires a shutter well below 1/1000th. It’s just bad.

Sony gives users 1 stop faster, 100mm extra, for $1k less. Why can’t Canon compete?


----------



## Czardoom (Jun 22, 2021)

That 70-400mm certainly catches my eye. And keep in mind that the admin is just guessing at the aperture - and even if he is correct, I guess it is expected to get the usual "7.1 is terrible" blah blah comments. Of course, those who actually have used the 100-500 at 7.1 realize there is no issue with 7.1. With today's cameras easily shooting practically noise free at ISO 3200 and even 6400, this would be the same as shooting at f/2.0 or so back in the day when we used ISO 400 film - or even the early days of digital when we might not have gone past ISO 400. So, if f/2.0 or f/2.8 is too slow, then keep on complaining. If they can get this lens under 1,000 grams, then it will be something I will seriously consider.


----------



## Aussie shooter (Jun 22, 2021)

Will be watch ing this very closely. I need a wide FF lens for Aurora photography but cannot justify the 3.5k price tag of the 15-35. This could be perfect.


----------



## Czardoom (Jun 22, 2021)

rontele7 said:


> $3k for an f/7.1 lens is objectively bad.
> 
> If your uses are exclusively shooting at noon on sunny days, then that’s great, but slow lenses break down as soon as the light drops, even a partly cloudy day at f/7.1 requires a shutter well below 1/1000th. It’s just bad.
> 
> Sony gives users 1 stop faster, 100mm extra, for $1k less. Why can’t Canon compete?


F/6.3 is *1/3rd* of a stop faster than f/7.1. Not 1 stop. Their 200-600mm f/5.6-6.3 is also much heavier than Canon's RF 100-500mm.

So, it all depends on your priorities. I would consider Canon's lens, but would never consider a lens over 2,000 grams.


----------



## chasingrealness (Jun 22, 2021)

Frodo said:


> Hoping the 16mm/2.8 is a full frame lens with low coma and sharp wide open as this would be a great astro lens to take hiking. If so, I'd get one.


100% agree. I hope it’s sturdy/weather-sealed, too, if possible.


----------



## David - Sydney (Jun 22, 2021)

rontele7 said:


> $3k for an f/7.1 lens is objectively bad.
> 
> If your uses are exclusively shooting at noon on sunny days, then that’s great, but slow lenses break down as soon as the light drops, even a partly cloudy day at f/7.1 requires a shutter well below 1/1000th. It’s just bad.
> 
> Sony gives users 1 stop faster, 100mm extra, for $1k less. Why can’t Canon compete?


The RF100-500mm is expensive but also more recent that the Sony 200-600mm. That said, I got mine at 20% off local recommended retail price on sale which was nice. 
Not 1 stop difference. 
Sony have some advantages but you should consider the following before you make blanket statements like you have....
- The Sony lens/A9ii is ~50% heavier than R5/100-500mm although you should take a spare Canon battery to compare completely (not in your hand of course).
- Sony is longer for storage and usage vs the very convenient collapsed design of the Canon
- Sony has greater focus breathing when changing focal length
- Sony has double the minimum focal distance


----------



## Pixel (Jun 22, 2021)

If these are to be "announced soon" does that mean the R3 announcement is still a ways away?


----------



## unfocused (Jun 22, 2021)

I just want Canon to deliver some 100-500 lenses to stores before they start releasing any more lenses. Heck, you can't even get a 24-105 f4 lens right now.


----------



## quiquae (Jun 22, 2021)

The answer to that is, if a 100-400mm F4.5-5.6 is what you want, you buy the EF version, which is still in the catalogue and works great on RF bodies. Canon is designing the new RF lenses to serve needs that couldn't be met with EF.


----------



## Countess Schlick (Jun 22, 2021)

This announcement is perfect for me. I've been eyeing the Rokinon 14 mm f/2.8, wanting a nice, cheap, wide-angle lens, but I've heard some horror stories about outdated firmware that doesn't work with an R6. I was almost considering getting the RF 14-35mm f/4 L, but I really just wanted a fast prime at the short end. The RF 16mm f/2.8 sounds perfect. I need to give Canon my money ASAP.

Also, I've been waiting for a cheap RF telephoto-zoom lens for years and years. I've been so close to buying the RF 100-500mm so many times, but I just cannot justify paying 3700 CAD on a lens when I am just an enthusiast. I've been even closer to buying the new EF 70-300mm USM, but I really didn't want to invest in an EF lens that I was sure Canon would replace with an RF equivalent eventually. The RF 70-400mm sounds great. I'm hoping the aperture will start at f/4 at 70mm like the EF 70-300mm does, but 5.6 isn't a dealbreaker for me at all. I own an RF 600mm, and the extra 100mm helps close the gap at the long end of the lenses I own. 

I really cannot overstate how excited I am. I'm going to lose it when we finally get images of these lenses.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 22, 2021)

unfocused said:


> I just want Canon to deliver some 100-500 lenses to stores before they start releasing any more lenses. Heck, you can't even get a 24-105 f4 lens right now.


Is that Canon or the global supply chain issues? Office chairs I had ordered are delayed weeks because the manufacturer can’t get the metal needed for them. A bed we ordered was supposed to have been delivered already, but that was pushed to August. 

Regardless of the reason, it’s annoying. I likely won’t use an RF 100-500 in earnest until I have an R3 in my hands, but I do have an EOS R and I am somewhat tempted to just buy the 100-500 sooner than later (they pop up on Amazon occasionally).


----------



## dcm (Jun 22, 2021)

The RF70-400 may be an upgrade to the $549 Canon EF 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS II USM lens in much the same way the RF 100-500 is an upgrade to the EF 100-400L II. It could maintain similar characteristics for the 70-300 range, and add another 100mm that goes to f/7.1. This would be useful since it probably won't accept an extender. I used the EF version on my M5 and 6D for a while before loaning it to a budding photographer along with the 6D. Then you have a zoom to 400, 600, and 800 for the non-L crowd.


----------



## Maximilian (Jun 22, 2021)

The 14-35 will surely be the star of the show. 
But finally some more non-L stuff. It will be interesting to see how big/small the 16 mm will be. 
It could be a great travel companion for travel, if it is small. I don't expect a pancake but could it be as small as the 35/1.8?
For the tele will be interesting, how well it performs alongside the 100-500 in IQ per price ratio  .


----------



## FrenchFry (Jun 22, 2021)

Pixel said:


> If these are to be "announced soon" does that mean the R3 announcement is still a ways away?


Could mean the R3 announcement will also be soon if these are announced together.
Personally I hope they announce some good action-oriented fast primes with the R3, but if these are in addition to those, the more the merrier!


----------



## FrenchFry (Jun 22, 2021)

unfocused said:


> I just want Canon to deliver some 100-500 lenses to stores before they start releasing any more lenses. Heck, you can't even get a 24-105 f4 lens right now.


What’s the harm in releasing more lenses? Canon's supply chain issues are caused by a global pandemic's effect on raw materials, labor, and shipping, not because the company is producing too many models of RF lenses.
If anything, announcements keep people talking about Canon and give us something to look forward to as we wait for stock to reach the shelves. It reminds us that Canon has more exciting products on the way!
I would much rather know the confirmed lens roadmap and approximate release dates long in advance (years even!) than wait for products to be announced only right before they hit the shelves. It would be so helpful to know which lenses to get now and which ones to wait for instead, based on personal shooting style. Consumers may purchase more EF lenses in some cases if they know that the RF replacement is ages away. Some might conversely decide that they prefer to wait for the RF version of the lens for a few weeks/months if they know it is coming soon and they prefer not to use the adapter. Alerting customers to upcoming releases so they can make informed decisions should help foster customer loyalty. Having more official lens announcements could even help consumers deciding between RF lenses (do some people who just bought the RF 15-35 wish they had waited for the smaller/lighter/cheaper 14-35 now that's it's on the cusp of being announced)? Annouments can also help people budget in advance so they buy more products.
I personally would like to see more announcements and an official Canon Roadmap, rather than wondering what comes next.


----------



## FrenchFry (Jun 22, 2021)

Maximilian said:


> For the tele will be interesting, how well it performs alongside the 100-500 in IQ per price ratio  .


I'm guessing the new lens will cost about 50% of the 100-500's price for about 85-90% of the performance. Pricing is always so irrational when chasing higher increments in quality. Like the cost of a big white prime vs. the cost of the excellent 100-500. Are the big whites really 4-5x better?


----------



## FrenchFry (Jun 22, 2021)

chasingrealness said:


> 100% agree. I hope it’s sturdy/weather-sealed, too, if possible.


That would be really nice, but the article mentions non-L several times, so advanced weather sealing is a lot less likely.


----------



## Maximilian (Jun 22, 2021)

FrenchFry said:


> I'm guessing the new lens will cost about 50% of the 100-500's price for about 85-90% of the performance.


Let's hope, you are right.
When you compare (TdP) the EF70-300II non-L to the EF100-400LII there is more than just 15 % gain in IQ (IMO, let alone the 100 mm additional FL).


> Pricing is always so irrational when chasing higher increments in quality. ...


The prices are really painful, true.
But I wouldn't call it irrational.
It is the same with other extreme technology (High End PCs, HiFi, cars, bikes, watches etc.):
In the beginning, let's call it consumer or mainstream level you have an almost linear rise in performance per price.
And you have high sales numbers, so R&D costs and costs for the production lines and production process are proportioned between much lesser item numbers.
And because of this you get an asymptotic behavior to a horizontal line in performance per price.
The efforts get much, much higher per 1% performance gain.

The only question is, how much performance do you - really - need. Not how much you want


----------



## jolyonralph (Jun 22, 2021)

The 70-400 is probably going to cost somewhere in the $600-$800 range.


----------



## Joules (Jun 22, 2021)

Mr Majestyk said:


> but where is the RF repalcement for the EF 100-400L II f4.5-5.6. Maybe put that on the road map to given people confidence you haven't entirely lost the plot.


The RF 100-500 4.5-7.1 replaces the EF 100-400 mm 4.5-5.6 II in the sense that it offers comparable or slightly better IQ with a bit more reach and covering all the focal lengths of the EF version. It also is lighter and fully compatible with IBIS. If that isn't a replacement, what is?

Just to remind folks: If you crop a 400 5.6 image to the same field of view of a 500 7.1 image, both images will look virtually identical - unless your sensor is so low resolution that you can't crop this much, in which case the 500 7.1 image looks better.

A 100-500 mm 5.6 would be a new line, not a replacement. 400 5.6 and 500 7.1 are just 70 mm openings, while 500 5.6 would be 89. Much larger and heavier and unlike the 100-400mm 4.5-5.6 II and 100-500 mm 4.5-7.1 which are extremely similar in terms of their use case, a lens with a wider opening will be better suited to even more distant subjects.


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Jun 22, 2021)

70-400 would be great. It could replace my 70-200 and my 200-500 if the additional sharpness at 400mm makes up for the missing 100mm. In practice I left the 200-500 at home host of the time, because there is a limit to the number of lenses I can carry around all day.

The big plus of the 100-500 is the very low minimum focussing distance. You can focus on your own feet even at 500mm. I hope that the 70-400 will also have that advantage. I do expect it to cost close to $2,000 though. The old 70-300 f/4-5.6 L already costs 1359 Euros in Germany.


----------



## dilbert (Jun 22, 2021)

If the 70-400 is to replace the 70-300, how will the size compare? And yes, when it comes to lenses, size is a thing 'cause we all got bags to fit these things in ...


----------



## foxfender (Jun 22, 2021)

CANON RF 16MM F/2.8​The question is: will it wobble?


----------



## AlanF (Jun 22, 2021)

There are lots of uninformed comments about the f/7.1 aperture of the 100-500mm lens being a serious drawback. It's a splendid lens: at the shorter focal lengths it has prime level sharpness; at 500mm, it outresolves both the 400mm DO II and 100-400mm II. It's very sharp at close distances, which was a weak spot with the 100-400mm. It also works unexpectedly well with the RF 2x at f/14, far better than the 100-400mm II with the EF 2xTCIII. A 70-400mm f/7.1 will be an absolute boon to those who want a lightweight zoom that gives reasonable performance, and will probably be affordable. I will buy one for my wife, who is finding the current zooms heavier each year - I can't handle the weight of a 200-500mm f/5.6 or the Sony 200-600mm.


----------



## OTMT (Jun 22, 2021)

foxfender said:


> CANON RF 16MM F/2.8​The question is: will it wobble?


Probably not. Canon learned from the 15-35L. They will just limit the IBIS through firmware. Wider angles need less stabilization anyhow, so they can probably still eek 4-5 stops of stabilization even while limiting the IBIS to prevent wobble.


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Jun 22, 2021)

The 16mm f/2.8 would have to be very cheap, very light or very sharp to be an alternative to my 15-30 f/2.8 from Tamron, which has a very good image quality even in the corners.


----------



## Ozarker (Jun 22, 2021)

People talking about how no IS makes the lens cheaper... Looking at you RF 85mm f/1.2L and 50mm f/1.2L!


----------



## Traveler (Jun 22, 2021)

Canon, why are you doing that?!
I wanted ONE of my EF 70-300/5.6 OR EF 16-35/4 to be replaced (so I don't need to bother with changing the adaptor back and forth).
But that 2mm at the wider end of 14-35 would be amazing (if the filter is 77 mm) and 70-400 would be a dream – but I'm worried that the price would follow Sony's 70-300 G (~USD 1200). The EF 70-300 is half the price.
And, I would even consider the 16mm if it's lightweigh. It would be a perfect "just-in-case-I-need-a-wide-angle" lens.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Jun 22, 2021)

rontele7 said:


> $3k for an f/7.1 lens is objectively bad.
> 
> If your uses are exclusively shooting at noon on sunny days, then that’s great, but slow lenses break down as soon as the light drops, even a partly cloudy day at f/7.1 requires a shutter well below 1/1000th. It’s just bad.
> 
> Sony gives users 1 stop faster, 100mm extra, for $1k less. Why can’t Canon compete?



I don't really agree with you here. The 100-500 is the replacement for the EF 100-400 with extra 100mm on top. It's still around 5.6 at 400mm so nothing is lost. The crucial point here is the size and weight is very similar to the 100-400 and that was Canon's main focus with this lens. It meant to be a take everywhere super telephoto. The Sony 200-600 is 2kg, much larger and heavier so not the same category.

That being said, i think the 100-500 is quite overpriced compared to the excellent 100-400 II and no longer option available in Canon land (F11 lenses ignored).


----------



## Alam (Jun 22, 2021)

rontele7 said:


> 400mm and 500mm at f/7.1 is just terrible.
> 
> Sony has a 200-600 f/6.3 for $2k. And it’s a great lens.
> 
> Why can’t Canon at least match Sony?


200-600 sounds nice in the paper , until I tried to carry it on hiking

Here's my complaints that brought me back to classic 100-400 :
Too big to fit in sling bag, end up in backpack and it take time to take and store it
Can't hang it on my neck since the weight choke me a
it restricts my maneuver, and kind of dumb to carry 100-400 along since the benefit is too small, better carry apsc and get that extra reach

If it doesn't fit in sling bag, or comfortable enough hanging on neck, better prime for telephoto imo


----------



## chasingrealness (Jun 22, 2021)

FrenchFry said:


> That would be really nice, but the article mentions non-L several times, so advanced weather sealing is a lot less likely.


Le sigh…


----------



## dlee13 (Jun 22, 2021)

That 16mm f/2.8 is honestly a dream lens for me I’ve been wanting for years! This will completely my lineup and will likely be a day 1 preorder for me once announced!


----------



## Methodical (Jun 22, 2021)

usern4cr said:


> If you think 500mm f7.1 is just terrible, you must have never taken photos with the RF 100-500 f5.6-7.1L lens.
> It is the best & most useful RF lens they've made so far for my purposes.
> 
> With that said, it will be nice to see future super tele RF lenses that get closer to 100mm entrance pupils for those with bigger wallets & biceps.


Agree. Most of these comments typically come from those who have never used the lens.


----------



## Methodical (Jun 22, 2021)

rontele7 said:


> $3k for an f/7.1 lens is objectively bad.
> 
> If your uses are exclusively shooting at noon on sunny days, then that’s great, but slow lenses break down as soon as the light drops, even a partly cloudy day at f/7.1 requires a shutter well below 1/1000th. It’s just bad.
> 
> Sony gives users 1 stop faster, 100mm extra, for $1k less. Why can’t Canon compete?


Yeah, but who shoots the 600 at 500? Sounds like you should go to Sony since they are giving you what you want.


----------



## Methodical (Jun 22, 2021)

rontele7 said:


> 400mm and 500mm at f/7.1 is just terrible.
> 
> Sony has a 200-600 f/6.3 for $2k. And it’s a great lens.
> 
> Why can’t Canon at least match Sony?


It's great you have choices. It sounds like Sony is where you should be to get what you want since Canon is not doing it for you.


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Jun 22, 2021)

As I mainly use f/8 and f/11 anyway, f/7.1 would be okay for me. In the DSLR age small apartures meant bad autofocus and dark viewfinder, but both issues are resolved with the mirrorless cameras. Autofocus works great and the viewfinder gets as bright as you want it to be. Even the 800mm f/11 would be interesting to me.


----------



## Exploreshootshare (Jun 22, 2021)

I just don’t get why people still compare the RF 100-500mm to Sonys 200-600mm lense. Those lenses feature completely different designs for different purposes.

RF 100-500mm - 200-600mm
77mm Filter - 96mm filter thread
20 cm - 32 cm
1.45 kg - 2.1 kg
0,5 m - 2,4 m Minimum focus

If you look at the purposes intended, it is even clearer:

RF: possible walk-around lense 
Sony: most „sit and wait“ lense… (birders e.g.)


RF: landscapes, sports, wildlife (77mm thread…) 
Sony: almost exclusively wild-life
The narrower end and the exceptional minimum focus makes the RF 100-500mm a great sport lense for example for soccer, handball (huge in Germany) while the 200-600mm isn’t suitable here.

In addition, the RF 100-500mm is an L lense, the 200-600mm is not a G Master lense, a fact which a lot of users complained on the sonyalpharumors site when the lense was released. Since the 200-600mm features weather sealing and still is not a GMaster lense, it likely says that the image quality is not the best possible. (while it is still good IQ)

The Sony 200-600mm is a great option for wildlife photography. And yes, it is an offering Canon does not have. But Canon has a different, much more versatile and way more handy option. Comparing those lense just doesn’t make sense.


I don´t wanna trash the Sony 200-600mm lense here, because it great lense for what it is. But I’m sick and tired of people bitching and moaning about the fact, that the 200-600mm is* one third of stop faster between 472-500mm* and people literally comparing pears and apples. Furthermore, they only compare a single tiny fact…


----------



## dlee13 (Jun 22, 2021)

rontele7 said:


> 400mm and 500mm at f/7.1 is just terrible.
> 
> Sony has a 200-600 f/6.3 for $2k. And it’s a great lens.
> 
> Why can’t Canon at least match Sony?


I haven’t used the Canon 100-500mm but I did get to use the Sony for an afternoon on the A9II and it’s certainly a nice lens but VERY heavy! An hour of carrying that around and my back was aching. The RF may be slower but it’s also nearly 1kg lighter and smaller too so that’s where the increased price comes in.


----------



## Exploreshootshare (Jun 22, 2021)

When developing a lense the manufacturers don't only think about the current cameras adapted to it, but even more about future cameras and sensors. Between the release of a newly developed lense and its Verson II successor there are usually about 10 years time (more or less) sometimes even more. The regular camera cycle is about 3-max. 4 years for Mk II and Mk III three model. 

So, when thinking about F7.1. one should consider the next two generations of sensors and their ISO capabilities. And to be honest: F7.1. is hardly an issue now and won't be an issue at all for the R´s XYZ Mk II in the future. 

But their is a huge issue and threatens camera manufacturers more and more: the portability of great smartphone cameras AND luggage restrictions when travelling. Therefore, lenses need be small and F7.1. is a great compromise. 

RF 100-500mm being the same size as the EF 100-400mm and keeping the 77mm filters while actually improving an amazing lense a little is absolutely genius! Even at F7.1...


----------



## BBarn (Jun 22, 2021)

It will be nice if some of the new RF lenses are relatively small and light. The bigger R camera's are great, but the RP is wonderfully small for a FF, and feels best when used with smaller lenses like the 24-105 IS STM and the smaller primes. Plus, the need for smaller/lighter RF lenses will grow if Canon utilizes the RF mount for a small APS-C camera(s).

So here's hoping that some of the new RF lenses like the 14-35, 16, and 70-400 will be relatively small and light for their class.


----------



## Exploreshootshare (Jun 22, 2021)

I have had soooo many thoughts about the RF 16 F2.8mm.

+ a great Astro option without spending 2.K $. 
+ group shots in darker surroundings
+ pair it with the RF 14-35mm F4 (hiking, travel option) while RF 16mm for cityscapes at night/ Astro. 

On the other hand: 
- I wish it was F1.8 (like the amazing 35mm F1.8) 
- I was hoping for an absolute killer astro lense when the rumored 16mm F1/ F1.4 patents appeared, so I'm actually a bit disappointed. 

I'd love it if is the same size as the 35mm F1.8. or smaller (if that´s possible). Given the right price I'll get one asap. 

Canon: What are you doing to my bank account this?!?!!? Argh


----------



## SilverBox (Jun 22, 2021)

Wow, so many people complaining about the extra 2/3 of a stop at the long end of the zoom range! Just put the EF100-400 on an RF adapter and stop kvetching. Not sure what the big deal is on a slow-at-the-long-end non-L zoom. I was shooting an event with the EF100-400 at 5.6 all day (cloudy), 1/200 shutter, iso never went above 400. I would be fine with iso 640 at half the weight and half the cost.


----------



## CameraMan (Jun 22, 2021)

I'm all for slow, smaller and lighter lenses.
I've lugged Canon DLSRs all round the world, on holidays, on work trips, from the 10D all the way up.
But increasingly I feel like a fool. My £500 Android, while not perfect really is very impressive. Not perfect yet, but impressive.
To the point where I sometimes wonder why even bother with all the hassle of carrying all the camera kit.
The only way camera manufactures can compete is smaller lighter slower lenses and then use software etc to correct the images
It's very telling that I can get 15mm super wide angle on my phone - yet for my RP there is no lens anywhere near that, aside from something that costs £2500+
Who is really buying all these huge, heavy and expensive optically perfect lenses?
It's not just the price, but the weight too - well maybe in USA where you can drive everywhere, but as soon as you deal with planes or trains etc, weight is a killer!
Maybe a handful of pros but even there many will have seen a lot of their work vanish over the last 18 months due to Covid lockdowns and won't be in a place to splash out on new gear.


----------



## OTMT (Jun 22, 2021)

CanonFanBoy said:


> People talking about how no IS makes the lens cheaper... Looking at you RF 85mm f/1.2L and 50mm f/1.2L!


Now just imagine if they had IS


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 22, 2021)

CameraMan said:


> It's not just the price, but the weight too - well maybe in USA where you can drive everywhere, but as soon as you deal with planes or trains etc, weight is a killer!


I have traveled to many locations with a kit comprising a 1D X, 24-70/2.8L II, 11-24/4L, TS-E 17L with 145mm filters, and an RRS TQC-14 tripod. That all fits in a Lowepro Fastpak 250 (for the plane, the tripod goes in my Pelican luggage while my MacBook Pro goes in the laptop pocket of the backpack).


----------



## mpmark (Jun 22, 2021)

David - Sydney said:


> Not sure what you mean... The RF100-500mm is the replacement EF100-400 with 100mm tacked on. It is approximately f5.6 @400mm. I am glad that they added the extra 100mm even at the expense of ~2/3 stop difference. The choice is mine whether to limit the reach to 400mm/5.6 like the EF100-400mm or enjoy the extra reach at a higher ISO.... hint the latter one



I'll have to correct you that one, not true, the 100-500 is [email protected], it starts 6.3 at 363mm. Where as the 100-400 starts 5.6 at 312mm up to 400. So the 100-400 clearly brings in more light. Please don't assume and put up false information for others to read.


----------



## yeahright (Jun 22, 2021)

off-topic, I know, but I can't find a list anywhere: is anyone aware of a list of RF lenses INCLUDING the information whether they have a control ring? are the RF 400L and 600L the only ones without one?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 22, 2021)

yeahright said:


> off-topic, I know, but I can't find a list anywhere: is anyone aware of a list of RF lenses INCLUDING the information whether they have a control ring? are the RF 400L and 600L the only ones without one?


All RF lenses except the new supertele lenses have a dedicated control ring. For the 400/2.8 and 600/4, the manual focus ring can be set to function as a control ring, if desired.


----------



## stochasticmotions (Jun 22, 2021)

blackcoffee17 said:


> I don't really agree with you here. The 100-500 is the replacement for the EF 100-400 with extra 100mm on top. It's still around 5.6 at 400mm so nothing is lost. The crucial point here is the size and weight is very similar to the 100-400 and that was Canon's main focus with this lens. It meant to be a take everywhere super telephoto. The Sony 200-600 is 2kg, much larger and heavier so not the same category.
> 
> That being said, i think the 100-500 is quite overpriced compared to the excellent 100-400 II and no longer option available in Canon land (F11 lenses ignored).


As someone who owns the Sony 200-600, Sony 100-400, and Canon 100-400 II I can agree with most of the comments about the fact that the 200-600 is not really in the same league within the same ranges. Both the 100-400 lenses are fantastically sharp (and I have heard that the new 100-500 is on par at least). The 200-600 is better at 600 than either of the 100-400 lenses with a 1.4 teleconverter (which is my most used focal length), but the weight of the 200-600 is significantly higher. What I love about the 200-600 is that it is internally zooming which means I can move from 200-600 with a flick of my finger while shooting birds in flight, but that comes with the issue of having to carry a much longer lens in the bag.

The extra costs of the shorter lenses (and the 100-500) are worth it for those who need the close focus, excellent sharpness and smaller weight, but I can't discount the value that I get out of the 200-600 for $2000. I did not buy the 100-500 when I bought the R5 not because it wasn't a great lens but because it was quite a bit more expensive than the 100-400 (at least in Canada) and I can quite happily use the 100-400 and my 500 f/4 with the adapter with no real issues.


----------



## yeahright (Jun 22, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> All RF lenses except the new supertele lenses have a dedicated control ring. For the 400/2.8 and 600/4, the manual focus ring can be set to function as a control ring, if desired.


thanks!


----------



## unfocused (Jun 22, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Is that Canon or the global supply chain issues? Office chairs I had ordered are delayed weeks because the manufacturer can’t get the metal needed for them. A bed we ordered was supposed to have been delivered already, but that was pushed to August.
> 
> Regardless of the reason, it’s annoying. I likely won’t use an RF 100-500 in earnest until I have an R3 in my hands, but I do have an EOS R and I am somewhat tempted to just buy the 100-500 sooner than later (they pop up on Amazon occasionally).


I'm sure it is global supply chain and rationally I know there is probably little that Canon can do about it, but I am an American so naturally I want what I want and I want it NOW.


----------



## BBarn (Jun 22, 2021)

In addition to the 400 and 600 super teles, the non-L RF zooms (24-105 IS STM, 24-240) and the 50 1.8 prime don't have a dedicated control ring. Instead the non-L zooms and 50 prime have a combo control/focus ring that changes mode via a switch on the lens. It can make things a bit clumsy when swapping between lenses with multiple control/focus ring configurations.


----------



## rontele7 (Jun 22, 2021)

Did you guys hear Sony has a new 24-70 f/2.8? Fingers crossed Canon will release a 29-43mm f/7.1 in order to compete!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 22, 2021)

BBarn said:


> In addition to the 400 and 600 super teles, the non-L RF zooms (24-105 IS STM, 24-240) and the 50 1.8 prime don't have a dedicated control ring. Instead the non-L zooms and 50 prime have a combo control/focus ring that changes mode via a switch on the lens. It can make things a bit clumsy when swapping between lenses with multiple control/focus ring configurations.


I wasn't aware of that, thanks!

The switching is a bit annoying. That was a bugaboo with the EF 70-300L, where the relative positions of the zoom and focus rings are swapped compared to other L lenses.


----------



## JustUs7 (Jun 22, 2021)

BBarn said:


> In addition to the 400 and 600 super teles, the non-L RF zooms (24-105 IS STM, 24-240) and the 50 1.8 prime don't have a dedicated control ring. Instead the non-L zooms and 50 prime have a combo control/focus ring that changes mode via a switch on the lens. It can make things a bit clumsy when swapping between lenses with multiple control/focus ring configurations.



Worth noting that, at least with the 24-240, you need to take the additional step of switching to manual focus in the menu as well for full time manual focus. You can, however, fine tune auto focus without the menu change. Just know that focus peaking will not be available without the menu change. 

M6II is handy with an AF/MF switch on the camera body. Kind of wish they did that with the RP.


----------



## InchMetric (Jun 22, 2021)

mpmark said:


> I'll have to correct you that one, not true, the 100-500 is [email protected], it starts 6.3 at 363mm. Where as the 100-400 starts 5.6 at 312mm up to 400. So the 100-400 clearly brings in more light. Please don't assume and put up false information for others to read.


My understanding that there is enough rounding and fudging (never in the consumers' favor) by makers that I can't be certain of the 5.6 at 400 of the 100-400. Not disputing a tiny difference at that focal length, but being careful not to trust any number as guaranteed.


----------



## JustUs7 (Jun 22, 2021)

InchMetric said:


> My understanding that there is enough rounding and fudging (never in the consumers' favor) by makers that I can't be certain of the 5.6 at 400 of the 100-400. Not disputing a tiny difference at that focal length, but being careful not to trust any number as guaranteed.



My understanding is that the 100-500 tops out at f/6.7 if you set your camera up for 1/2 stop increments instead of 1/3rd or 1 stop (which might show f/8 max at 500mm). The actual number in the patent is somewhere around 6.9 or so.


----------



## InchMetric (Jun 22, 2021)

FamilyGuy said:


> My understanding is that the 100-500 tops out at f/6.7 if you set your camera up for 1/2 stop increments instead of 1/3rd or 1 stop (which might show f/8 max at 500mm). The actual number in the patent is somewhere around 6.9 or so.


It might be worth distinguising between what the display shows and at what focal length it jumps to the next displayed stop, versus the actual f number at a given focal length.



OTMT said:


> Now just imagine if they (RF 50, 85 f1.2) had IS.


I presume if they has IS, they'd be bigger, and with an element wiggling around off axis they wouldn't be as sharp. TANSTAAFL.


----------



## melgross (Jun 22, 2021)

blackcoffee17 said:


> But why 7.1 at 400mm? I could understand it and make sense perfectly at 500mm but it's just too dark at 400mm. The 400mm on FF is too short for wildlife most of the time and already at 7.1 will limit the use of TC's.
> 
> I don't understand this obsession of Canon making huge 1kg lenses and then trying to save weight on everything affordable by making lenses super dark.


It’s not “super dark”. Modern cameras focus quite well at that aperture, and the increased quality of higher ISOs makes it practical as does the excellent IS. The success of the 600 and 800 f11 lenses are some proof of that.


----------



## melgross (Jun 22, 2021)

Pixel said:


> If these are to be "announced soon" does that mean the R3 announcement is still a ways away?


I would guess we’ll see it close to the olympics. So it shouldn’t be too much longer. Likely the same for the Nikon Z9.


----------



## Exploreshootshare (Jun 22, 2021)

rontele7 said:


> Did you guys hear Sony has a new 24-70 f/2.8? Fingers crossed Canon will release a 29-43mm f/7.1 in order to compete!


Did you hear Canon has a 28-70mm F2 and a freaking amazing 70-200mm F2.8? They're both one of the reasons why Sony is developing those two lense AGAIN just four and five years after they hit the market. And according to user comments on Sonyalpha rumors, the 70-200mm can't always keep up with 30FPS from the A1 for some reason...


----------



## Exploreshootshare (Jun 22, 2021)

melgross said:


> The success of the 600 and 800 f11 lenses are some proof of that.


Sony and Nikon will both make lenses like that. They value for money is just great, although it is a compromise lense of course. Plus it can actually do what a smartphone can't...


----------



## Ozarker (Jun 22, 2021)

rontele7 said:


> Did you guys hear Sony has a new 24-70 f/2.8? Fingers crossed Canon will release a 29-43mm f/7.1 in order to compete!


RF 28-70 f/2L
RF 24-70 f/2.8L

Let me know when Sony catches up.


----------



## HMC11 (Jun 22, 2021)

CameraMan said:


> It's very telling that I can get 15mm super wide angle on my phone - yet for my RP there is no lens anywhere near that, aside from something that costs £2500+


There's actually a Samyang AF 14mm F2.8 for RF weighing 523g and can be bought for less than $600, and a manual focus version for less than $350 but weigh more at 800g. Unless, of course, you are referring to only native lenses.


----------



## 1D4 (Jun 22, 2021)

rontele7 said:


> $3k for an f/7.1 lens is objectively bad.
> 
> If your uses are exclusively shooting at noon on sunny days, then that’s great, but slow lenses break down as soon as the light drops, even a partly cloudy day at f/7.1 requires a shutter well below 1/1000th. It’s just bad.
> 
> Sony gives users 1 stop faster, 100mm extra, for $1k less. Why can’t Canon compete?



You forgot to mention that the Sony is a 3x zoom and the Canon is 5x and the latter is more expensive to produce. 200-600 is great if all you're doing is shooting things at a long distance, but if you need to zoom out, the 100mm vs. 200mm difference is huge. In my photography, a zoom that starts at 200mm is useless. I tried that with the Nikkor 200-500, and constantly needed to switch between that and the Nikkor 70-200 FL ED to make sure I could frame closer subjects. The RF100-500 works perfectly for my needs, and I'm not missing shots at the wide end anymore.


----------



## noncho (Jun 22, 2021)

RF 16 2.8 sounds interesting!
The only telephoto lens I'm jelous about is Nikon 500 5.6 PF.
Please bring something silimar for RF.
Until that I'll use my Sigma 150-600C.


----------



## mpmark (Jun 22, 2021)

InchMetric said:


> My understanding that there is enough rounding and fudging (never in the consumers' favor) by makers that I can't be certain of the 5.6 at 400 of the 100-400. Not disputing a tiny difference at that focal length, but being careful not to trust any number as guaranteed.


Im giving you facts, that's all. In the end the 100-400 does let in more light, comparing it to the 100-500 is misleading, the new lens is slower at all focal lengths above 300mm, its bad enough how low light the 100-400 already is, canon made a mistake here in my view. but that's my view. 7.1 is ridiculously slow and useless for my photography.


----------



## H. Jones (Jun 22, 2021)

mpmark said:


> Im giving you facts, that's all. In the end the 100-400 does let in more light, comparing it to the 100-500 is misleading, the new lens is slower at all focal lengths above 300mm, its bad enough how low light the 100-400 already is, canon made a mistake here in my view. but that's my view. 7.1 is ridiculously slow and useless for my photography.




It is truly, utterly remarkably, speechlessly incredible that anyone on earth can even waste a breath of their time complaining about the difference of F5.6 to F/6.3. Literally.

What on earth are you doing that you feel like 1/3rd of a stop is worth splitting hairs about? These lenses are built for long daylight reach to begin with, if 1/3rd of a stop is going to ruin your photo, it's probably a godawful photo to begin with.

The honest-to-god truth is that the 100-400 and 100-500 are, in practice, the same lens between 100-400, with the 100-500 giving the user a built-in 500mm option if they want it. That's literally it. Whether or not the LCD reads "5.6" or "6.3", it's not going to make a difference. Depending on the setting, the camera literally shows you F/5.6 at 400mm. The majority of 100-400 users are big on teleconverters to begin with, and are out there shooting F/8. Instead the 100-500 gives that extra reach while saving the wide end.

Just wait until you find out about T stops and that your f/2.8 lenses are actually T/3.1... Guess that makes the F/2.8 zooms unusable now too.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 22, 2021)

mpmark said:


> Im giving you facts, that's all. In the end the 100-400 does let in more light, comparing it to the 100-500 is misleading, the new lens is slower at all focal lengths above 300mm, its bad enough how low light the 100-400 already is, canon made a mistake here in my view. but that's my view. 7.1 is ridiculously slow and useless for my photography.


So you're already shooting at high ISO? It's fairly telling that older camera with Auto ISO set fixed at ISO 400 with a flash attached, while newer cameras fix at ISO 1600. Noise performance has improved significantly. 

Having said that, when shooting birds I need high 1/2000 or faster and am often shooting at the beginning or end of the day or with overcast, so I do need pretty high ISO settings. But that's why I have a 600mm f/4. 



H. Jones said:


> Just wait until you find out about T stops and that your f/2.8 lenses are actually T/3.1... Guess that makes the F/2.8 zooms unusable now too.


So true. In fact, the EF 100-400 II is actually T6.3 at the long end, so @mpmark should probably just toss it in the bin, if that 1/3-stop is so problematic the lens must be useless.


----------



## navastronia (Jun 22, 2021)

HMC11 said:


> There's actually a Samyang AF 14mm F2.8 for RF weighing 523g and can be bought for less than $600, and a manual focus version for less than $350 but weigh more at 800g. Unless, of course, you are referring to only native lenses.



Many forumers at CR buy only 1st party glass, so a lens like the Samyang 14mm RF is a no-go for them and basically does not exist, for their purposes. Personally, I can't afford (fast) 1st party glass, so I'll shoot with the Samyang and adapted-Sigma lenses all day long.


----------



## unfocused (Jun 22, 2021)

FrenchFry said:


> What’s the harm in releasing more lenses?...



There may not be any, as none of us knows where exactly the supply chain issues are and what the causes are. But, here are some POTENTIAL harms:

Global electronic component shortage: If Canon cannot deliver existing lenses because of a shortage of electronic components needed for their lenses, then adding new lenses can mean spreading a limited supply of components over more units, which means even longer waits for existing lenses.

Manufacturing facilities are finite: Every time Canon produces a new lens they don't create a new assembly plant. They use existing resources and those resources are finite (they can add new capacity, but that is a multi-year process based on long term demand, not short term shortages). As with the shortage of components, spreading those manufacturing facilities over more units contributes to shortages. 

Added pressure to use third party suppliers that may not be as reliable or as ethical: If Canon cannot meet the demand with their traditional supply chain, they face pressures to farm out components to new third party suppliers who may not have the same reliability as Canon's traditional in-house and subcontractor supply chain. That could mean more units being delivered with substandard components that may fail in the future. Or, worse yet, if could mean buying components that are manufactured in Chinese plants using Uyghur slave labor.

Higher costs to the consumer: Demand already exceeds supply. Adding new lenses will only increase demand. We've already seen price gouging by third party sellers and Canon has said that one of the upsides of the supply shortage is that they are selling more bodies and lenses directly through their own channels, which means added profits for the company (since they charge full retail but don't share it with any retailers), but gives consumers fewer options and fewer discounts from retailers. Both Adorama and B&H offer rebate programs for people using their in-house credit cards. But if they don't have product and you can only get certain products from the Canon store, you won't get those rebates. 

More local retailers closing: Granted, most local camera retailers are already out of business. But, it certainly doesn't help those few remaining businesses if they don't have stock to sell. 

Now, remember, these are just some speculative POTENTIAL harms. Only Canon knows that the real impact, if any, might be. But you asked what the harm might be.

Sure, I agree it would be nice if Canon were more transparent about their future plans. It would make life a lot easier for all of us if we could plan our purchases knowing what future releases Canon has in mind. But, Canon has never released such road maps and I don't see any indication that's what they intend to do.

Now, as I told @neuroanatomist, I fully recognize that I am an impatient, spoiled American consumer who expects to be able to buy any product I want from multiple sources. I recognize the we are in challenging times brought about by a global pandemic, but I can still whine if I want to and frankly, I fully understand that Canon doesn't really care about my whining.


----------



## justaCanonuser (Jun 22, 2021)

john1970 said:


> Was really hoping that one of the lens would be a 35 mm f1.2.


I am pretty sure that at least Canon will come up with an RF version of the EF 35mm f/1.4. They are really serious about the new mount, no doubt.


----------



## justaCanonuser (Jun 22, 2021)

navastronia said:


> Many forumers at CR buy only 1st party glass, so a lens like the Samyang 14mm RF is a no-go for them and basically does not exist, for their purposes. Personally, I can't afford (fast) 1st party glass, so I'll shoot with the Samyang and adapted-Sigma lenses all day long.


In fact, for such a wide lens, manual focus is a good option, since such lenses have a huge DoF anyway. I have a Zeiss 18mm with EF mount which I quite frequently used for street shooting.


----------



## justaCanonuser (Jun 22, 2021)

SnowMiku said:


> Why are the consumer RF lenses such as the Canon RF 70-400mm f/5.6-7.1 IS USM so slow? I understand they have to make these lenses cheaper, but if they want people to upgrade and move on from EF then they should match the EF apertures. I guess since the RF system can focus at more narrow apertures they can get away with slower and cheaper lenses that are more profitable.
> 
> If this was f/5.6 at 300mm or even f/6.3 at 400mm I would consider buying an RF crop body in the future. Since it starts at f/5.6 I doubt it's going to be f/5.6 at 300mm.
> 
> I wish they would have made a consumer EF 100-400mm F/4.5 - f/5.6.


Just wait a bit. I am pretty sure that Sigma and Tamron will come up with RF versions of their 150-600mm f/5-6.3 lenses. Tamron's 150-600mm still opens to f/5.6 @ 400mm, other than Sigma's bit darker zooms, and the G2 is a well made lens for a decent price. Only for fast action, I'd prefer Canon's native lenses, because their AF works better with Canon's cameras.


----------



## AlanF (Jun 22, 2021)

mpmark said:


> Im giving you facts, that's all. In the end the 100-400 does let in more light, comparing it to the 100-500 is misleading, the new lens is slower at all focal lengths above 300mm, its bad enough how low light the 100-400 already is, canon made a mistake here in my view. but that's my view. 7.1 is ridiculously slow and useless for my photography.


The 100-500mm lets in exactly the same amount of light as the 100-400mm II: both have front elements of 71-72mm. If the light is limiting, upping the iso of the 7.1 at 500mm by 2/3 stop over the 5.6 at 400mm at the same shutter speed and downsizing the resulting image by 20% gives the same S/N for a crop image.


----------



## rontele7 (Jun 22, 2021)

Exploreshootshare said:


> Did you hear Canon has a 28-70mm F2 and a freaking amazing 70-200mm F2.8? They're both one of the reasons why Sony is developing those two lense AGAIN just four and five years after they hit the market. And according to user comments on Sonyalpha rumors, the 70-200mm can't always keep up with 30FPS from the A1 for some reason...


A 28-70…as if 24-70 wasn’t already the most useless focal length zoom, they went and made it worse!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 22, 2021)

rontele7 said:


> A 28-70…as if 24-70 wasn’t already the most useless focal length zoom, they went and made it worse!


Totally useless. That focal range is referred to as a ‘standard zoom lens’ for no reason at all.


----------



## Billybob (Jun 23, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Totally useless. That focal range is referred to as a ‘standard zoom lens’ for no reason at all.


Yes, I absolutely hate the range, but somehow a 24-70 stays permanently glued to my second camera body!

I may not love it, but useless? Absolutely not.


----------



## Skux (Jun 23, 2021)

Knowing Canon, the non-L telephoto zoom is probably f/11-f/32.


----------



## mdcmdcmdc (Jun 23, 2021)

usern4cr said:


> Craig mentioned the 16mm f2.8 might be for a crop sensor which would be 25mm f2.8.
> But a 1.6x crop would make it ~26mm f4.5.


You're both wrong. On a crop sensor it will be exactly 16mm f/2.8.


----------



## Bert63 (Jun 23, 2021)

Mr Majestyk said:


> where is the RF repalcement for the EF 100-400L II f4.5-5.6



It's the 100-500L.


----------



## usern4cr (Jun 23, 2021)

mdcmdcmdc said:


> You're both wrong. On a crop sensor it will be exactly 16mm f/2.8.


If this is a 1.6x crop lens on a 1.6x crop sensor camera then it will take a photo whose image is the same ("Equivalent") to a "Full Frame" ~26mm f4.5 lens on a Full Frame sensor camera.
If the "Full Frame Equivalent" wasn't obvious enough in my post, my apologies, and I have edited my initial post to make it more so.
If you don't agree with this, then go ahead and reply accordingly. I've had this discussion too many times to bother having it again, and will let you have the last word.


----------



## Czardoom (Jun 23, 2021)

Canon now has IBIS...
Canon now has sensors essentially equal in DR and noise...

f/7.1...the last refuge for the Sony trolls!


----------



## dcm (Jun 23, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Totally useless. That focal range is referred to as a ‘standard zoom lens’ for no reason at all.


Agreed. And it changes over time - think of it as pure marketing at this point. When I got started in the 1970s, the "standard zoom" on FD was 35-70. The FD 35-105 f/3.5 was a huge step forward. BTW: A "wide zoom" was 24-35 and later became 20-35.

These days I tend to think of anything that starts < 50 and ends > 50 as a standard zoom since it has both wide and telephoto aspects. That covers a lot of territory depending on your needs and even includes my RF 24-240. Similarly, a wide zoom is anything that starts and ends <50 and a telephoto zoom is anything that starts and ends >50


----------



## SnowMiku (Jun 23, 2021)

Czardoom said:


> With today's cameras easily shooting practically noise free at ISO 3200 and even 6400, this would be the same as shooting at f/2.0 or so back in the day when we used ISO 400 film - or even the early days of digital when we might not have gone past ISO 400. So, if f/2.0 or f/2.8 is too slow, then keep on complaining. If they can get this lens under 1,000 grams, then it will be something I will seriously consider.



Not everything is the same about f/7.1 vs f/2.0 back in the film and early digital days, people have been forgetting about the more shallow depth of field that the wider apertures offer. 

I think it would have been better if they kept all under 400mm consumer RF lenses at f/5.6 because it seems a bit odd that some of my old consumer EF lenses will have more shallow depth of field then some of the upcoming consumer RF lenses.


----------



## BPhoto06 (Jun 23, 2021)

I don't understand Canon. They made the EOS RP in 2019 as a full frame mirrorless camera people could afford, then priced their lenses sky-high.


----------



## BurningPlatform (Jun 23, 2021)

BPhoto06 said:


> I don't understand Canon. They made the EOS RP in 2019 as a full frame mirrorless camera people could afford, then priced their lenses sky-high.


They do have the line of consumer level lenses: 35mm f1.8, 50mm 1.8, 85mm f2, 24-105mm 4.0-7.1, 24-240mm, 600mm f11, 800mm f11, and all the adapted Canon and third party EF lenses. UW and longer tele zooms are missing from the list, though, Of course you gain quality by selecting L class lenses, which is a nice option to have.


----------



## BBarn (Jun 23, 2021)

BurningPlatform said:


> They do have the line of consumer level lenses: 35mm f1.8, 50mm 1.8, 85mm f2, 24-105mm 4.0-7.1, 24-240mm, 600mm f11, 800mm f11, and all the adapted Canon and third party EF lenses. UW and longer tele zooms are missing from the list, though, Of course you gain quality by selecting L class lenses, which is a nice option to have.


Owning an RP and a few of those lenses, I do find the combos deliver good performance for the price. I passed on the 50 though since it lacks IS. Perhaps Canon will have the good sense to add a 50mm f/1.4 with IS to the line for improved low light capability.


----------



## mdcmdcmdc (Jun 23, 2021)

usern4cr said:


> While the lens on a 1.6 crop sensor is indeed a 16mm f2.8 lens, it is "Equivalent" to a "Full Frame" ~26mm f4.5 lens on a Full Frame sensor.
> If the "Full Frame Equivalent" wasn't obvious enough in my post, my apologies, and I have edited my initial post to make it more so.
> If you don't agree with this, then go ahead and reply how I'm wrong. I've had this discussion too many times to bother having it again, and will let you have the last word.


It’s OK. Lots of people are confused by the difference between focal length and field of view, and between aperture, focal ratio, and depth of field. They also think lenses magically get longer or shorter depending on the sensor that’s behind them.


----------



## JustUs7 (Jun 23, 2021)

mdcmdcmdc said:


> It’s OK. Lots of people are confused by the difference between focal length and field of view, and between aperture, focal ratio, and depth of field. They also think lenses magically get longer or shorter depending on the sensor that’s behind them.



Nobody is confused by that and you aren’t revealing any special knowledge here. Discussions of equivalence are just a generally accepted simplification of what one might expect to see in a final image when using a particular camera and lens combination. 

You don’t often hear super zoom bridge camera users show off their 178mm moon pictures. They talk of 1,000mm focal lengths.


----------



## ozturert (Jun 23, 2021)

Knowing Canon, I think 70-400mm will be an f 8-11 lens


----------



## Exploreshootshare (Jun 23, 2021)

ozturert said:


> Knowing Canon, I think 70-400mm will be an f 8-11 lens


No, Canon wouldn’t bother with that. They’d release a genius 700-4000mm collapsible F11 one of a kind Zoom lense


----------



## melgross (Jun 23, 2021)

Exploreshootshare said:


> Sony and Nikon will both make lenses like that. They value for money is just great, although it is a compromise lense of course. Plus it can actually do what a smartphone can't...


That’s heresy.


----------



## melgross (Jun 23, 2021)

HMC11 said:


> There's actually a Samyang AF 14mm F2.8 for RF weighing 523g and can be bought for less than $600, and a manual focus version for less than $350 but weigh more at 800g. Unless, of course, you are referring to only native lenses.


So, the question is how good those cheap Chinese lenses are, really. I know they’re acceptable.

‘’I do expect Chinese lenses to both get better, and more expensive as time goes on. At an earlier time, Sigma was known for just producing junk lenses too.


----------



## melgross (Jun 23, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Totally useless. That focal range is referred to as a ‘standard zoom lens’ for no reason at all.


They’re both really useful. I wish the f2 28-70 wasn’t so heavy. At 71 it means something, while years ago, I didn’t care at all.


----------



## melgross (Jun 23, 2021)

SnowMiku said:


> Not everything is the same about f/7.1 vs f/2.0 back in the film and early digital days, people have been forgetting about the more shallow depth of field that the wider apertures offer.
> 
> I think it would have been better if they kept all under 400mm consumer RF lenses at f/5.6 because it seems a bit odd that some of my old consumer EF lenses will have more shallow depth of field then some of the upcoming consumer RF lenses.


Why compare 7.1 to 2.0? I think people here are ticked at the difference between 6.3 and 7.1, or more unrealistically, 5.6 to 7.1.


----------



## Ozarker (Jun 23, 2021)

BPhoto06 said:


> I don't understand Canon. They made the EOS RP in 2019 as a full frame mirrorless camera people could afford, then priced their lenses sky-high.


There are several affordable RF lenses. There's also the EF lenses that can be used on the RP that many of those buyers probably already owned with their EFs bodies.. L series lenses have always been expensive.


----------



## Skux (Jun 23, 2021)

mdcmdcmdc said:


> It’s OK. Lots of people are confused by the difference between focal length and field of view, and between aperture, focal ratio, and depth of field. They also think lenses magically get longer or shorter depending on the sensor that’s behind them.


No they aren't lol, that's what 'equivalent' is used for.


----------



## mdcmdcmdc (Jun 24, 2021)

FamilyGuy said:


> Nobody is confused by that and you aren’t revealing any special knowledge here. Discussions of equivalence are just a generally accepted simplification of what one might expect to see in a final image when using a particular camera and lens combination.
> 
> You don’t often hear super zoom bridge camera users show off their 178mm moon pictures. They talk of 1,000mm focal lengths.


That's exactly my point. There is no special knowledge, and yet, so many people get it wrong, or at least, play fast and loose with the numbers.

Focal ratio = the focal length of the lens divided by the aperture, which is the diameter of the entrance pupil. This is photography 101 folks.

Nowhere in that equation does the size of the sensor come into play.

Focal ratio is NOT the same as depth of field. DoF is a combination of many factors, including the focal ratio, yes, but also the size of the final image, the viewing distance, and subjective factors such as what the viewer perceives as "in focus".

An f/2.8 lens is an f/2.8 lens no matter what size sensor is behind it. F/2.8 is NOT a measure of depth of field, it is a property of the lens. It is more accurately a metric for the amount of light per unit area that is transmitted to the image plane (albeit inversely proportional).

To say f/2.8 on full frame is "equivalent" to f/4.5 on APS-C *might* be valid if your context is DoF, with all other factors being the same. But the amount of light the lens transmits to the sensor per unit area does not change, so in terms of exposure calculation for low-light scenarios, the lens is f/2.8 for either sensor.

Without that context, a blanket statement like "f/2.8 on full frame is equivalent to f/4.5 on crop" is meaningless.


----------



## mpmark (Jun 24, 2021)

AlanF said:


> The 100-500mm lets in exactly the same amount of light as the 100-400mm II: both have front elements of 71-72mm. If the light is limiting, upping the iso of the 7.1 at 500mm by 2/3 stop over the 5.6 at 400mm at the same shutter speed and downsizing the resulting image by 20% gives the same S/N for a crop image.



You are mistaken, it doesn't let in the same amount of light at the relative apertures, please don't tell people this, that is not correct information.


----------



## mpmark (Jun 24, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> So you're already shooting at high ISO? It's fairly telling that older camera with Auto ISO set fixed at ISO 400 with a flash attached, while newer cameras fix at ISO 1600. Noise performance has improved significantly.
> 
> Having said that, when shooting birds I need high 1/2000 or faster and am often shooting at the beginning or end of the day or with overcast, so I do need pretty high ISO settings. But that's why I have a 600mm f/4.
> 
> ...



Whether cameras today have better performance at higher iso is irrelevant to aperture size, you could argue, that just because you can shoot at F/7.1 at iso10,000 with respective results in lower light, the same is true that you can shoot even later with that great iso performance with a f/4 aperture lens, F/7.1 is still slow regardless.


----------



## mpmark (Jun 24, 2021)

H. Jones said:


> It is truly, utterly remarkably, speechlessly incredible that anyone on earth can even waste a breath of their time complaining about the difference of F5.6 to F/6.3. Literally.
> 
> What on earth are you doing that you feel like 1/3rd of a stop is worth splitting hairs about? These lenses are built for long daylight reach to begin with, if 1/3rd of a stop is going to ruin your photo, it's probably a godawful photo to begin with.
> 
> ...


frankly plenty, but it doesn't matter anymore, I have long sold my slow 100-400, not even thinking of the new 100-500 (even slower). I've moved to f/4 glass. thanks.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 24, 2021)

mdcmdcmdc said:


> …so many people get it wrong…


Indeed.



mdcmdcmdc said:


> To say f/2.8 on full frame is "equivalent" to f/4.5 on APS-C *might* be valid if your context is DoF, with all other factors being the same. But the amount of light the lens transmits to the sensor per unit area does not change, so in terms of exposure calculation for low-light scenarios, the lens is f/2.8 for either sensor.


That’s technically correct, but ignores the effect of sensor size on perceived noise, i.e., the concept of equivalence also applies to ISO.

In practice, that means that if using the same exposure settings for a lens on FF and APS-C, the image from the latter will have more noise. Conversely, with a FF sensor one could choose a lower ISO setting for less noise, a faster shutter speed with the same noise, or a narrower aperture with the same noise to match the deeper DoF.

Larger sensor: equivalent…but better.


----------



## SnowMiku (Jun 24, 2021)

To clear up any confusion, this is the aperture range of the Canon RF 100-500mm F4.5-7.1 L IS USM from the-digital-picture.com

Aperture Max by Focal Length
100-150mm = f/4.5
151-253mm = f/5.0
254-362mm = f/5.6
363-471mm = f/6.3
472-500mm = f/7.1


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 24, 2021)

mpmark said:


> You are mistaken, it doesn't let in the same amount of light at the relative apertures, please don't tell people this, that is not correct information.


@AlanF is correct, and regardless the small fraction of a stop is of no practical significance.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 24, 2021)

SnowMiku said:


> To clear up any confusion, this is the aperture range of the Canon RF 100-500mm F4.5-7.1 L IS USM from the-digital-picture.com
> 
> Aperture Max by Focal Length
> 100-150mm = f/4.5
> ...


However, note that if you set the camera to 1/2-stop increments instead of 1/3-stop, the 100-500 at 400mm is recorded at f/5.6, meaning they actual iris diaphragm diameter at 400mm corresponds to an f/number somewhere between f/5.6 and f/6.3…which is exactly where it is when the 100-400 is at 400mm.


----------



## unfocused (Jun 24, 2021)

mdcmdcmdc said:


> ...To say f/2.8 on full frame is "equivalent" to f/4.5 on APS-C *might* be valid if your context is DoF, with all other factors being the same. But the amount of light the lens transmits to the sensor per unit area does not change, so in terms of exposure calculation for low-light scenarios, the lens is f/2.8 for either sensor.
> 
> Without that context, a blanket statement like "f/2.8 on full frame is equivalent to f/4.5 on crop" is meaningless.



Good luck with this. I've heard these statements for years and you just can't knock any sense into people. By the way, even if your context is DoF, it's not really accurate. As I've explained many times on this forum, DoF is dependent on aperture and distance from the subject, not sensor size. Take any lens and put it on a crop sensor camera and a full frame camera. Take a picture of any subject from the exact same spot at the exact same focal length and exact same f-stop. Once you crop the full frame image to the same size as the crop sensor image, the depth of field, and indeed the framing, etc., is identical. The only difference is that in one case, you are cropping in-camera and in one case you are cropping in post.


----------



## unfocused (Jun 24, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> ...That’s technically correct, but ignores the effect of sensor size on perceived noise, i.e., the concept of equivalence also applies to ISO.
> 
> In practice, that means that if using the same exposure settings for a lens on FF and APS-C, the image from the latter will have more noise....



Sort of. Back in the days of the 18mp APS-C sensors this was true. But with modern sensors the differences are becoming less and less apparent in practical use, especially at lower ISOs. Just as the small fraction of light difference at the various focal length ranges of the 100-400 vs. 100-500 has little to no practical effect, the small noise differences between full frame and APS-C sensors today are of little practical impact at many ISOs, especially if you are competent at processing the images.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 24, 2021)

unfocused said:


> Good luck with this. I've heard these statements for years and you just can't knock any sense into people. By the way, even if your context is DoF, it's not really accurate. As I've explained many times on this forum, DoF is dependent on aperture and *distance from the subject*, not sensor size. Take any lens and put it on a crop sensor camera and a full frame camera. Take a picture of any subject from the exact same spot at the exact same focal length and exact same f-stop. Once you crop the full frame image to the same size as the crop sensor image, the depth of field, and indeed the framing, etc., is identical. The only difference is that in one case, you are cropping in-camera and in one case you are cropping in post.


Under 'equivalence' the effect regarding aperture is on DoF _for the same subject framing_, i.e. the distance from the subject is not the same because the crop factor results in a different FoV for the same focal length. 

It's more logical that way, for example consider a headshot with an 85mm EF lens – if you pick your distance with the FF camera and frame the shot, then switch to the APS-C camera and stay in the exact same spot, sure if you cropped the FF image to the APS-C framing and compared them the DoF would be the same...but then you'd have an eyes-and-nose shot, not a headshot. So of course you'd back up when switching from APS-C to FF.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 24, 2021)

unfocused said:


> Sort of. Back in the days of the 18mp APS-C sensors this was true. But with modern sensors the differences are becoming less and less apparent in practical use, especially at lower ISOs. Just as the small fraction of light difference at the various focal length ranges of the 100-400 vs. 100-500 has little to no practical effect, the small noise differences between full frame and APS-C sensors today are of little practical impact at many ISOs, especially if you are competent at processing the images.


It is objectively true, but practically of no significance at low-to-mid ISO settings. If you're at ISO 6400 it's going to make a difference, regardless of your post-processing.


----------



## H. Jones (Jun 24, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> However, note that if you set the camera to 1/2-stop increments instead of 1/3-stop, the 100-500 at 400mm is recorded at f/5.6, meaning they actual iris diaphragm diameter at 400mm corresponds to an f/number somewhere between f/5.6 and f/6.3…which is exactly where it is when the 100-400 is at 400mm.


At this point I'm pretty sure we could all scream this from the rooftops and still get the same braindead "hurrdurr Canon ruined the 100-500" despite the fact it's basically the same lens. I appreciate what Canon is doing and all the ways they're breaking the mold and trying something new, but it's frustrating the way the internet totally misses the point because they're stuck in the lens design of the 1990s.

It makes me realize what an uphill camera companies are dealing with when it comes to marketing, and the reason why some companies out there just decide to fudge the numbers on this stuff.

It's crazy how far detached from the reality of actually using the equipment some people are. In college I made perfectly fine photographs out of pinhole cameras made of tissue boxes and aluminum foil, but somehow people will fall on a sword for (not-even) a third of a stop in a highly advanced lens that is even more capable than its predecessor.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 24, 2021)

H. Jones said:


> It makes me realize what an uphill camera companies are dealing with when it comes to marketing, and the reason why some companies out there just decide to fudge the numbers on this stuff.


Not new. Here's a Panasonic bridge camera from 2012, with a 25-600mm f/2.8 zoom lens! 




Leica made the lens, and on the front of the barrel it correctly indicates that it's a 4.5-108mm f/2.8 lens.


----------



## AlanF (Jun 24, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> Not new. Here's a Panasonic bridge camera from 2012, with a 25-600mm f/2.8 zoom lens!
> 
> View attachment 198531
> 
> ...


@mpmark who wrote I was mistaken when I wrote that a 500mm f/7.1 lets in as much light as a 400mm f/5.6 would by his reasoning claim that a 4.5-108mm f/2.8 lens lets in more light than a 25-600mm f/4 lens. In fact, it lets in the amount of light of an f/16 25-600mm lens. As anyone who has used one of those cameras with a tiny sensor and apparently wide lens knows, you have to use very low isos before noise becomes intrusive. A 400mm f/5.6 in terms of iso is equivalent to a 500mm f/7.1 or 1000mm f/14 when a crop from the shorter is viewed at the same size as from the larger.


----------



## unfocused (Jun 24, 2021)

AlanF said:


> @mpmark who wrote I was mistaken when I wrote that a 500mm f/7.1 lets in as much light as a 400mm f/5.6 would by his reasoning claim that a 4.5-108mm f/2.8 lens lets in more light than a 25-600mm f/4 lens. In fact, it lets in the amount of light of an f/16 25-600mm lens...



I don't think you know what "fact" means.


----------



## AlanF (Jun 24, 2021)

unfocused said:


> I don't think you know what "fact" means.


What do you mean by that comment?


----------



## unfocused (Jun 24, 2021)

AlanF said:


> What do you mean by that comment?


The Fact is that exposure is determined by time, aperture and ISO speed. Anyone who has ever used a light meter knows that there is no setting on the meter for the focal length of the lens or the size of the film (sensor today). No matter what focal length lens you use, the meter will give you the same exposure setting. And, if you are using 135mm, 120, 4x5, 8x10 or even 110, the meter gives you the same exposure based on the light in the scene. Same thing with sensors.


----------



## AlanF (Jun 24, 2021)

unfocused said:


> The Fact is that exposure is determined by time, aperture and ISO speed. Anyone who has ever used a light meter knows that there is no setting on the meter for the focal length of the lens or the size of the film (sensor today). No matter what focal length lens you use, the meter will give you the same exposure setting. And, if you are using 135mm, 120, 4x5, 8x10 or even 110, the meter gives you the same exposure based on the light in the scene. Same thing with sensors.


It is indeed a fact that exposure is determined by shutter speed, aperture and ISO speed. It is also a fact that the signal to noise of a digital image is determined by the number of photons hitting the sensor, its efficiency of conversion of those photons into electronic current and the noise introduced by the circuitry, and the final noise in the image depends also on the size of enlargement. - your lightmeter doesn't tell you that. A 108 mm f/2.8 lens has the same diameter as a 600mm f/16 lens and so both let in the same number of photons and have the same amount of photon noise. The lightmeter tells you that with the "bright" small lens that you can use a low iso with a particular shutter speed but 4 stops more iso with the f/16 lens. However, when you view the resultant images from the short and long lenses at the same size, they will both have the same signal to noise as the iso noise introduced by a good amplifier circuit will be the same as the noise introduced by enlarging the smaller image from the shorter focal length lens. And, that is what I was getting at - a 500mm f/7.1 is no noisier than a 400mm f/5.6 when you view the image at the same size, despite having to use a higher iso. This is where Canon has been clever - the 800mm f/11 lens is criticised for its high f-number but it can be used at high isos satisfactorily and has the same diameter as a 400mm f/5.6.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 24, 2021)

unfocused said:


> The Fact is that exposure is determined by time, aperture and ISO speed. Anyone who has ever used a light meter knows that there is no setting on the meter for the focal length of the lens or the size of the film (sensor today). No matter what focal length lens you use, the meter will give you the same exposure setting. And, if you are using 135mm, 120, 4x5, 8x10 or even 110, the meter gives you the same exposure based on the light in the scene. Same thing with sensors.


The Fact is that you don’t really understand equivalence.


----------



## unfocused (Jun 24, 2021)

neuroanatomist said:


> The Fact is that you don’t really understand equivalence.


The fact is these arguments have been going around and around for years on this forum. People bend themselves into pretzels to "prove" convoluted, esoteric "points" (See the previous post by @AlanF). 

"Equivalence" is too often synonymous with fuzzy thinking that allows people to confirm their own biases. 

What is objectively true is that an exposure of f5.6 at 1/250 sec at ISO 400 is not going to change no matter the focal length of the lens or the size of the recording medium. 

Now, if you want to argue that the grain in a 110 film image is going to be greater than the grain using a 4x5 view camera when both have an ISO of 400, well, that's a different matter. Or, if you want to argue that depth of field changes when you change position to get the same view with a smaller sensor that you would get with a larger sensor, that's true as well. 

But statements like "a 500mm f/7.1 lets in as much light as a 400mm f/5.6" are plain silly. Okay, maybe he figures that since both lenses have the same diameter at the front end, they are "letting in" an equal amount of light. But that has zero use in the real world. What matters is the amount of light that will actually hit the sensor and an f7.1 lens is going to deliver less light to the sensor than an f5.6 lens, regardless of the focal length of the lens or the size of the sensor.


----------



## SteveC (Jun 25, 2021)

unfocused said:


> But statements like "a 500mm f/7.1 lets in as much light as a 400mm f/5.6" are plain silly. Okay, maybe he figures that since both lenses have the same diameter at the front end, they are "letting in" an equal amount of light. But that has zero use in the real world. What matters is the amount of light that will actually hit the sensor and an f7.1 lens is going to deliver less light to the sensor than an f5.6 lens, regardless of the focal length of the lens or the size of the sensor.



Or to come at it from another direction, one more directly targeted to the example you debunk, let's talk about two different lenses with, specifically, the same entrance pupil, a 50 mm one (to pick a number out of thin air). If the lens has a 100mm focal length, it will put four times as much light onto the sensor as it would were it 200mm; that's because the first one is f/2.0 and the second is f/4.0. Yes the same amount of light passes the filter threads. 

As you rightly point out, so what?

There is a _reason_ lenses are rated by f/ ratio rather than the raw diameter of the entrance pupil. It's because the former can be directly used to determine exposure, while the latter requires you to compute the former before you can determine exposure.

(I had to sit down a couple of years ago and think through why the _ratio_ should matter, once I did I resolved to always write "f/2.8" rather than just "2.8". It for one makes it clear the number is a denominator, so it therefore makes sense for what it represents to get smaller as the bare number itself looks bigger.)


----------



## privatebydesign (Jun 25, 2021)

iso is sensitivity, or the ability of the sensor to collect light.

I don't understand why people find it hard to accept that a sensor at the same iso/sensitivity but half the size collects half the light.

If you talk about equivalence you cannot do it without accepting an image can only be 'equivalent'/equal/identical if it has the same fov, dof, subject movement, AND noise (number of photons).

I made this for this forum back in 2012....


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 25, 2021)

unfocused said:


> The fact is these arguments have been going around and around for years on this forum. People bend themselves into pretzels to "prove" convoluted, esoteric "points" (See the previous post by @AlanF).
> 
> "Equivalence" is too often synonymous with fuzzy thinking that allows people to confirm their own biases.


Your use of words like convoluted, fuzzy and silly merely confirms that you don’t comprehend the concepts being discussed.

Sure, people who do not understand a concept can misuse it to support their biases. That doesn’t negate the concept itself, for those who _do_ understand it.



unfocused said:


> What is objectively true is that an exposure of f5.6 at 1/250 sec at ISO 400 is not going to change no matter the focal length of the lens or the size of the recording medium.


True. Was someone suggesting that is not the case? If so, I missed it. But the fact that the exposure settings don’t change doesn’t mean the resulting images will be identical if focal length or sensor size are changed.



unfocused said:


> Now, if you want to argue that the grain in a 110 film image is going to be greater than the grain using a 4x5 view camera when both have an ISO of 400, well, that's a different matter. Or, if you want to argue that depth of field changes when you change position to get the same view with a smaller sensor that you would get with a larger sensor, that's true as well.


Yes, and of course we also can stipulate other facts that no one is arguing, like force equals mass times acceleration and the existence of electromagnetic radiation.



unfocused said:


> But statements like "a 500mm f/7.1 lets in as much light as a 400mm f/5.6" are plain silly. Okay, maybe he figures that since both lenses have the same diameter at the front end, they are "letting in" an equal amount of light. But that has zero use in the real world.


That statement is a fact (given a willingness to accept an approximation). 500mm / 7.1 = 70.4mm, 400mm / 5.6 = 71.4mm. You think it’s ‘plain silly’ because you fail to understand it’s significance.



unfocused said:


> What matters is the amount of light that will actually hit the sensor and an f7.1 lens is going to deliver less light to the sensor than an f5.6 lens, regardless of the focal length of the lens or the size of the sensor.


The point to which @AlanF was replying was a claim that, “In the end the 100-400 does let in more light, comparing it to the 100-500 is misleading,” and that, “…500 f/7.1 is ridiculously slow and useless for [his] photography.”

The fact is 100-500 at 500mm f/7.1 is letting in about the same amount of light as the 100-400 at 400mm f/5.6. Yes, 500mm f/7.1 delivers less light to the sensor than 400mm f/5.6 (because of the longer focal length, as @SteveC points out, that’s why we use the f/number ratio). So to match shutter speeds you raise the ISO slightly. Alan’s point was that if you crop the 400mm image to the FoV of the 500mm lens, the noise in the resulting picture will be the same as the noise in the picture taken at 500mm f/7.1 when you compare them (that’s another example of equivalence, something you should really try to understand).


----------



## justaCanonuser (Jun 25, 2021)

unfocused said:


> There may not be any, as none of us knows where exactly the supply chain issues are and what the causes are. But, here are some POTENTIAL harms:
> 
> ...


Your impressive list following this intro I cited above leads me to an intriguing idea: you should found a sort of Club of Rome for the camera market. First publication released: "*The Limits to Global Growth in Canon's RF Lens Line*". 548 pp., 145 colored figures, 22 charts, softcover, US-$ 19.99 @ Amazon


----------



## justaCanonuser (Jun 25, 2021)

BPhoto06 said:


> I don't understand Canon. They made the EOS RP in 2019 as a full frame mirrorless camera people could afford, then priced their lenses sky-high.


They support the wise cheap camera - good lens philosophy  . Back in the film age, you bought a camera for a decent period of your life, a Leica for your own whole life and the following generations. Nowadays, digital cameras are short-lived near future electronic waste, since they are technically outdated within a few years.


----------



## AlanF (Jun 25, 2021)

justaCanonuser said:


> They support the wise cheap camera - good lens philosophy  . Back in the film age, you bought a camera for a decent period of your life, a Leica for your own whole life and the following generations. Nowadays, digital cameras are short-lived near future electronic waste, since they are technically outdated within a few years.


Unfortunately, you are right. Occasionally, some lines are such an improvement they last somewhat longer, and I hope the R5 is one.


----------



## justaCanonuser (Jun 25, 2021)

Czardoom said:


> f/7.1...the last refuge for the Sony trolls!


But higher numbers are better - aren't they? That's why we want 1000 MP sensors instead of 24 MP sensors. Don't tell me anything about the limitations of small pixels ruled by physics, crazy shutter speeds and enormous amounts of light you need to freeze the movement of a slug into a sharp image on the pixel level. We want high numbers, because higher numbers are always better!


----------



## justaCanonuser (Jun 25, 2021)

AlanF said:


> Unfortunately, you are right. Occasionally, some lines are such an improvement they last somewhat longer, and I hope the R5 is one.


Well, things are settling since digital photography started to be mature. I used e.g. my 5D3 for 8 years, because it delivered most what I wanted for good images: good colors out of the camera, nicely sharp images, fast and reliable AF with many lenses I have. When I traded it in for a 5D4 I realized that the new camera did not bring me that leap in image quality I experienced in the decade before (there are of course some nice improvements such as no color banding and better DR). This observation applies to stills photography, of course. In contrast, video is an area where the dust of fast progress isn't yet settled, if that's more in your focus...


----------



## SteveC (Jun 25, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> I don't understand why people find it hard to accept that a sensor at the same iso/sensitivity but half the size collects half the light.


Because they are implicitly thinking about exposure, i.e., the light _per unit area_ on the sensor.

A picture doesn't become a stop darker simply because it's being taken on a sensor half the size. That is what they are saying. Yes, half as much light was used in the making of the picture but the light per unit area remains the same.

Yes, they ideally would be clear that they mean "light per unit area" but that's essentially what "exposure" means. Sometimes I do see them use "exposure" in their statements and then have the other side interpret it as "total amount of light" and THAT error is on the people talking about "light" in the aggregate when the other side is explicitly talking about "exposure."

Again, I see people talking past each other about two different things, just as I do when I see PBD getting into an argument about noise with someone who is a pixel peeper; the two never identify that one person is talking about the entire image printed at a constant size, while the other is talking about pixels at a constant viewed size.


----------



## SteveC (Jun 25, 2021)

AlanF said:


> Unfortunately, you are right. Occasionally, some lines are such an improvement they last somewhat longer, and I hope the R5 is one.



Well, as long as the R5 doesn't break, it will last with me. It's far better as a piece of gear than its owner is as a photographer, and I'm actually glad of that; the gear won't get in my way as I improve.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jun 25, 2021)

SteveC said:


> Because they are implicitly thinking about exposure, i.e., the light _per unit area_ on the sensor.
> 
> A picture doesn't become a stop darker simply because it's being taken on a sensor half the size. That is what they are saying. Yes, half as much light was used in the making of the picture but the light per unit area remains the same.
> 
> ...


When you use the word equivalence then two images having identical image characteristics is intrinsic to that word. You can’t have twice the noise in one than the other and say the images are equivalent.

If you are trying to talk about something else then saying something like ‘yes it has twice the noise but the iso performance is plenty good enough for me’ then that is fine, but not if you use the word equivalence, that has a definition that cannot ignore the noise.

Equivalence is not an esoteric, fuzzy, or convoluted concept, it has a definition and follows basic rules of physics.

I talk about total images, because that’s what I take and that’s what I sell. How and why did photography ever get to the point where an individual grain of chemical on film or pixel in a digital capture become more important than the actual image it makes an infinitesimally small part of?


----------



## SteveC (Jun 25, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> I talk about total images, because that’s what I take and that’s what I sell. How or why did photography ever get to the point where an individual grain of chemical on film or pixel in a digital capture become more important than the actual image it makes and infinitesimally small part of?


I couldn't tell you when that happened, and I certainly can understand why you talk about the whole picture.

But when engaging in endless wrangling with a pixel peeper, perhaps it could be cut short if you would just SAY, right up front, that you are talking about the whole picture, printed at a particular size. (If you get at least a "yeah, but I don't care about that" you've had a meeting of the minds; their understanding is the same as yours even if their priority is a bit different. You can talk about how wrong their priority is, OR choose to let it lie, but if you do keep talking at least you're discussing your *actual* differences.) That's _clearly_ not how they are thinking about it, so why do you berate them as if it were? You only succeed in coming across as absurd to them because they don't realize you're talking "whole picture" and you are making statements that really ARE silly when taken to be referring to the pixel level.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jun 25, 2021)

SteveC said:


> I couldn't tell you when that happened, and I certainly can understand why you talk about the whole picture.
> 
> But when engaging in endless wrangling with a pixel peeper, perhaps it could be cut short if you would just SAY, right up front, that you are talking about the whole picture, printed at a particular size. (If you get at least a "yeah, but I don't care about that" you've had a meeting of the minds; their understanding is the same as yours even if their priority is a bit different. You can talk about how wrong their priority is, OR choose to let it lie, but if you do keep talking at least you're discussing your *actual* differences.) That's _clearly_ not how they are thinking about it, so why do you berate them as if it were? You only succeed in coming across as absurd to them because they don't realize you're talking "whole picture" and you are making statements that really ARE silly when taken to be referring to the pixel level.


 but when you do that they say ‘but I don’t print’. So you say well on your screen at ‘full screen‘ they then go off in a huff because there are probably only 20 people out there with 8K screens that still only equate to 33mp, most of us are using 4K or 5.5k screens with even lower resolution. But that doesn’t stop people saying “I need more mp than the R5, I need that to crop” at which point I usually shut up because anybody that needs two or three times their sensor area to crop (other than focal length limited users) clearly needs to spend their money on a photography course not a higher mp camera.


----------



## JustUs7 (Jun 25, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> But that doesn’t stop people saying “I need more mp than the R5, I need that to crop” at which point I usually shut up because anybody that needs two or three times their sensor area to crop (other than focal length limited users) clearly needs to spend their money on a photography course not a higher mp camera.



Or longer lenses. 

Never mind. I see you allowed for focal length limited.


----------



## SteveC (Jun 25, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> but when you do that they say ‘but I don’t print’. So you say well on your screen at ‘full screen‘ they then go off in a huff because there are probably only 20 people out there with 8K screens that still only equate to 33mp, most of us are using 4K or 5.5k screens with even lower resolution. But that doesn’t stop people saying “I need more mp than the R5, I need that to crop” at which point I usually shut up because anybody that needs two or three times their sensor area to crop (other than focal length limited users) clearly needs to spend their money on a photography course not a higher mp camera.


That last one at least is somewhat legitimate.

Basically what I am suggesting is, as soon as you get into some wrangle about noise being worse on higher res sensors, say something like this: "It is on a per pixel basis, but if you're just looking at the whole picture at a certain size..." rather than just saying "no it isn't" without explaining your context. At least you've made it clear that you understand why they are saying what they are saying and under what circumstances someone might disagree with them. This might save page after page of pointless discussion. I hate seeing people who are actually both right arguing with each other because they don't realize the other's frame of reference is different.

Now if you run into someone who really is wrong even within his own frame of reference, that's a different story...


----------



## privatebydesign (Jun 25, 2021)

SteveC said:


> That last one at least is somewhat legitimate.
> 
> Basically what I am suggesting is, as soon as you get into some wrangle about noise being worse on higher res sensors, say something like this: "It is on a per pixel basis, but if you're just looking at the whole picture at a certain size..." rather than just saying "no it isn't" without explaining your context. At least you've made it clear that you understand why they are saying what they are saying and under what circumstances someone might disagree with them. This might save page after page of pointless discussion. I hate seeing people who are actually both right arguing with each other because they don't realize the other's frame of reference is different.
> 
> Now if you run into someone who really is wrong even within his own frame of reference, that's a different story...


But then how could the devil inside me come out to play?


----------



## Peter Bergh (Jun 26, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> ...
> 
> Equivalence is not an esoteric, fuzzy, or convoluted concept, it has a definition and follows basic rules of physics.
> 
> ...


Wrong. Equivalence means that two things are the same in the *relevant characteristics*. What is relevant varies from situation to situation.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jun 26, 2021)

Peter Bergh said:


> Wrong. Equivalence means that two things are the same in the *relevant characteristics*. What is relevant varies from situation to situation.


Really?









Definition of EQUIVALENCE


the state or property of being equivalent; the relation holding between two statements if they are either both true or both false so that to affirm one and to deny the other would result in a contradiction; a presentation of terms as equivalent… See the full definition




www.merriam-webster.com













equivalence


Definition, Synonyms, Translations of equivalence by The Free Dictionary




www.thefreedictionary.com





I see equal used in those definitions I don’t see ‘relevant characteristics‘ used.


----------



## Peter Bergh (Jun 27, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> Really?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



If you think about it, no two things are ever the same. It appears to me that you interpret "same" as identical. In the human-scale real world (i.e., not in, e.g., math and not on the atomic scale), two things may be approximately the same, but they are never exactly the same, i.e., never identical. Think of two current coins from the same country and of the same denomination: they are equivalent in terms of buying power but they normally have different amounts of wear or different years of issue or even different designs. These coins are not equivalent to a coin collector, for whom design, year of issue and condition are very relevant. I can construct many similar examples.

The dictionary definitions you quote are, as in so many other cases, incomplete. To make all dictionary definitions complete would expand the sizes of dictionaries beyond all reasonable bounds. E.g., the unabridged Oxford English Dictionary, when printed in a normal font, is more than 25 thick volumes (26, if memory serves).


----------



## jd7 (Jun 27, 2021)

melgross said:


> So, the question is how good those cheap Chinese lenses are, really. I know they’re acceptable.
> 
> ‘’I do expect Chinese lenses to both get better, and more expensive as time goes on. At an earlier time, Sigma was known for just producing junk lenses too.


I don't think it changes your fundamental point, but Samyang is a South Korean company, I believe, not a Chinese company.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jun 27, 2021)

Peter Bergh said:


> If you think about it, no two things are ever the same. It appears to me that you interpret "same" as identical. In the human-scale real world (i.e., not in, e.g., math and not on the atomic scale), two things may be approximately the same, but they are never exactly the same, i.e., never identical. Think of two current coins from the same country and of the same denomination: they are equivalent in terms of buying power but they normally have different amounts of wear or different years of issue or even different designs. These coins are not equivalent to a coin collector, for whom design, year of issue and condition are very relevant. I can construct many similar examples.
> 
> The dictionary definitions you quote are, as in so many other cases, incomplete. To make all dictionary definitions complete would expand the sizes of dictionaries beyond all reasonable bounds. E.g., the unabridged Oxford English Dictionary, when printed in a normal font, is more than 25 thick volumes (26, if memory serves).


And that's the best you can come up with? And still no mention of _"*relevant characteristics*"._

Why did you even bother to write such utter dross?









Definition of DROSS
 

the scum or unwanted material that forms on the surface of molten metal; waste or foreign matter : impurity; something that is base, trivial, or inferior… See the full definition




www.merriam-webster.com


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 27, 2021)

Peter Bergh said:


> If you think about it, no two things are ever the same. It appears to me that you interpret "same" as identical. In the human-scale real world (i.e., not in, e.g., math and not on the atomic scale), two things may be approximately the same, but they are never exactly the same, i.e., never identical. Think of two current coins from the same country and of the same denomination: they are equivalent in terms of buying power but they normally have different amounts of wear or different years of issue or even different designs. These coins are not equivalent to a coin collector, for whom design, year of issue and condition are very relevant. I can construct many similar examples.
> 
> The dictionary definitions you quote are, as in so many other cases, incomplete. To make all dictionary definitions complete would expand the sizes of dictionaries beyond all reasonable bounds. E.g., the unabridged Oxford English Dictionary, when printed in a normal font, is more than 25 thick volumes (26, if memory serves).


In the context of photography, the term _equivalence_ has a specific meaning. If you don’t already know that meaning (which certainly appears to be the case, unless you’re just being disingenuous), perhaps you can learn it.


----------



## melgross (Jun 27, 2021)

AlanF said:


> Unfortunately, you are right. Occasionally, some lines are such an improvement they last somewhat longer, and I hope the R5 is one.


It gets to the point where further improvements make little, if any difference to the majority of users. But also, it depends on where the image is going to be used. If it’s magazine, catalog or book, in four color, then pretty much all cameras already exceed the dynamic range and color gamut these forms of reproduction are capable of. When we sold our lab way back in 2004, that was already true for the better cameras.


----------



## melgross (Jun 27, 2021)

jd7 said:


> I don't think it changes your fundamental point, but Samyang is a South Korean company, I believe, not a Chinese company.


It gets confusing these days with all these new manufacturers.


----------



## Peter Bergh (Jun 27, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> And that's the best you can come up with? And still no mention of _"*relevant characteristics*"._
> 
> Why did you even bother to write such utter dross?
> 
> ...


In order to help you understand what I wrote: In my first example, the relevant characteristic is "use for commerce" and in my second example, the relevant characteristic is "suitable for coin collecting".

You remind me a lot of an angle that is just under 180 degrees.

PS. Mr. Moderator, I suggest that you ban privatebydesign from this site. His (or her) troll-like behavior is too much for me and, based on comments I have seen on this forum, for others. BTW, regardless what you decide about privatebydesign, this is my last post on this forum.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 27, 2021)

Peter Bergh said:


> In order to help you understand what I wrote: In my first example, the relevant characteristic is "use for commerce" and in my second example, the relevant characteristic is "suitable for coin collecting".
> 
> You remind me a lot of an angle that is just under 180 degrees.
> 
> PS. Mr. Moderator, I suggest that you ban privatebydesign from this site. His (or her) troll-like behavior is too much for me and, based on comments I have seen on this forum, for others. BTW, regardless what you decide about privatebydesign, this is my last post on this forum.


PBD has made significant, helpful contributions to these boards for years.

What you wrote about coins and commerce was clear the first time, but irrelevant. Equivalence has a specific definition in the context of photography, and your posts make it obvious that you don’t grasp that. Similarly, the term ‘stop’ has a specific connotation. If I say, “Stop down to get more depth of field,” you wouldn’t think I meant to pause in the pasture and dig a deeper hole, because you know what those terms mean in context.

As for banning, that does happen – usually to people with a pattern of insulting other members, however geometrically veiled those insults may be. If it’s truly your last post here, don’t let the door hit you in the derrière as you depart. I, for one, will not miss you.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jun 28, 2021)

Peter Bergh said:


> In order to help you understand what I wrote: In my first example, the relevant characteristic is "use for commerce" and in my second example, the relevant characteristic is "suitable for coin collecting".
> 
> You remind me a lot of an angle that is just under 180 degrees.
> 
> PS. Mr. Moderator, I suggest that you ban privatebydesign from this site. His (or her) troll-like behavior is too much for me and, based on comments I have seen on this forum, for others. BTW, regardless what you decide about privatebydesign, this is my last post on this forum.


Hmm, very... average. 






Canon is developing more super-telephoto lenses [CR2]


In Scotland they are free. College/university is not free in the rest of the UK, USA etc. I think you get student loans in England that may or may not only come of your wages when you are earning enough. But that is besides the point. In a thread about super-tele lenses I said "One big white a...




www.canonrumors.com


----------



## Aussie shooter (Jul 4, 2021)

Is there any more info on this 16 2.8? It is the only one of the announced lenses that I would seriously consider getting atm. But it needs to be for FF and not designed for an apsc image circle. C'mon canon. The sun is waking up and I need me my good prime for astro/Aurora.


----------



## dlee13 (Jul 4, 2021)

Aussie shooter said:


> Is there any more info on this 16 2.8? It is the only one of the announced lenses that I would seriously consider getting atm. But it needs to be for FF and not designed for an apsc image circle. C'mon canon. The sun is waking up and I need me my good prime for astro/Aurora.


I don’t shoot Astro but I’m also really eager to find out more about this lens. 16mm is a great focal length for a FF prime so would be nice if Canon do release it! Tax time here soon too so can be a nice present


----------



## okaro (Sep 17, 2021)

rontele7 said:


> $3k for an f/7.1 lens is objectively bad.
> 
> If your uses are exclusively shooting at noon on sunny days, then that’s great, but slow lenses break down as soon as the light drops, even a partly cloudy day at f/7.1 requires a shutter well below 1/1000th. It’s just bad.
> 
> Sony gives users 1 stop faster, 100mm extra, for $1k less. Why can’t Canon compete?


The difference between f/7.1 and f/6.3 is 1/3 stop, not one stop. 1/3 stop is a meaningless difference.


----------



## Ozarker (Sep 17, 2021)

rontele7 said:


> Sony gives users 1 stop faster, 100mm extra, for $1k less. Why can’t Canon compete?


I suggest you not spend a penny. Instead, hire a tutor and learn the difference between 1/3 and 1. In the mean time, lock away the useless and uninformed snark.


----------

