# This is likely Canon’s lens roadmap for 2020



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jun 9, 2020)

> Nokishita has released a list of lenses to expect from Canon in 2020. Some we knew about, but a couple are new.
> *Canon lenses coming in 2020*
> 
> Canon RF 50mm f/1.8 IS STM
> ...



Continue reading...


----------



## DJP (Jun 9, 2020)

f/11? Best be tiny lenses


----------



## Mark3794 (Jun 9, 2020)

An ultra compact diffractive 800mm, with a 72mm front element? Yes, please.


----------



## Joules (Jun 9, 2020)

Seems like they are rounding out the budget oriented options for RF. And what a way to do it. Do making a comeback... as an entry level telephoto option. It sure makes sense to push the boundary in that direction. But f/11 is hard to swallow. The size will be intriguing.

Also: A non L 50 mm lens! Can they make certain someone happy or will it be another tease?


----------



## tpatana (Jun 9, 2020)

F11. Interesting. So DPAF doesn't need similar amount of light as PDAF?

Also, what shooting usually needs that long and has enough light for F11? Outdoor motorsports?


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Jun 9, 2020)

Canon seems to be really bold these days, which i like. 

Imagine an under 1kg 800mm lens. Could be great for hiking and travelling and used in decent light.


----------



## derpderp (Jun 9, 2020)

Where is my 24mm / 35mm F1.2? Where is the 70-135mm F2? WHERE ARE ALL MY L LENSES?!?!?!


----------



## Joules (Jun 9, 2020)

On another note, if entry level telephoto means living with f/11, 20 MP on the R6 certainly begins to make sense. At 26 or 30 MP you're already scratching at or shooting beyond the diffraction limit. The stuff Canon is putting out here appears very much uncharacteristic for them to me. But it is exciting to know these pricings.

With some announcements rumored to come this month, ahead of the body announcements in July, can we expect to hear more about these lenses soon?


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Jun 9, 2020)

tpatana said:


> F11. Interesting. So DPAF doesn't need similar amount of light as PDAF?
> 
> Also, what shooting usually needs that long and has enough light for F11? Outdoor motorsports?



Wildlife in decent light.


----------



## Aussie shooter (Jun 9, 2020)

F11? It seems really........wierd. is it perhaps a comment on the performance of the new sensors? I mean. Even if the AF can work at f11 you would basically NEVER have enough light to shoot at f11 at that focal length. At least not for wildlife. Unless the new sensors are a major step above what we are used to.


----------



## koenkooi (Jun 9, 2020)

blackcoffee17 said:


> Wildlife in decent light.



Or very, very still wildlife in moderate light


----------



## robinlee (Jun 9, 2020)

did not see this f/11 telephoto coming ...


----------



## dancan (Jun 9, 2020)

Well, every extension of the RF setup is welcome! Personally I would really like to see new TS-E lenses like a new 17mm and finally the 35mm.
I know I have to wait...............wait...............wait...........


----------



## Jasonmc89 (Jun 9, 2020)

f11... Really?

I know narrower apertures are not as much of a problem with these bodies, but come on!


----------



## Joules (Jun 9, 2020)

Aussie shooter said:


> Even if the AF can work at f11 you would basically NEVER have enough light to shoot at f11 at that focal length. At least not for wildlife.


I don't know. There are people who use lenses like the 100-300mm 4.0-5.6 or 100-400mm 4.0-6.3 Panasonic lenses. These primes are equivalent on the long end in terms of field of view and noise.

Obviously there will be compromises, but there is a market for compact-is telephoto equipment and the STM might indicate rather competitive pricing. And being primes could also allow for decent optical performance as long as one is aware of the sharpness compromise when used on anything but an R6.


----------



## theowl (Jun 9, 2020)

I need RF 14-28 F2


----------



## SecureGSM (Jun 9, 2020)

koenkooi said:


> Or very, very still wildlife in moderate light


sunny 16 rule: 

ISO 100, 1/100s, f/16 or ISO 100, 1/200, f/11, or ISO 600, 1/1200s, f/11, or ISO1000, 1/2000s, f/11 its DO as well. for Daylight Only?


----------



## brad-man (Jun 9, 2020)

I don't know about f/11, but I'm all in for the RF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM . I've been waiting for this one.


----------



## cerealito (Jun 9, 2020)

No love for the m mount


----------



## stefang (Jun 9, 2020)

f/11 makes a lot of sense considering the Panasonic 100-400 4-6.3 that's very popular in the micro43 world. It's comparable to a 200-800 8-12.6 in FF. It could make the argument of choosing micro43 for its tiny lenses obsolete.


----------



## Pape (Jun 9, 2020)

SecureGSM said:


> sunny 16 rule:
> 
> ISO 100, 1/100s, f/16 or ISO 100, 1/200, f/11, or ISO 600, 1/1200s, f/11, or ISO1000, 1/2000s, f/11 its DO as well. for Daylight Only?


RF 70-200 f2,8 can handle dim light situations good enough. Idea of interchangeable lens camera is you change lenses for different situation.


----------



## jolyonralph (Jun 9, 2020)

I wonder if the extenders will work with the f/11 lenses !


----------



## Mark3794 (Jun 9, 2020)

I found the patents for this tele lenses, they are really simple design so hopefully really cheap and small.

https://asobinet.com/info-patent-canon-800mm-f11-do/


----------



## [email protected] (Jun 9, 2020)

DJP said:


> f/11? Best be tiny lenses


Interesting (bit slow) Canon and what price ?, e.g, £2000, etc.

This lens 'Canon RF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM ' is the most exciting, hopefully Nikon will do a like for like version.


----------



## edoorn (Jun 9, 2020)

not my cuppa tea, although I would see myself replacing the 100-400 II if the new 100-500 is a better performer in terms of focus and IQ. If not, happy to carry a few converters on my wildlife trip for the 100-400 and 500 f/4.

Would love to see a 500 5.6 like Nikon


----------



## Joules (Jun 9, 2020)

SecureGSM said:


> sunny 16 rule:


It's a "rule" from the film age though, right? If you are okay with leaving some quality on the table, bending it a bit should be fine with modern sensors.



Pape said:


> RF 70-200 f2,8 can handle dim light situations good enough. Idea of interchangeable lens camera is you change lenses for different situation.


Of you crop the RF 70-200mm 2.8 to match the FoV of the 800mm 11 you're actually getting the same amount of noise, but with far less detail since that crop is so heavy, you're left with almost no pixels.


----------



## padam (Jun 9, 2020)

Interesting that they use STM motors, maybe they are going to be fairly affordable for their respective focal lengths.


----------



## Gazwas (Jun 9, 2020)

dancan said:


> Well, every extension of the RF setup is welcome! Personally I would really like to see new TS-E lenses like a new 17mm and finally the 35mm.
> I know I have to wait...............wait...............wait...........


YES PLEASE!!!!

But I imagine these are years away (or never) considering the current economic situation and falling camera sales.


----------



## Daan Stam (Jun 9, 2020)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...


Damn 800mm and 600mm non L lenses? and DO? that does sound amazing. F11 is pretty dark though...


----------



## Joules (Jun 9, 2020)

Mark3794 said:


> I found the patents for this tele lenses, they are really simple design so hopefully really cheap and small.
> 
> https://asobinet.com/info-patent-canon-800mm-f11-do/


Wow, these guys should be incredibly light weight! At least from that drawing they look basically empty  

370 mm length sticking out from the mount is also pretty decent for an 800mm lens. And 310 for the 600mm.


----------



## bergstrom (Jun 9, 2020)

what the hell do you do with a Canon RF 800mm f/11 ? Definitely not for nighttime shooting.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Jun 9, 2020)

cerealito said:


> No love for the m mount



This is why i'm hesitating buying an M6. It's quite expensive for a system with a questionable future.


----------



## Antono Refa (Jun 9, 2020)

I expected Canon to make 500mm & 600mm f/5.6 DO to compete with Nikon's primes. I half expected 600mm f/6.7.

Do customers really prefer those two f/11 primes over a combo of 400mm f/5.6 + 1.4x TC + 2x TC? The 1.4x TC is supposedly on the way, is Canon going to skip over either the 400mm f/5.6 prime or 2x TC?


----------



## Joules (Jun 9, 2020)

blackcoffee17 said:


> This is why i'm hesitating buying an M6. It's quite expensive for a system with a questionable future.


This is just what we now know is probably coming from a Nokishita Post. It doesn't mean nothing else will come out and we had rumors that the M system will get some attention this year. It may be that the current situation has pushed that back a bit into next year.

I wouldn't be so gloomy. I think if Canon feels like going to f/11 is okay in order to keep size in check, that's basically them hinting that reducing the image Circle to do RF APS-C isn't going to happen.


----------



## SteB1 (Jun 9, 2020)

Interesting. But a DO 500mm f5.6 would be far more useful. With a 1.4X converter it would be a 700mm f8 and a 1000mm f11 with a 2x extender. f5.6 is far more usable in a situation where you need high shutter speeds.


----------



## scyrene (Jun 9, 2020)

Aussie shooter said:


> F11? It seems really........wierd. is it perhaps a comment on the performance of the new sensors? I mean. Even if the AF can work at f11 you would basically NEVER have enough light to shoot at f11 at that focal length. At least not for wildlife. Unless the new sensors are a major step above what we are used to.



Here we go again! And once again I have to state: I've done a TONNE of wildlife shooting with the 500L+2x extender stopped down to f/10. Close enough to be relevant to an 800 f/11 lens. And this on aged Canon sensors! Mostly small birds and certainly not always in good light. People need to stop accepting received wisdom and open their minds a little.

*However* it does seem odd that the two extenders still appear to be orphaned. Even I would doubt a combination of 1600mm f/22 (although I did used to stack extenders and shoot handheld at 1400mm f/11).



bergstrom said:


> what the hell do you do with a Canon RF 800mm f/11 ? Definitely not for nighttime shooting.



Erm... what would you be shooting at night at 800mm anyway? Well there's the moon of course, in which case this lens would be ideal.


----------



## scyrene (Jun 9, 2020)

I do find it a little tiresome that given one of the most vocal groups here for several years has been the 'Canon needs to release affordable lenses over 400mm', now they have started addressing* that gap in the lineup, it's all 'this is unusable, why are they doing this'. Bright, long and cheap - you can't have all three.

*we don't know the prices yet but surely they will be much cheaper than the current supertele options.


----------



## cazza132 (Jun 9, 2020)

F11 - could be a Cassegrain style mirror lens with primary and secondary mirror elements. This greatly reduces the lens length to possibly 150mm long.


----------



## Aussie shooter (Jun 9, 2020)

scyrene said:


> Here we go again! And once again I have to state: I've done a TONNE of wildlife shooting with the 500L+2x extender stopped down to f/10. Close enough to be relevant to an 800 f/11 lens. And this on aged Canon sensors! Mostly small birds and certainly not always in good light. People need to stop accepting received wisdom and open their minds a little.
> 
> *However* it does seem odd that the two extenders still appear to be orphaned. Even I would doubt a combination of 1600mm f/22 (although I did used to stack extenders and shoot handheld at 1400mm f/11).
> 
> ...


I am not suggesting it is impossible to shoot at 600 f11. Jut that it is VERY VERY limiting when that is the best you have to work with.


----------



## SecureGSM (Jun 9, 2020)

Pape said:


> RF 70-200 f2,8 can handle dim light situations good enough. Idea of interchangeable lens camera is you change lenses for different situation.


Yeah. Gotcha. So when you need F5.6 at 800mm you change the lens. Oh, wait...
Did you notice 800mm focal length Not 200? Good!


----------



## Sharlin (Jun 9, 2020)

derpderp said:


> Where is my 24mm / 35mm F1.2? Where is the 70-135mm F2? WHERE ARE ALL MY L LENSES?!?!?!



Canon just can't win, can they? When they release expensive groundbreaking L lenses, people ask where all the affordable midrange options are. When they release affordable midrange lenses, people demand more expensive groundbreaking L ones.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Jun 9, 2020)

Sharlin said:


> Canon just can't win, can they? When they release expensive groundbreaking L lenses, people ask where all the affordable midrange options are. When they release affordable midrange lenses, people demand more expensive groundbreaking L ones.



People want everything and at the same time. When Canon releases this 85mm F2 lens, im sure many will complain about the lack of 1.4 version or 1.8 version.


----------



## chris_overseas (Jun 9, 2020)

The 800 f/11 struck me as odd at first glance, but I suspect its IS combined with the R5's IBIS would make it a very handy and lightweight lens to have around for _stationary_ wildlife, even if the light isn't ideal.

Out of interest I just had a look at the metadata for my photos taken on the 800mm f/5.6. The breakdown of number of photos (keepers only) by aperture is as follows:

f/5.6 - 5995
f/6.3 - 1741
f/7.1 - 560
f/8.0 - 326
f/9.0 - 135
f/10 - 42
f/11 - 54
f/13 - 22
f/14 - 6
f/16 - 9
f/18 - 5
f/25 - 1

A lot of the f/11 and smaller aperture shots are of distant landscapes but there's a high percentage of wildlife shots in there too. I guess fairly predictably, the photos with aperture below f/11 tend to have been taken in poor light or have some movement/action happening, but having a shallow DoF is a significant factor in them too. The 800 f/11 + R5 would obviously struggle with the last two factors, but (optical quality differences aside) the extra stabilisation might mean it can still hold its own for still scenes in less than perfect lighting compared to a 5D IV + 800 f/5.6 setup.


----------



## padam (Jun 9, 2020)

Antono Refa said:


> I expected Canon to make 500mm & 600mm f/5.6 DO to compete with Nikon's primes. I half expected 600mm f/6.7.
> 
> Do customers really prefer those two f/11 primes over a combo of 400mm f/5.6 + 1.4x TC + 2x TC? The 1.4x TC is supposedly on the way, is Canon going to skip over either the 400mm f/5.6 prime or 2x TC?


No reason to rush expensive telephotos at this point before the R1, the 400/5.6 is still available to use, but it's likely to be not nearly as good or portable.


----------



## Sharlin (Jun 9, 2020)

bergstrom said:


> what the hell do you do with a Canon RF 800mm f/11 ? Definitely not for nighttime shooting.



Shoot the moon. With a tracking mount, planets as well, and potentially deep-sky objects too. At daytime (with a solar filter) shooting the sun is also a use case.


----------



## Otara (Jun 9, 2020)

F11 is less of an issue for video. I'm dubious though.


----------



## fabao (Jun 9, 2020)

stefang said:


> f/11 makes a lot of sense considering the Panasonic 100-400 4-6.3 that's very popular in the micro43 world. It's comparable to a 200-800 8-12.6 in FF. It could make the argument of choosing micro43 for its tiny lenses obsolete.


The Pana 100-400 performed great on a recent Safari trip! So portable and yes, as long as light levels are decent, f/11 is not an issue, and gives you more depth of field anyway to keep more of the animal in focus. For shorter focal lenses I just relied on FF.


----------



## Stig Nygaard (Jun 9, 2020)

If true, it's interesting Canon is trying new things possible in mirrorless RF-mount world. As long as EF-lenses can still be used, it makes absolutely sense to make lenses of a kind never seen before. Interesting to see how big/heavy and "cheap" they will be.
Will they be popular lenses? Probably not even Canon knows for sure yet, but there's definitely potential to reach some new users who couldn't effort - or where not ready to carry the weight and size of - "similar" EF-lenses.


----------



## mpb001 (Jun 9, 2020)

It would be nice to see an RF 15-35 f4L?


----------



## Viggo (Jun 9, 2020)

At least you won’t get any pointy harsh bokeh when “stopped down”


----------



## Mark3794 (Jun 9, 2020)

The big mistery for me is: what are the teleconverters for?


----------



## Skux (Jun 9, 2020)

I wouldn't wish f/11 on my worst enemies.


----------



## Bambel (Jun 9, 2020)

Mark3794 said:


> The big mistery for me is: what are the teleconverters for?



Maybe they are EF to RF TCs?


----------



## padam (Jun 9, 2020)

For anyone in doubt, just look at the Olympus Zuiko Pro 300mm f/4 lens with a 1.4x teleconverter.
It has nearly the same FOV (840mm) and equivalent aperture around f/11, but probably better to step down slightly), it is perfectly capable of taking nice pictures with a lot of subjects, the double stabilisation will help out a lot, and it can also be carried anywhere.
This should be a better version of that. With the STM motor it should be perfect for video, too, where you don't need high shutter speeds and it does not necessarily need a huge tripod.


----------



## Ph0t0 (Jun 9, 2020)

600mm f11?
I can certainly appreciate a light lens. But Wow- with a brightest aperture of f11 this lens would have an extremely limited use.


----------



## Mr Majestyk (Jun 9, 2020)

Seriously maybe an 800 f/8 would be ok, but 600 f/11 how pathetic. Maybe I won't be coming back to Canon with this barrage of ultra slow zooms. I don't care how good the ISO is of any new camera, even f/8 is a major impediment in anything but good light.
Hopefully this is incorrect as IMO it's absurd. It basically means they cannot produce a DO element larger than 100mm.

Where the hell are the 500 f/4 and 300 f/2.8 not this ultra slow rubbish.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Jun 9, 2020)

Mr Majestyk said:


> Seriously maybe an 800 f/8 would be ok, but 600 f/11 how pathetic. Maybe I won't be coming back to Canon with this barrage of ultra slow zooms. I don't care how good the ISO is of any new camera, even f/8 is a major impediment in anything but good light.
> Hopefully this is incorrect as IMO it's absurd. It basically means they cannot produce a DO element larger than 100mm.
> 
> Where the hell are the 500 f/4 and 300 f/2.8 not this ultra slow rubbish.



Just ask a wildlife photographer how many of his/her shots are made at F11. You will be surprised.


----------



## fox40phil (Jun 9, 2020)

f/11.... no way :'(!
Why not f/8 ??? Especially 6.3 would be smaller as the 4.0/5.6 primes currently.


----------



## Joules (Jun 9, 2020)

Mr Majestyk said:


> Hopefully this is incorrect as IMO it's absurd. It basically means they cannot produce a DO element larger than 100mm.


Come on. There are plenty of expensive big whites for the EF Mount out there.

Just because Canon leverages the advantages of on sensor AF here to produce what looks like affordable telephoto RF lenses, it doesn't mean that they can't or won't invest into less radical designs in the future. But it's not a priority at the moment since at the high end, you already have great options for use with adapters anyway.


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Jun 9, 2020)

A 500mm f/5.6 and a 600mm f/5.6 would be ideal. After seeing the Nikon 500mm f/5.6 in person I am sold. F/11 is just not going to work here unless it’s at ISO 18000 in a forest.

Edit: I missed these are rumoured to be STM lenses so they aren’t aimed at me anyway. I am wanting a 500 or 600 f/5.6 L lens with all the weather sealing it can have so I can have a light prime for going on long walks.


----------



## Maximilian (Jun 9, 2020)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...


My thoughts...

Canon RF 50 f/1.8 STM
==> Finally 

Canon RF 85mm f/2 Macro IS STM
==> Lovely 

Canon RF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM
==> Good! Interesing what barrel construction (telescope/fixed lenght)
Canon RF 100-500mm f/4.5-7.1L IS USM
==> Interesing, depending on IQ
Canon RF 600mm f/11 DO IS STM
==> Fascinating, depending on IQ 
Canon RF 800mm f/11 DO IS STM
==> Fascinating, depending on IQ 
Canon RF 1.4x
==> Can be combined with which lenses? 
Canon RF 2.0x
==> Can be combined with which lenses? 
And what about the R6? 
Size? Price? Pics? Better RP successor or R successor?


----------



## fox40phil (Jun 9, 2020)

Why should Canon release a "100mm f/2.0 Macro" if they will release a "85mm f/2 Macro IS STM" ? 

Just give us a 150/180mm 2.8/3.5/4.0 Macro too =)


----------



## Maximilian (Jun 9, 2020)

fox40phil said:


> Why should Canon release a "100mm f/2.0 Macro" if they will release a "85mm f/2 Macro IS STM" ?


Suppose the 100mm f/2.0 Macro is a 1:1 and the 85mm f/2 Macro IS STM is a 1:2 like the RF35/F1.8.



> Just give us a 150/180mm 2.8/3.5/4.0 Macro too =)


Time will tell... 
Most popular lenses first.


----------



## Maximilian (Jun 9, 2020)

Mark3794 said:


> I found the patents for this tele lenses, they are really simple design so hopefully really cheap and small.
> 
> https://asobinet.com/info-patent-canon-800mm-f11-do/


Thanks for digging that out. Interesting how they will be set in IQ and MRSP.


----------



## Maximilian (Jun 9, 2020)

derpderp said:


> Where is my 24mm / 35mm F1.2? Where is the 70-135mm F2? WHERE ARE ALL MY L LENSES?!?!?!


Still in your purse/credid card/bank account


----------



## Chaitanya (Jun 9, 2020)

F11 , I would like to know what Canon engineers are smoking. 
Also that 85mm Macro a 1x macro or just another addition to 35mm Macro which does .5x mag ratio.


----------



## jolyonralph (Jun 9, 2020)

Maximilian said:


> My thoughts...
> 
> Canon RF 1.4x
> ==> Can be combined with which lenses?
> ...



So far the only one that's guaranteed is the RF 100-500. 

It won't work with the RF 70-200 f/2.8, so it's unlikely the RF 70-200 f/4 will support extenders either.

The more interesting thing is whether the RF TCs will work with the RF-EF adaptor or not. I imagine probably not, but if they do that would open up more opportunities.


----------



## Darrell Cadieux (Jun 9, 2020)

'I can add to this information that both the RF 600mm f/11 IS STM and RF 800mm f/11 IS STM will be DO lenses as well.' Forgive my ignorance...but what does, 'DO' mean?


----------



## jolyonralph (Jun 9, 2020)

Are you sure about the 600mm being f/11? The patent shows it being f/8

[EDIT: there are two versions, one f/8 the other f/11. Still hoping we get the f/8 one]









フルサイズ対応「800mm F11 DO」「600mm F8 DO」キヤノン特許出願


2019年11月14日付けでキヤノンの気になる特許出願がアメリカで公開されています。




asobinet.com


----------



## H. Jones (Jun 9, 2020)

I think people are vastly underestimating these STM DO lenses. Notice they're not even L series--they're basic STM. 

My feeling about this is that these lenses are going to be far cheaper and far better in size than y'all anticipate. I wouldn't be surprised if they top out at $1000-1500 at most. That's a *huge* market that Canon can tap into versus a $12,000 lens, and I could even honestly see myself grabbing a cheap 800 f/11 to throw in a bag and forget about. 

It's becoming more and more apparent that Canon is throwing away the lens design handbook of 40 years ago and is making whatever lens they want to make. For the new focus system, F/11 is basically the new F/5.6, and Canon would be stupid not to leverage creating a new cheap market of the longest, cheapest lenses. Think of how many people are perfectly content shooting F/5.6 or F/8 on a crop camera, which is almost definitely going to have more noise than this. 


On a totally different note, I think that 85mm f/2 is in my future. Would be great having a 35 f1.8 and 85 f2 with the EOS R5 in a tiny shoulder bag when I'm not going somewhere just for photography.


----------



## KrisK (Jun 9, 2020)

Stig Nygaard said:


> If true, it's interesting Canon is trying new things possible in mirrorless RF-mount world. As long as EF-lenses can still be used, it makes absolutely sense to make lenses of a kind never seen before. Interesting to see how big/heavy and "cheap" they will be.
> Will they be popular lenses? Probably not even Canon knows for sure yet, but there's definitely potential to reach some new users who couldn't effort - or where not ready to carry the weight and size of - "similar" EF-lenses.



Well, technically, a compact RF 28mm f/2 is a lens that's "never been seen before." 
Go for it Canon! Be bold!


----------



## JoeDavid (Jun 9, 2020)

bergstrom said:


> what the hell do you do with a Canon RF 800mm f/11 ? Definitely not for nighttime shooting.


Give them away for visiting the Canon booth at a trade show? No wait, they’ve all been cancelled...


----------



## Joules (Jun 9, 2020)

jolyonralph said:


> Are you sure about the 600mm being f/11? The patent shows it being f/8
> 
> http://[URL]https://asobinet.com/info-patent-canon-800mm-f11-do/[/URL]


There is an f/11 variant in there as well.


----------



## Dj 7th (Jun 9, 2020)

I was hoping for a 35mm f/1.2..... Well there is next year to look forward to.


----------



## Del Paso (Jun 9, 2020)

A bit disappointed , apart from the 85 macro and 100-500 zoom.
No TSE, 70-135 f2, no f1,4 WA zoom, no 24 mm f1,4, no affordable 500 f5,6, but f11 superteles (non L).


----------



## stochasticmotions (Jun 9, 2020)

600 and 800 f/11 STM sounds like they will be a great addition for nature video work. Something I can carry into the field easily with length I could only get from a micro 4/3 setup in terms of size. Would be even better as say a 300-800 zoom DO but I haven't seen canon trying zooms with diffractive optics since the 70-300. Will be interesting to see if the focus breathing is noticeable since I would love to be able to let the lens use object tracking at least for larger subjects.


----------



## SV (Jun 9, 2020)

I'm betting that f/11 for the 600mm & 800mm is not correct, perhaps a mistake in the translation or a placeholder number


----------



## Stuart (Jun 9, 2020)

So will the "Nifty RFfifty" be under £100 $100 ?


----------



## joestopper (Jun 9, 2020)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...



Nothing on the wide end?
Where are:
- 14-28 f/2
- 24 f1.2


----------



## wockawocka (Jun 9, 2020)

Canon RF 50mm f/1.8 STM NOPE
Canon RF 85mm f/2 Macro IS STM NOPE
Canon RF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM YEP
Canon RF 100-500mm f/4.5-7.1L IS USM NOPE
Canon RF 600mm f/11 DO IS STM MAYBE
Canon RF 800mm f/11 DO IS STM MAYBE


----------



## AlanF (Jun 9, 2020)

There's a lot of nonsense in this thread about f/11 and 800mm being absurd. Like others here, I've been shooting f/8 and 800mm successfully for several years with a 2xTC on a 400mm DO II, even stopping down to f/11. So, I could find a use for it. Some admit it would be OK for static bird life but not birds in flight. But, have they tried doing BIF with any 800mm lens? It's darned difficult with that narrow field of view and I prefer 400mm on FF or 560 at the most to give me a chance of tracking and keeping in frame. The Sony mob are using the 200-600m f/6.3 with a 2xTC and not complaining about the f/13 aperture.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Jun 9, 2020)

SV said:


> I'm betting that f/11 for the 600mm & 800mm is not correct, perhaps a mistake in the translation or a placeholder number



F8 would be more acceptable. The 2 stops and DO over the 600mm F4 would make it much smaller and cheaper.


----------



## ncvarsity3 (Jun 9, 2020)

brad-man said:


> I don't know about f/11, but I'm all in for the RF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM . I've been waiting for this one.


I'm really hoping that the f/4 version will be around the same size as the RF 24-105 f4l. as much as I love my EF 70-200 f4l IS, storing my RF 24-105 f4l in my bag is way more convenient.


----------



## Architect1776 (Jun 9, 2020)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...



This is pretty amazing, Long lenses with small max apertures shows Canon has something up their sleeve as far as incredible sensor technology. ISO 120,000 with NO noise at all?


----------



## joestopper (Jun 9, 2020)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...



So far there were amazing lenses released but bodies were somewhat underwhelming. Now this overwhelming body (R5) is on its way and no new lens to match???
Looks like the lens division is running out of steam.


----------



## SV (Jun 9, 2020)

blackcoffee17 said:


> F8 would be more acceptable. The 2 stops and DO over the 600mm F4 would make it much smaller and cheaper.



I agree, f/11 just isn't generally practical, and I'm guessing, not correct


----------



## canonnews (Jun 9, 2020)

joestopper said:


> So far there were amazing lenses released but bodies were somewhat underwhelming. Now this overwhelming body (R5) is on its way and no new lens to match???



you're not serious are you?


----------



## canonnews (Jun 9, 2020)

Architect1776 said:


> This is pretty amazing, Long lenses with small max apertures shows Canon has something up their sleeve as far as incredible sensor technology. ISO 120,000 with NO noise at all?


I don't think so.

ISO's have slowly gotten better over time, but people haven't really adjusted that much. with 45MP's on the R5 for instance, you have A LOT of pixels to play with for noise reduction before you are down in the 20mp or so file size.

Then you have DLO which reduces the effect of diffraction - so F/11 isn't F/11 after running through DLO. Combine that with some very smart NR and you probably have pretty good output.

I see people EVERYWHERE clamoring for computational photography. Canon's DLO is pretty sophisticated, and today's NR stuff is pretty spiffy too.


----------



## Mark3794 (Jun 9, 2020)

canonnews said:


> you're not serious are you?


Canon just can't win, whatever they release the army of sony fanboys/paid youtubers will say "Canon Canon Cripple Cripple"


----------



## jeffa4444 (Jun 9, 2020)

The RF 70-200mm f4L IS USM will be a big hit as will the RF85mm f2 Macro IS STM and the RF50 f1.8 STM. These are staples for many. I would think the RF16-35mm f4L IS USM and the RF24-70mm f4L IS USM will follow in 2021 this would keep a lot of landscape photographers very happy. Keep on rolling . Canon


----------



## raptor3x (Jun 9, 2020)

Codebunny said:


> A 500mm f/5.6 and a 600mm f/5.6 would be ideal. After seeing the Nikon 500mm f/5.6 in person I am sold. F/11 is just not going to work here unless it’s am at ISO 18000 in a forest.



If the IBIS + lens IS is anything like what you get with the Olympus 300 PRO then it will still be fairly useful for stationary subjects even in poor lighting conditions.


----------



## canonnews (Jun 9, 2020)

jeffa4444 said:


> The RF 70-200mm f4L IS USM will be a big hit as will the RF85mm f2 Macro IS STM and the RF50 f1.8 STM. These are staples for many. I would think the RF16-35mm f4L IS USM and the RF24-70mm f4L IS USM will follow in 2021 this would keep a lot of landscape photographers very happy. Keep on rolling . Canon


Totally! I'm likely to get all 3.


----------



## Jstnelson (Jun 9, 2020)

Maybe, with all these narrow aperture lenses coming, the new R5 and R6 are going to have some new amazing low light sensor with DR we've like we've never seen before. Or maybe they're just making cheap lenses lol.


----------



## Architect1776 (Jun 9, 2020)

bergstrom said:


> what the hell do you do with a Canon RF 800mm f/11 ? Definitely not for nighttime shooting.


 I bet there are actually people who shoot at other times besides night. I would even imagine a vast majority shoot in daylight.


----------



## joestopper (Jun 9, 2020)

canonnews said:


> you're not serious are you?



I am. Expecting fast wide lenses.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jun 9, 2020)

Aussie shooter said:


> F11? It seems really........wierd. is it perhaps a comment on the performance of the new sensors? I mean. Even if the AF can work at f11 you would basically NEVER have enough light to shoot at f11 at that focal length. At least not for wildlife. Unless the new sensors are a major step above what we are used to.


I can use f/11 with my R. I can also use it in live view with my 5D MK IV. I think some of the better communications in the RF lenses may help autofocus.

F11 is F11, the focal length does not change that. Obviously, the amount of light needed to get a low ISO exposure at a high shutter speed is critical, and for moving subjects, a fast shutter speed is going to be a issue. Lots of wildlife is not moving, birds in flight might require high ISO.


----------



## canonnews (Jun 9, 2020)

joestopper said:


> I am. Expecting fast wide lenses.



If canon did every "dream" request that people wanted, they would have had to create a 100 lens ecosystem in 6 months after release.

Canon has created more than enough "pro" lenses to start, and certainly needs to fill out more consumer lenses.

if you didn't recall a R6 is coming too.


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Jun 9, 2020)

raptor3x said:


> If the IBIS + lens IS is anything like what you get with the Olympus 300 PRO then it will still be fairly useful for stationary subjects even in poor lighting conditions.



I tried out f/11 in my local burn. 1/5 at ISO 3200. That isn't enough to get a perched bird. I do think it is enough on a bright day out in the open on the other hand. But it will be very cheep and light weight and should open up wildlife to a lot of people that would otherwise not be able to afford it. ATM the cheapest route I can see is a D850 and 500mm PF f/5.6. I would like to see a similar pro level offering from Canon, something f/5.6, small, and long when you can't or don't want to take a f/4 or f/2.8 super tele.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jun 9, 2020)

cerealito said:


> No love for the m mount


There is no doubt that Canon wants to push RF lenses. They are pricing the R bodies well, but are cleaning up on the RF lenses. That is in conformance with what they have said in their financial reports. Its the printer and ink strategy, sell printers cheaply, make a big profit on lenses where there is no competition. Expect their patent lawyers to be jealously guarding the RF patents.


----------



## gruhl28 (Jun 9, 2020)

mpb001 said:


> It would be nice to see an RF 15-35 f4L?


Exactly what I was thinking. I have crop sensor right now, thinking about upgrading to FF. If I buy an RF camera I'll buy it with the 24-105 f/4, and I have the EF 100-400, but that leaves me needing a wide angle, and I personally cannot justify paying the price for the 15-35 f/2.8, wonderful as that lens may be. If they are going to introduce the tele member of the f/4 trinity, would be nice to also have the f/4 wide angle. Right now there's no affordable wide angle (35 is just barely wide angle).


----------



## padam (Jun 9, 2020)

gruhl28 said:


> Exactly what I was thinking. I have crop sensor right now, thinking about upgrading to FF. If I buy an RF camera I'll buy it with the 24-105 f/4, and I have the EF 100-400, but that leaves me needing a wide angle, and I personally cannot justify paying the price for the 15-35 f/2.8, wonderful as that lens may be. If they are going to introduce the tele member of the f/4 trinity, would be nice to also have the f/4 wide angle. Right now there's no affordable wide angle (35 is just barely wide angle).


They really don't need to re-create every lens right away, that already exists in EF-mount. (another reason for the light and slow primes, you can still use your fast EF telephotos if you want to)
It would be an RF 16-35 f/4 IS to keep it smaller and lighter than making it more expensive to push it to 15mm.
All the f/2.8 zooms either gained IS or a smaller size plus extra sharpness, they are not just 'minor' updates going from EF to RF.

It makes much more sense to do an RF 10-24 f/4L that is way lighter and smaller than the EF 11-24 f/L and it can still be sold at a profit.


----------



## tron (Jun 9, 2020)

scyrene said:


> Here we go again! And once again I have to state: I've done a TONNE of wildlife shooting with the 500L+2x extender stopped down to f/10. Close enough to be relevant to an 800 f/11 lens. And this on aged Canon sensors! Mostly small birds and certainly not always in good light. People need to stop accepting received wisdom and open their minds a little.
> 
> *However* it does seem odd that the two extenders still appear to be orphaned. Even I would doubt a combination of 1600mm f/22 (although I did used to stack extenders and shoot handheld at 1400mm f/11).
> 
> ...


I also have used my 500mm 4L IS II with 2XIII at f/8 f/9 and f/10 with my 5DsR. But there is always the option to use it at f/8 to be close to DLA (f/6/7) and at the same time to enjoy 1000mm. And I realy have enjoyed the results!

But 1000mm at f/8 is not the same as 800mm at f/11. Of course portability is a totally different matter. But for that there is always D500 + 500mm f/5.6 PF !!! A really portable combo.

Now if only they made 800DO a stop brighter (but that would be rather big like 400DO +2X big).


----------



## stevelee (Jun 9, 2020)

Antono Refa said:


> I expected Canon to make 500mm & 600mm f/5.6 DO to compete with Nikon's primes. I half expected 600mm f/6.7.
> 
> Do customers really prefer those two f/11 primes over a combo of 400mm f/5.6 + 1.4x TC + 2x TC? The 1.4x TC is supposedly on the way, is Canon going to skip over either the 400mm f/5.6 prime or 2x TC?


Put a 2x converter on an f/5.6 lens, and you get about f/11, right?

[I've edited this back to the right version. Thanks to those who sent me corrections.]


----------



## tron (Jun 9, 2020)

Bambel said:


> Maybe they are EF to RF TCs?


That I would love to have!


----------



## canonnews (Jun 9, 2020)

[URL='[URL]http://i.viglink.com/?key=4d330a4797ea127575531d3ebd1213b0&insertId=41a07188954f8397&type=H&mid=44564&exp=60%3ACI1C55A%3A1&libId=kb80u4n50100y11i000DLqj3vp12&loc=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.canonrumors.com%2Fforum%2Findex.php%3Fthreads%2Fthis-is-likely-canon%25E2%2580%2599s-lens-roadmap-for-2020.38657%2Fpage-6&v=1&iid=41a07188954f8397&out=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.fanatical.com%2Fgame%2Ftron-run-r-ultimate-edition&ref=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.canonrumors.com%2Fforum%2Findex.php%3Fthreads%2Fthis-is-likely-canon%25E2%2580%2599s-lens-roadmap-for-2020.38657%2Fpage-5&title=This%20is%20likely%20Canon%E2%80%99s%20lens%20roadmap%20for%202020%20%7C%20Canon%20Rumors&txt=%3Cspan%3Etron%3C%2Fspan%3E']tron[/URL][/URL] said:


> I also have used my 500mm 4L IS II with 2XIII at f/8 f/9 and f/10 with my 5DsR. But there is always the option to use it at f/8 to be close to DLA (f/6/7) and at the same time to enjoy 1000mm. And I realy have enjoyed the results!
> 
> But 1000mm at f/8 is not the same as 800mm at f/11. Of course portability is a totally different matter. But for that there is always D500 + 500mm f/5.6 PF !!! A really portable combo.


not to mention cost. if we have the right patent application for these lenses, then I can't see them being very expensive. it appears they are only 9 elements in 6 groups or so.

(I'm not sure what's going on with the forums. i'll have to talk to Craig.. viglink is doing some weird stuff.


----------



## JustUs7 (Jun 9, 2020)

I'm certainly no expert in the big whites area, having never owned or used one. Just a question. If they have a stable of big whites in the EF mounts all costing $5,000 - $13,000 - how many owners are going to be rushing out to replace a lens that expensive? How many have been holding off spending $10,000 on a lens just waiting for an RF version? Given the size and weight requirements for a fast, long lens like that - the weight penalty of an adapter is negligible. You're also not going to be hand-holding anyway. 

Makes sense that Canon would produce something with reach that's much lighter and more affordable than anything in the EF world. They'll have R and RP owners that had no Canon glass options willing to buy 600mm and 800mm lenses that would never spend the kind of money needed for fast glass with that kind of reach. Assuming they aren't already adapting Sigma or Tamron 150 - 600.


----------



## Pixel (Jun 9, 2020)

Sort of makes sense. There’s still no “pro” body on the radar for this year so that’s probably the reason for the lower end lenses. I think the real innovation and higher end lenses have to be on track for next year with the EOS 1R. 
Although the extenders don’t make any sense.


----------



## AlanF (Jun 9, 2020)

stevelee said:


> Put a 1.4x converter on an f/5.6 lens, and you get about f/11, right?


You can that nicely with a 100-400mm II on the R , RP, newer M series or the 5DIV and 90D in liveview as well as other cameras. I would see an R5 with the 100-500mm for general nature use and an 800mm at hand for those distant shots as a nice package.


----------



## canonnews (Jun 9, 2020)

SwissFrank said:


> Well if you're hand-holding, and if the IS is only worth 3 stops, the old "sunny 16" rules would say you could shoot 800mm at:
> 
> f/16 1/100 ISO100 (sunny)
> f/11 1/100 ISO100 (hazy)
> ...



that isn't how you'd do it. you'd be shooting at ISO 800 or ISO 1600. 1/100 is going to be too slow. there's motion blur usually.


----------



## tron (Jun 9, 2020)

canonnews said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > I also have used my 500mm 4L IS II with 2XIII at f/8 f/9 and f/10 with my 5DsR. But there is always the option to use it at f/8 to be close to DLA (f/6/7) and at the same time to enjoy 1000mm. And I realy have enjoyed the results!
> ...


Yes cost should be minimized just as size. That would be another advantage. But I see more 800/f11 as having a point. A 600/f8 would be more like it. But we do not know size and/or price yet so there is that.


----------



## Antono Refa (Jun 9, 2020)

stevelee said:


> Put a 1.4x converter on an f/5.6 lens, and you get about f/11, right?



Wouldn't that be f/8?


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Jun 9, 2020)

stevelee said:


> Put a 1.4x converter on an f/5.6 lens, and you get about f/11, right?



Nope you get a f/8. You need a 2x converter to make a f/5.6 into a f/11.


----------



## gruhl28 (Jun 9, 2020)

stevelee said:


> Put a 1.4x converter on an f/5.6 lens, and you get about f/11, right?


A 1.4x converter on an f/5.6 lens gives you f/8. A 2x converter gives f/11.


----------



## Antono Refa (Jun 9, 2020)

padam said:


> No reason to rush expensive telephotos at this point before the R1, the 400/5.6 is still available to use, but it's likely to be not nearly as good or portable.



The EF 400mm f/5.6 is priced @ $1,150. The RF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM is priced @ $2,699. That leaves Canon a large margin for an upgrade before the R1 release.


----------



## stevelee (Jun 9, 2020)

gruhl28 said:


> A 1.4x converter on an f/5.6 lens gives you f/8. A 2x converter gives f/11.


Right. That's what I wrote in the first place, and then for some mental lapse edited it to 1.4x. Thanks for the correction.


----------



## Sibir Lupus (Jun 9, 2020)

cerealito said:


> No love for the m mount



I'm confused, is this list only for RF lenses or all Canon lenses for this year? I know there is another post about 5 rumored EF-M lenses for this year.


----------



## Tom W (Jun 9, 2020)

F/11 doesn't really make sense to me. I mean, yeah, the AF might handle it, but unless the high ISO performance of the new bodies is 2-3 stops better than my 5D4, then it won't be useful for birding in the dark shadows of the forest. I'm already in situations with the Sigma 150-600 because of its slow f/6.3 aperture at 600 mm, where I'm shooting at 6400 at times.

Bright sunny day, yeah, f/11 would be Ok maybe.

I would think that these f/11 lenses would be very inexpensive and small, compared to the f/4 600, say, but I'm just not sure how effective they'd be anywhere but in the best of lighting.


----------



## Marximusprime (Jun 9, 2020)

Darrell Cadieux said:


> 'I can add to this information that both the RF 600mm f/11 IS STM and RF 800mm f/11 IS STM will be DO lenses as well.' Forgive my ignorance...but what does, 'DO' mean?



It stands for Diffractive Optics. Canon has used the tech in other lenses (400 f/4 DO I and II, for example). I'm not too keen on all the science but it basically enables the construction of more compact lenses.


----------



## padam (Jun 9, 2020)

Antono Refa said:


> The EF 400mm f/5.6 is priced @ $1,150. The RF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM is priced @ $2,699. That leaves Canon a large margin for an upgrade before the R1 release.


Does not make much sense, people don't want a slower 400mm prime when they can get the same level of optical quality in a 100-400 ii zoom or they have the new RF 100-500 to upgrade and pair it with a teleconverter if needed.
They also have the EF 400/4 ii DO and plenty of other options, very different price category, you double the amount of light and the price instantly doubles as well, same with having more reach.

Small and slow 600mm and 800mm primes make perfect sense for a lot of people, if they are priced right.
Not everyone of course, if they can buy an EF 400/2.8 iii or whatever they like, that's fine.

EF development might came to a halt, but they are very much in production and selling, same with EF-mount cameras and DSLRs.
The assumption, that there is "no world outside RF" is a very wrong one.

But, I think EF-M users might become a bit annoyed, that they may not see a native telephoto prime/high-quality tele zoom in their lens lineup (their cameras are pretty tiny anyway), they just need to keep adapting from EF, unless some third party manufacturer steps in.


----------



## Tom W (Jun 9, 2020)

Joules said:


> I don't know. There are people who use lenses like the 100-300mm 4.0-5.6 or 100-400mm 4.0-6.3 Panasonic lenses. These primes are equivalent on the long end in terms of field of view and noise.
> 
> Obviously there will be compromises, but there is a market for compact-is telephoto equipment and the STM might indicate rather competitive pricing. And being primes could also allow for decent optical performance as long as one is aware of the sharpness compromise when used on anything but an R6.



Ok, so lets say you're birding in the dark shadows of the woods. You need some shutter speed so you're shooting at 1/1000, f.5.6, ISO 3200 for proper exposure. Lets go to f/8 - now you're at iSO 6400, or you give up more shutter speed. At f/11, you're at ISO 12800 for the same exposure. Unless 12,800 in the new camera can give me the same noise characteristics as today's ISO 3200, then it's a non-starter for me.


----------



## stevelee (Jun 9, 2020)

My point is that people are already using what amount to f/11 telephotos, but because the number says 5.6 or 8, they don't think of it that way.

With my 6D2 I find that for a lot of subject matter and a lot of purposes, ISO 3200 is just fine. Maybe if _National Geographic _were paying me big bucks, then I'd need a faster lens. But for posting on the web or printing on paper up to 13" x 19" without a lot of cropping, that level of ISO should usually be fine. I just wouldn't come here to brag about my 100% crops. I don't do any wildlife shooting other than birds at the feeders next door. (The deer duck into the woods behind my house if I point anything at them.) So I can't really speak from experience. And I don't have an R-series camera or plans to get one anyway. But I'd think 1/2000 sec. in bright light should work OK for a lot of critters. And shouldn't the sensors on the new R cameras be better than the one in my 6D2?


----------



## padam (Jun 9, 2020)

usern4cr said:


> However, the 800mm f11 lens patent indicates that it has *NO IS*, and so it will be worthless to handhold (IMHO), but WILL be very usable on a tripod.


It does not matter what's in the patent, Nokishita is pretty much always right with the rumours/leaks, and it says
Canon RF 600mm f/11 DO IS STM
Canon RF 800mm f/11 DO IS STM
So it should be fine.


----------



## Tom W (Jun 9, 2020)

stevelee said:


> Put a 1.4x converter on an f/5.6 lens, and you get about f/11, right?



A 1.4X teleconverter costs you 1 stop, so your 5.6 would become f/8. A 2X teleconverter costs you 2 stops, so you would then have double the focal length, but at f/11.


----------



## stevelee (Jun 9, 2020)

Tom W said:


> A 1.4X teleconverter costs you 1 stop, so your 5.6 would become f/8. A 2X teleconverter costs you 2 stops, so you would then have double the focal length, but at f/11.


Yes, I edited the right answer to a wrong one. Maybe I should go back and change it.


----------



## usern4cr (Jun 9, 2020)

padam said:


> It does not matter what's in the patent, Nokishita is pretty much always right with the rumours/leaks, and it says
> Canon RF 600mm f/11 DO IS STM
> Canon RF 800mm f/11 DO IS STM
> So it should be fine.


I didn't notice the IS in the name of the lens. I just checked the patent which didn't include it. 
If they put IS in the lens, as you think they will, then YES - it will be fine to handhold! 
Since it looks like it will have IS, I have deleted my post. Thanks for bringing this to my attention!


----------



## Foa2020 (Jun 9, 2020)

dancan said:


> Well, every extension of the RF setup is welcome! Personally I would really like to see new TS-E lenses like a new 17mm and finally the 35mm.
> I know I have to wait...............wait...............wait...........


Hi, out of interest: why wouldn’t you use your existing TSE lenses with the adaptor? This is slow tripod kind of work anyway, the adaptor would be a minor issue for me with these lenses? Just curious. Grtz, F.


----------



## mb66energy (Jun 9, 2020)

tpatana said:


> F11. Interesting. So DPAF doesn't need similar amount of light as PDAF?
> 
> Also, what shooting usually needs that long and has enough light for F11? Outdoor motorsports?



I use the 5.6 400 with 2x extender to get my 800mm and it works like a charm if ... you have enough contrast in the right direction and a little bit light. Direction means that DPAF needs vertically aligned structures to acquire AF information.

And reading about f/11 800 is another reason to keep that lens and enjoy to have the 5.6 400mm option on top!


----------



## highdesertmesa (Jun 9, 2020)

Skux said:


> I wouldn't wish f/11 on my worst enemies.



These specs aren't telling me Canon expects me to use f/11 with current tech. They're telling me the R5/6 high ISO performance is going to be as big a leap as was the leap to 8K. Imagine ISO 6400 that looks like the current ISO 400. At least this is what I'm telling myself they're telling me


----------



## Laytonp (Jun 9, 2020)

This could be the answer. Canon has developed a Dual Gain Output censor, Each photo diode outputs 2 photos at the same time. One for high dynamic range, and the other for low noise. They are combined at output to give High Dynamic range and low noise in the image. This tech was developed for C300 Cinema camera. will it be used in the new R5 and R6 cameras, I hope so.


----------



## Joules (Jun 9, 2020)

Tom W said:


> Unless 12,800 in the new camera can give me the same noise characteristics as today's ISO 3200, then it's a non-starter for me.


Yeah, but that's just you. As I said, there are people who can deal with the compromises for the benefit of small size and lower costs that come as a tradeoff with them. I was responding to a post that stated that one basically never has enough light to use this lens for wildlife. And I don't think that is true.

f/11 is less than two stops slower than my Sigma f/6.3. Would giving up more light make it harder to get good results under many circumstances? Yes. But is a two stop difference the end of the world if your lens ends up smaller and cheaper in return? To many, probably not.

If you're not in the market for these lenses, that's just fine. But there should be a market for them and I find it exciting to see Canon try new things.


----------



## esglord (Jun 9, 2020)

Owning a supertelephoto hasn't been a priority for me. Though, I figured I'd pick up a sigma or other third-party lens somewhere down the line. If the price and size of a native 600mm or 800mm are right, I'd probably be fine with the f/11 limitations/noise. Would be fun for taking on day hikes. The probability of me purchasing a Canon prime >400mm just moved from 0% to materially above 0%. It's got to be inexpensive though.


----------



## highdesertmesa (Jun 9, 2020)

I will absolutely be first in line for the f/11 telephotos. Been pulling crops like these from 300mm, which is fine for social media, but I would like more reach.


----------



## Lance vdv (Jun 9, 2020)

Yuck. As a full time shooter of wildlife, none of these long lenses interest me. The weight would be amazing but I am a sucker for DOF.

I wish canon would make a 500 f/5.6 that kicks the nikons a$$, also a 300 f/4 and 400 f/4 PF type


----------



## mb66energy (Jun 9, 2020)

"Canon RF 85mm f/2 Macro IS STM"
Glad to see this. Maybe with 52 mm filter, similar size/design compared to RF 35 f/1.8 and the macro accessory groove around the lens top end. Might be my next purchase as "standard" lens for my RP.

And glad that I haven't upgraded to the EF 70 200 f/4 version ii but decided to use my version i IS lens. RF type might be very interesting compact solution for R cameras.


----------



## padam (Jun 9, 2020)

Lance vdv said:


> Yuck. As a full time shooter of wildlife, none of these long lenses interest me. The weight would be amazing but I am a sucker for DOF.
> 
> I wish canon would make a 500 f/5.6 that kicks the nikons a$$, also a 300 f/4 and 400 f/4 PF type


DO and PF are pretty much the same thing.

EF 400/4 DO II is available for 6900$, would you pay 8000$-8500$ for an RF 400/4 DO?
I somehow doubt it.


----------



## miketcool (Jun 9, 2020)

I shoot with the EF 100-400mm on the 2x Extender III using the EOS R. Autofocus is great, and I get a lot of incredible shots (both video and photos) with this setup. I shoot mostly between 800-1000 ISO. No, this isn’t for action, but works great for composing the full moon setting over a mountain range. I’d love to have this same reach in better glass weighing a third of the weight at less than half the length.


----------



## dominic_siu (Jun 9, 2020)

F11 is not for me, sorry. 100-500 L will be in my buying list


----------



## padam (Jun 9, 2020)

miketcool said:


> I’d love to have this same reach in better glass weighing a third of the weight at less than half the length.


You forgot to mention price 

If we look at the RF 800mm f/11 DO IS STM, the somewhat comparable Zuiko Pro 300mm f/4 IS with the MC-14 extender has a combined MSRP of 3250$, despite the lack of an L designation, with the DO technology, I don't expect it to be a whole lot cheaper (if at all)
The RF 600mm f/11 DO IS STM might cost a good deal less, although not nearly as exciting.


----------



## NowHearThis (Jun 9, 2020)

The RF85 is the lens I've been hoping for. F/2 is fast enough for me. Macro would be a nice addition too.


----------



## bernie_king (Jun 9, 2020)

blackcoffee17 said:


> Just ask a wildlife photographer how many of his/her shots are made at F11. You will be surprised.


I've been doing Wildlife Photography for almost 40 years, and I can say almost none. You want enough DOF to cover the entire animal/bird but that's it. Not to mention the fact that with wildlife Shutter speed is king. Even a small bit of movement can give you motion blur and that goes double with high pixel density. You also don't want distracting backgrounds. The highest I go is F8 and that is usually because I have a 2X converter on my 600 F4


----------



## Whowe (Jun 9, 2020)

joestopper said:


> So far there were amazing lenses released but bodies were somewhat underwhelming. Now this overwhelming body (R5) is on its way and no new lens to match???
> Looks like the lens division is running out of steam.


I think they are making less expensive lenses for the masses. There are not a lot of R bodies that have been sold, compared to other brands and DSLRs. For canon to get market share, they have to sell a lot of units and there are a lot more inexpensive units sold. Most people on this forum would not be thrilled with using a Rebel series body today, but canon has sold more of those than 5D series cameras. 

Canon needs better bodies for the great glass they have produced for the pro and high end enthusiast. But, they also really need inexpensive glass to attract the large group of buyers at the lower end of the price spectrum. (There is probably more profit there in the long run...)


----------



## geffy (Jun 9, 2020)

wow


----------



## Bonich (Jun 9, 2020)

tpatana said:


> F11. Interesting. So DPAF doesn't need similar amount of light as PDAF?
> 
> Also, what shooting usually needs that long and has enough light for F11? Outdoor motorsports?


That's the question of IS and sensor performance.
But my aspect is not so much the amount of light. I barely ever step down the big whites due to subject separation. F11sets this aspect far back.

The 600 might be an option for Birds in flight, with 800 you will never find them within your frame.


----------



## geffy (Jun 9, 2020)

koenkooi said:


> Or very, very still wildlife in moderate light


 time to buy a gun


----------



## Bonich (Jun 9, 2020)

jolyonralph said:


> I wonder if the extenders will work with the f/11 lenses !



Those are for the RF 2.8 600 DO IS showing up next year. Start collecting money now!


----------



## degos (Jun 9, 2020)

stevelee said:


> My point is that people are already using what amount to f/11 telephotos, but because the number says 5.6 or 8, they don't think of it that way.



No, an m43 f/5.6 or 8 is exactly physically that. The equivalent FoV and alleged equivalent aperture are irrelevant.

If you're shooting at 5.6, that's what you're shooting at. It's a physical ratio.

Think of it this way: you shoot an 600 f/4 at 5.6 on a Canon FF. You then crop the centre portion to match m43 FoV. Did the aperture change? No.


----------



## sanj (Jun 9, 2020)

bernie_king said:


> I've been doing Wildlife Photography for almost 40 years, and I can say almost none. You want enough DOF to cover the entire animal/bird but that's it. Not to mention the fact that with wildlife Shutter speed is king. Even a small bit of movement can give you motion blur and that goes double with high pixel density. You also don't want distracting backgrounds. The highest I go is F8 and that is usually because I have a 2X converter on my 600 F4


None for me too.


----------



## Bonich (Jun 9, 2020)

Mark3794 said:


> The big mistery for me is: what are the teleconverters for?



This year for the 2.0 85mm Macro and the 2.8 70-200, next year for crazy stuff like 2.0 400 DO or 2.8 600 DO.


----------



## sanj (Jun 9, 2020)

highdesertmesa said:


> I will absolutely be first in line for the f/11 telephotos. Been pulling crops like these from 300mm, which is fine for social media, but I would like more reach.
> 
> View attachment 190732
> 
> ...


Beautiful


----------



## Canon-Chas (Jun 9, 2020)

f11 !!! Must be a joke


----------



## SteveC (Jun 9, 2020)

koenkooi said:


> Or very, very still wildlife in moderate light



It'll be a beast for photographing sloths.


----------



## Canon-Chas (Jun 9, 2020)

koenkooi said:


> Or very, very still wildlife in moderate light


Very, very, very , very , perhaps dead in moderate light


----------



## Ronny Wertelaers (Jun 9, 2020)

As a wedding photographer I was hoping the 35mm RF F1.2 was on the list. Also because rumors said i would be released in 2020 some time ago.
http://www.ronnywertelaers.com/


----------



## Bonich (Jun 9, 2020)

sanj said:


> None for me too.


Out of my 52,000 shots with 500mm-1200mm kept in Lightroom 10,000 are F4.0, 20,000 are F5.6 and 7,000 are F8.0.
1350 are F11 and above. Nearly all are panning shots with too much light for the exposure time desired.
My question how smooth will IBIS and IS support panning.
Using cinema grade fluid tripod head can't be the answer with lightweight lenses like these F11s


----------



## Joules (Jun 9, 2020)

degos said:


> Think of it this way: you shoot an 600 f/4 at 5.6 on a Canon FF. You then crop the centre portion to match m43 FoV. Did the aperture change? No.


No, the aperture doesn't change when cropping. But the magnification does. And thereby noise becomes more apparent. And that's what the equivalency is about. Equivalent in terms of FoV and noise. People should write it that way each time to avoid confusion, but at some point one would hope it doesn't have to be stated explicitly anymore.


----------



## Nelu (Jun 9, 2020)

Canon-Chas said:


> Very, very, very , very , perhaps dead in moderate light


Well, that would make them "wilddead", not "wildlife"


----------



## Bonich (Jun 9, 2020)

Maximilian said:


> My thoughts...
> 
> Canon RF 50 f/1.8 STM
> ==> Finally
> ...


Yes, this lineup is remarkable. Far away from copy and paste of any other lineup on earth.
- I am wondering the 85 being a Macro like the 35 or a real one like the EF 100 IS.
- Possibly the 70-200L will be fixed length and "full bullet proof" for worst conditions as maximum added value ti the existing already light and handy 2.8 version.
- The extenders are for the 2.8 70-200, possibly the 85 Marco and crazy stuff showing up next year (2.0 400 DO / 2.8 600 DO or other beyond big white)


----------



## rinamiele (Jun 9, 2020)

f/11 makes no sense. Sorry, I'll stick to carrying my heavy 600mm f/4 II. #DREAD

I live with the 1.4x tele, so I would be fine dealing with f/5.6 by default if they made the lens lighter/smaller (a la Nikon 500). But otherwise? No thanks. I'm not in the "make cheaper glass" arena so lighter and smaller would be my main reason for getting a new/additional 600mm.

It's bad enough I was considering the new RF 100-500 with the long end at f/7.1...

Look, I love my EOS R. I love my RF Glass (28-70mm f2, 35mm f1.8, 50mm f1.2, 85mm f1.2, 70-200 f2.8)
I'm the first one to jump on board... but not this time. YEESH.

I can wait though. I have the 1DX3 for now...


----------



## degos (Jun 9, 2020)

Joules said:


> No, the aperture doesn't change when cropping. But the magnification does. And thereby noise becomes more apparent. And that's what the equivalency is about. Equivalent in terms of FoV and noise.



But people here are commenting as if it affects exposure ( as in how could you shoot f/11 at night etc ). It doesn't, the same shutter-aperture-ISO will give the same exposure on all sensors with the exception of differences due to true transmission ratio of the lenses.

And noise equivalence is dependent on sensor technology, it's not inversely linear to sensor size.


----------



## usern4cr (Jun 9, 2020)

There's a lot of posts about f/11 being unusable because it is too dark or diffraction limited. Feel free to think that way, but the rest of us can enjoy tons of beautiful images taken with long telephotos *with lens IS* plus IBIS at f/11 or more.

As an example, I have an Olympus 300mm f4 IS lens (2x crop factor) which is a FF EQuivalent of 600mm *f/8* IS. I take tons of *handheld* pictures wide open or stopped further down by many stops and have no worries about soft images. I'll include a picture I took at f6.7 (which is FF EQ of 600mm *f/13.4 !*).



A RF DO(diffractive optic) 800mm f/11 *IS* lens should take beautiful pictures on a R5 or R6 and be relatively easy to handhold as well. If you don't think it can take good pictures for your particular needs, then don't buy it - but please stop saying it can't take good pictures in general when so many others, *including Canon*, already know that it can.


----------



## Aaron D (Jun 9, 2020)

The 50 I'd buy this minute. The 70-200 f/4 too, if it's an 'extending-style' like the f/2.8.

I wish Canon would do a 14-30 (or so) f/4 like Nikon has now--though the collapsible bit is really unnecessary. As wide as can be while still permitting screw-on filters.

And TS lenses! With tripod feet!!!


----------



## Marximusprime (Jun 9, 2020)

Bonich said:


> That's the question of IS and sensor performance.
> But my aspect is not so much the amount of light. I barely ever step down the big whites due to subject separation. F11sets this aspect far back.
> 
> The 600 might be an option for Birds in flight, with 800 you will never find them within your frame.



Maybe for very small birds, but I routinely shoot with an EFL north of 900 (600mm lens on a crop body, 500 + 1.4x on a crop body, etc.) and I'm usually pretty good at finding the bird.


----------



## Joules (Jun 9, 2020)

degos said:


> But people here are commenting as if it affects exposure ( as in how could you shoot f/11 at night etc ). It doesn't, the same shutter-aperture-ISO will give the same exposure on all sensors with the exception of differences due to true transmission ratio of the lenses.
> 
> And noise equivalence is dependent on sensor technology, it's not inversely linear to sensor size.


What I read (and also wrote) on here is that people are using f/5.6 lenses on MFT bodies and are getting results they are happy with. In terms of noise, you're getting an equivalent image if you shoot f/11 on FF.

Obviously that comparison assumes both systems are using similar generation sensors. But truth is that the improvements in sensor technology are diminishing rapidly. Sensor size however is something that very much affects image quality. Going from FF to MFT you are using a sensor that is a quarter in size and that will significantly impact image quality. Image quality is definitely proportional to the amount of light gathered. And if you use identical exposure settings, that amount is going to be 4 times higher in FF than MFT. That's what the equivalence is about. Equivalent in terms of FoV and absolute amount of light collected.


----------



## Bonich (Jun 9, 2020)

Foa2020 said:


> Hi, out of interest: why wouldn’t you use your existing TSE lenses with the adaptor? This is slow tripod kind of work anyway, the adaptor would be a minor issue for me with these lenses? Just curious. Grtz, F.


Just use TS-E with the adapter, great!
There are 5 versions fresh and performant on the market.


----------



## usern4cr (Jun 9, 2020)

I have really been looking forward to the RF 70-135 f/2 L lens for portrait use, but it wasn't on this list - DOH! I guess it'll make the decision to get the RF 70-200 f/2.8 L IS a lot easier since the 70-135 won't exist for quite a while, if ever.


----------



## Czardoom (Jun 9, 2020)

Perhaps someone has already pointed this out - I didn't read all 9 pages of the thread. Some of us go back to the days of film, where you really didn't like going beyond ISO 400 (at least I didn't). With today's sensors, you can easily go up to ISO 6400 - or even 12800. ISO 6400 is 4 stops more than ISO 400. 4 stops more light than f/11 is f/2.8. So, anything you could shoot at f/2.8 and ISO 400, you can shoot at f/11 and ISO 6400. Sounds like enough light for me.


----------



## Proscribo (Jun 9, 2020)

Bonich said:


> The extenders are for the 2.8 70-200


The RF 70-200mm/2.8 is not compatible with the RF extenders.


----------



## Czardoom (Jun 9, 2020)

I think it is likely that Canon is not trying to just duplicate their EF lenses with RF lenses. In some cases, yes, we have the same lens in both formats, but I truly do believe Canon's philosophy (at least for now) is what they stated when they introduced the "R" - that the new mirrorless line will co-exist with their existing DSLRs and EF lenses - not replace them. I know forum dwellers have a hard time accepting that DSLRs and EF lenses will still be made, but I think only time will tell if more people prefer the EVF or want to stick with the OVF.

Thus, if the two lines (EF and RF) of lenses will co-exist, it would be stupid of Canon to just duplicate all the EF lenses. Anyone who has spent many $1,000s on an L telephoto, is likely to just keep that lens and use an adapter if they buy an R series camera. It makes far more sense - if you are making new lenses, to widen the variety, and create lenses for a wider base of consumer. So, if they already have L lenses that are expensive, large and heavy, why not make some RF lenses that are cheaper, lighter and smaller? If that's not what you are looking for, you still the choice of buying what you want in the EF lineup.


----------



## dwarven (Jun 9, 2020)

Imagine if they make RF APS-C bodies. That 800mm would be 1280mm @ f11 without a teleconverter, while probably being hand-holdable.


----------



## sanj (Jun 9, 2020)

usern4cr said:


> I have really been looking forward to the RF 70-135 f/2 L lens for portrait use, but it wasn't on this list - DOH! I guess it'll make the decision to get the RF 70-200 f/2.8 L IS a lot easier since the 70-135 won't exist for quite a while, if ever.


I want that lens too.


----------



## [email protected] (Jun 9, 2020)

tpatana said:


> F11. Interesting. So DPAF doesn't need similar amount of light as PDAF?
> 
> Also, what shooting usually needs that long and has enough light for F11? Outdoor motorsports?



Solar corona imagery, of course. No need for a filter. Pre-stopped-down for your convenience. 
-tig

PS: All this snark is not going to prevent me from buying it. The instant it comes out. Would be perfect for some of the wildlife remote setups I do on intervalometer.


----------



## xiaohuaa (Jun 9, 2020)

Not everyone in this world shoots birds. I shoot girls and they don’t fly (normally), so f11 seems fine to me.


----------



## [email protected] (Jun 9, 2020)

Mark3794 said:


> I found the patents for this tele lenses, they are really simple design so hopefully really cheap and small.
> 
> https://asobinet.com/info-patent-canon-800mm-f11-do/



The major element is right flush up against the camera side of the lens. That one is going to feel even lighter than it is. 

The downside is that the DO optics in that patent don't appear to make it a whole lot shorter. 15 inches versus the 800 f/4's 18 inches. New "magic drainpipe."


----------



## navastronia (Jun 9, 2020)

xiaohuaa said:


> Not everyone in this world shoots birds. I shoot girls and they don’t fly (normally), so f11 seems fine to me.



But at 600 and 800mm . . . how far away are these girls?


----------



## Bonich (Jun 9, 2020)

Reading this thread: 600mm f11 not usable? Only static objects?
Example: 600mm, F11, ISO100, 1/160sec


----------



## xiaohuaa (Jun 9, 2020)

navastronia said:


> But at 600 and 800mm . . . how far away are these girls?


On a stage, for example


----------



## MinoltaSRT101 (Jun 9, 2020)

Darrell Cadieux said:


> 'I can add to this information that both the RF 600mm f/11 IS STM and RF 800mm f/11 IS STM will be DO lenses as well.' Forgive my ignorance...but what does, 'DO' mean?


*"DO* (diffractive optics) *lens* elements enable telephoto *lenses* to be lighter and more compact while maintaining a high level of performance. *Canon* succeeded in creating the innovative *DO lenses* by bonding a precise diffraction grating to the surface of a glass *lens*."


----------



## Nelu (Jun 9, 2020)

xiaohuaa said:


> Not everyone in this world shoots birds. I shoot girls and they don’t fly (normally), so f11 seems fine to me.


You shoot girls with a 800mm lens? Do they know about it?
Maybe they don't, that's why they don't "fly"


----------



## H. Jones (Jun 9, 2020)

For a visualization, looking at the patent, the 800mm is just around the length of the 400mm f/2.8L IS III, but with a filter thread of 72 or 77mm.





So since most lenses with 72mm front elements are pretty similar to the width of the lens mount itself, here's a quick and super rough photoshop warping to make the 400mm f/2.8L IS III the same length as the lens mount:




With how few elements this lens has in it and the size, I doubt this lens weighs all that much. Obviously things could change from the patent, though, and I wouldn't be surprised if the real lens was shorter than that. 

Since it seems like the lens design handbook is thrown out, I also think there shouldn't be ruling out that Canon could design a cheap f/11 lens that could collapse on itself when not in use, like a lot of EF-M lenses do. That said, in comparison to current options, even this length would be a *huge* advantage in size/weight over the 800mm f/5.6.


----------



## RicoB (Jun 9, 2020)

Where is the RF 16-35 f/4L IS USM?


----------



## Kit. (Jun 9, 2020)

degos said:


> But people here are commenting as if it affects exposure ( as in how could you shoot f/11 at night etc ). It doesn't,


Of course it affects exposure. With a full frame, you can afford to use higher ISO and still get the same SNR as on crop.



degos said:


> And noise equivalence is dependent on sensor technology, it's not inversely linear to sensor size.


There's an inherent quantum noise in coming light, and that's what limits the high-ISO performance of the modern cameras. It doesn't depend on sensor technology (apart from the transmittance of the color filters).


----------



## mangobutter (Jun 9, 2020)

I will buy the RF 50 so hard. So so hard. $199? Please, Canon. 

The RF 70-200 F4L will be extremely hard to resist. I will guess $1399.


----------



## H. Jones (Jun 9, 2020)

mangobutter said:


> I will buy the RF 50 so hard. So so hard. $199? Please, Canon.



Definitely agree even as someone who owns the EF 50 1.8 already. I'm at a point in my career where I already have plenty of expensive glass, and most of my full-time work is with camera gear that my employer keeps and buys, so I find myself *so* much more interested in these tiny, cheap lenses. At the price of the 35mm f/1.8, there's no reason not to buy them even if they're just back ups, or for something small to keep in a tiny shoulder bag with the EOS R5. I mean heck, when I'm spending $250 dollars on a single memory card why not buy any lens under 400 bucks if not just to mess with?

Even the 85mm f/2, in the past I would have said I'd just wait for an RF 85 1.4, but heck, if the f/2 is $400 I'll buy it anyway and then still get the 1.2 or 1.4 down the road for paid work. So much more convenient to have these little, cheap lenses on me when I'm just messing around with family or running to the grocery store.


----------



## usern4cr (Jun 9, 2020)

[email protected] said:


> The major element is right flush up against the camera side of the lens. That one is going to feel even lighter than it is.
> 
> The downside is that the DO optics in that patent don't appear to make it a whole lot shorter. 15 inches versus the 800 f/4's 18 inches. New "magic drainpipe."


The main large DO element is at the front of the lens, while the camera is at the back of it. In fact, there's no element at all in the 40% of the lens near the camera, so it will be pretty front heavy. Good thing the big main element is DO since that's the only massive element and so DO will drastically reduce the lens weight. I just wonder what the optical quality of the DO will allow.


----------



## usern4cr (Jun 9, 2020)

H. Jones said:


> For a visualization, looking at the patent, the 800mm is just around the length of the 400mm f/2.8L IS III, but with a filter thread of 72 or 77mm.
> 
> View attachment 190739
> 
> ...


Your suggestion of a prime lens that "collapses on itself" is intriguing. The back 40% of the 800mm f/11 lens shown in the patent has no optics, so it could collapse up to 40% for stowage if they wanted to do that, and expand to take a picture. That'd be quite a magic trick there, but you'd then have possible dust/moisture seepage with such user pull/pushing.


----------



## usern4cr (Jun 9, 2020)

RicoB said:


> Where is the RF 16-35 f/4L IS USM?


I agree. I'd also like to wonder if they will come out with the 17-70mm lens that they submitted a patent for? (I forgot what the f/# was for it)


----------



## Whowe (Jun 9, 2020)

[email protected] said:


> The major element is right flush up against the camera side of the lens. That one is going to feel even lighter than it is.
> 
> The downside is that the DO optics in that patent don't appear to make it a whole lot shorter. 15 inches versus the 800 f/4's 18 inches. New "magic drainpipe."


I thought the major element was at the front (i.e. front element) while the right side of the diagram shows the IP - Image Plane in the camera....


----------



## Otara (Jun 9, 2020)

Maybe this is a response to the popularity of superzoom compacts? Every time they come up the effective resolution and aperture is pointed out, but they still sell. Still betting on video as the main focus though.


----------



## dwarven (Jun 9, 2020)

The more I think about it the more excited I am for the 800mm. As a DO lens at f/11 it's going to pretty light and hopefully not super long, which will allow you to get pictures you might not have been able to get with the 600mm F4. Carrying a bazooka and a monopod around with you can be very prohibitive. And ultimately, getting the shot is what matters.


----------



## questionsabouthigh (Jun 9, 2020)

Aussie shooter said:


> F11? It seems really........wierd. is it perhaps a comment on the performance of the new sensors? I mean. Even if the AF can work at f11 you would basically NEVER have enough light to shoot at f11 at that focal length. At least not for wildlife. Unless the new sensors are a major step above what we are used to.


Perfect lens for shooting an ibis in flight.


----------



## highdesertmesa (Jun 9, 2020)

dwarven said:


> Imagine if they make RF APS-C bodies. That 800mm would be 1280mm @ f11 without a teleconverter, while probably being hand-holdable.



Same with imagining the R5 in APS-C crop mode – pretty cool


----------



## sanj (Jun 9, 2020)

Nelu said:


> You shoot girls with a 800mm lens? Do they know about it?
> Maybe they don't, that's why they don't "fly"


hahahhaaha. EPIC


----------



## Aussie shooter (Jun 9, 2020)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> I can use f/11 with my R. I can also use it in live view with my 5D MK IV. I think some of the better communications in the RF lenses may help autofocus.
> 
> F11 is F11, the focal length does not change that. Obviously, the amount of light needed to get a low ISO exposure at a high shutter speed is critical, and for moving subjects, a fast shutter speed is going to be a issue. Lots of wildlife is not moving, birds in flight might require high ISO.


Also cant forget that while you can shoot at f11 in limited circumstances your camera is not autofocusing at f11. It is autofucusing at whatever the max apature of the lens is. These would be focusing AT f11. Not easy to be fast or accurate. It would work in perfect conditions. Bright light. Front lit subjects. Very still subjects. And most likely on a tripod. UNLESS as I suggested that maybe the sensors are substantially better at high ISO than we have seen before.


----------



## Aussie shooter (Jun 9, 2020)

questionsabouthigh said:


> Perfect lens for shooting an ibis in flight.


I don't mind a nice shot of a Bin Chicken but tbh it is not something I do on a regular basis


----------



## Ozarker (Jun 9, 2020)

Whew! No pressure on me. The RF 70-135mm f/2L is still a ways off.

Here come the RF extenders!

Bought the Tamron SP 45mm F/1.8 Di VC USD last night as a bargain walking around lens.


----------



## stevelee (Jun 9, 2020)

degos said:


> No, an m43 f/5.6 or 8 is exactly physically that. The equivalent FoV and alleged equivalent aperture are irrelevant.
> 
> If you're shooting at 5.6, that's what you're shooting at. It's a physical ratio.
> 
> Think of it this way: you shoot an 600 f/4 at 5.6 on a Canon FF. You then crop the centre portion to match m43 FoV. Did the aperture change? No.


No, I was addressing use of teleconverters. The lens says one thing, but the actual aperture is a stop or two slower.


----------



## tron (Jun 10, 2020)

I guess everyone has different needs and standards. Personally, I would understand f/8 but f/11 seems a bit too much to me!
at least for 600mm which can be approximated by adding a 1.4X to a 100-400 lens making it 560mm while staying at f/8.
800 f/11 can be more tolerated I guess. Again, all these apply to myself alone. YMMV

P.S The D500/500PF5.6 combination is so portable with high IQ so that it pushes the extremes (f/4 and f/11 prime lenses) out of the game when walking. Add (when I have a car) a 500mm 4L IS II (with a 2XIII) and a 5DsR and that's it! (again YMMV).


----------



## Kjsheldo (Jun 10, 2020)

My main problem with Canon lenses is they either have fast (f1.2 or f1.4) lenses that are great, well made, feel solid OR they have slower aperture lenses (f1.8, f2) that are cheap, loud, and plastic-y.

I'd love a set of F2 primes (24, 35, 85) and awesome to see an 85mm F2 IS - that's a great combo. However, if it is made like the 35mm f1.8 IS (which I'm guessing it will be), it will be loud, plastic-y, and cheap. That was the same with their EF lenses. 

Why won't Canon make good, solid slower primes like Sigma (with their Sigma 45mm f2.8) Fuji (all their F2 primes are excellent and small)? F2 primes that are 300-450 grams, solidly built, and with quiet autofocus is the best balance of speed, weight, and usability.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Jun 10, 2020)

canonnews said:


> Then you have DLO which reduces the effect of diffraction - so F/11 isn't F/11 after running through DLO. Combine that with some very smart NR and you probably have pretty good output.



In general, the reduction of diffraction effect is just sharpening. But noise reduction doesn't go well with sharpening. There's no magic even in the sophisticated AI-based NR.
So the resulting output will probably be just 'acceptable', but not very good.

Colour noise reduction plus downsampling (e.g. 45->11mp) will probably produce decent results without a tricky software processing.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Jun 10, 2020)

tron said:


> I guess everyone has different needs and standards. Personally, I would understand f/8 but f/11 seems a bit too much to me!
> at least for 600mm which can be approximated by adding a 1.4X to a 100-400 lens making it 560mm while staying at f/8.
> 800 f/11 can be more tolerated I guess. Again, all these apply to myself alone. YMMV
> 
> P.S The D500/500PF5.6 combination is so portable with high IQ so that it pushes the extremes (f/4 and f/11 prime lenses) out of the game when walking. Add (when I have a car) a 500mm 4L IS II (with a 2XIII) and a 5DsR and that's it! (again YMMV).



I agree for the most part but the 500 5.6 PF is a different category price-wise. It's a $4000 lens while these two F11 lenses probably will be around $1000.
But i agree that Canon should have kept F8 for the 600mm.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Jun 10, 2020)

Kjsheldo said:


> My main problem with Canon lenses is they either have fast (f1.2 or f1.4) lenses that are great, well made, feel solid OR they have slower aperture lenses (f1.8, f2) that are cheap, loud, and plastic-y.
> 
> I'd love a set of F2 primes (24, 35, 85) and awesome to see an 85mm F2 IS - that's a great combo. However, if it is made like the 35mm f1.8 IS (which I'm guessing it will be), it will be loud, plastic-y, and cheap. That was the same with their EF lenses.
> 
> Why won't Canon make good, solid slower primes like Sigma (with their Sigma 45mm f2.8) Fuji (all their F2 primes are excellent and small)? F2 primes that are 300-450 grams, solidly built, and with quiet autofocus is the best balance of speed, weight, and usability.




I totally agree with that. It's like someone who doesn't want to lug around a 3kg 1.2 prime does not want weather sealing or better build quality either.


----------



## Aussie shooter (Jun 10, 2020)

Kjsheldo said:


> My main problem with Canon lenses is they either have fast (f1.2 or f1.4) lenses that are great, well made, feel solid OR they have slower aperture lenses (f1.8, f2) that are cheap, loud, and plastic-y.
> 
> I'd love a set of F2 primes (24, 35, 85) and awesome to see an 85mm F2 IS - that's a great combo. However, if it is made like the 35mm f1.8 IS (which I'm guessing it will be), it will be loud, plastic-y, and cheap. That was the same with their EF lenses.
> 
> Why won't Canon make good, solid slower primes like Sigma (with their Sigma 45mm f2.8) Fuji (all their F2 primes are excellent and small)? F2 primes that are 300-450 grams, solidly built, and with quiet autofocus is the best balance of speed, weight, and usability.


They do have the mid range of lenses. At least in the EF. Things like the 100mm USM macro etc. That line is the mid range. Although they are old designs so they fall short of the third party manufacturers somewhat


----------



## Phil (Jun 10, 2020)

rinamiele said:


> f/11 makes no sense. Sorry, I'll stick to carrying my heavy 600mm f/4 II. #DREAD
> 
> I live with the 1.4x tele, so I would be fine dealing with f/5.6 by default if they made the lens lighter/smaller (a la Nikon 500). But otherwise? No thanks. I'm not in the "make cheaper glass" arena so lighter and smaller would be my main reason for getting a new/additional 600mm.
> 
> ...


Gear bragging post! ;-)


----------



## navastronia (Jun 10, 2020)

Kjsheldo said:


> My main problem with Canon lenses is they either have fast (f1.2 or f1.4) lenses that are great, well made, feel solid OR they have slower aperture lenses (f1.8, f2) that are cheap, loud, and plastic-y.
> 
> I'd love a set of F2 primes (24, 35, 85) and awesome to see an 85mm F2 IS - that's a great combo. However, if it is made like the 35mm f1.8 IS (which I'm guessing it will be), it will be loud, plastic-y, and cheap. That was the same with their EF lenses.
> 
> Why won't Canon make good, solid slower primes like Sigma (with their Sigma 45mm f2.8) Fuji (all their F2 primes are excellent and small)? F2 primes that are 300-450 grams, solidly built, and with quiet autofocus is the best balance of speed, weight, and usability.



I understand your compaints, but there are two main reasons why there's not a lot of mid-range glass of the kind you describe

1) Fuji is making APS-C glass, not full-frame. If it were full-frame, the lenses would be larger and more expensive.

2) Mid-range glass isn't ideal for showing off the capabilities of the new platform.

3) Other companies (Sigma, Tamron) currently fill that void in EF mount. Canon can still sell R bodies to customers with 3rd party EF glass (personally, 3 of my 5 lenses are 3rd-party EF glass, and I use them on an RP).


----------



## Phil (Jun 10, 2020)

Aussie shooter said:


> I don't mind a nice shot of a Bin Chicken but tbh it is not something I do on a regular basis


Yep the only thing I would shoot a ibis with has a barrel attached to it!


----------



## Dexter75 (Jun 10, 2020)

Where is the RF 135? The EF 135 f/2 is the oldest lens in Canons lineup, 24 years old and never been updated. Ridiculous.


----------



## Mr Majestyk (Jun 10, 2020)

blackcoffee17 said:


> Just ask a wildlife photographer how many of his/her shots are made at F11. You will be surprised.


I just asked myself and it's extremely rarely and I know that of the thousands upon thousands of shots I see on Fredmiranda in the wildlfie threads it's also very rare. I don't just work in ultrabright light and even then why would you stop down to f/11. The increased DoF is still not that huge at 600mm+ when DoF is so small, movinmg form f/5.6 to f/1 is 2x DoF and still small. Also the AF is much slower, if I shoot f/11 on an f/4 lens it's AFing wide open. Even with f/8 max aperture hitting ISO 25600 is easy in low light, animals in forest etc.


----------



## Jing G (Jun 10, 2020)

F11？？ LMAO... WHY THEY EVEN THINK ABOUT SUCH LENSES?


----------



## navastronia (Jun 10, 2020)

Dexter75 said:


> Where is the RF 135? The EF 135 f/2 is the oldest lens in Canons lineup, 24 years old and never been updated. Ridiculous.



Perhaps because it's less popular than the 85s or the 70-200s, which are all competent portrait lenses, too?


----------



## SecureGSM (Jun 10, 2020)

Joules said:


> Yeah, but that's just you. As I said, there are people who can deal with the compromises for the benefit of small size and lower costs that come as a tradeoff with them. I was responding to a post that stated that one basically never has enough light to use this lens for wildlife. And I don't think that is true.
> 
> f/11 is less than two stops slower than my Sigma f/6.3. Would giving up more light make it harder to get good results under many circumstances? Yes. But is a two stop difference the end of the world if your lens ends up smaller and cheaper in return? To many, probably not.
> 
> If you're not in the market for these lenses, that's just fine. But there should be a market for them and I find it exciting to see Canon try new things.


2 stop is a helluva difference if you are Exposure limited already. 
tell someone running and gunning with a f/2.8 zoom that now they are limited to f/5.6 at the aperture numbeR. Se what happens.
For an enthusiast F11 prime is too slow. 
for a curious entrant into the market prime is way too uncomfortable. X1.4 or x2.0 converter on 100-400 / 100-500 zoom sounds like a better option for those folks.
Heck.. they won’t be able to even frame properly a fast moving object. with 800mm due to narrow angle of view of the lens. 
yeah. I get what some forum regulars are saying:
I have no experience but I still is able to take photos of birds sitting on my back fence at F11
Yup, point taken you can. In good light and good weather conditions.
My point is though: F11 telephoto is an extremely limiting tools.


----------



## SecureGSM (Jun 10, 2020)

bernie_king said:


> I've been doing Wildlife Photography for almost 40 years, and I can say almost none. You want enough DOF to cover the entire animal/bird but that's it. Not to mention the fact that with wildlife Shutter speed is king. Even a small bit of movement can give you motion blur and that goes double with high pixel density. You also don't want distracting backgrounds. The highest I go is F8 and that is usually because I have a 2X converter on my 600 F4


Thank you.


SwissFrank said:


> I suppose it's a question of what you're shooting: freezing hummingbird wings or just a bird sitting on a branch? For similar subject size in the photo, if 1/100 is enough with 50mm it will be fine with 800mm.
> 
> Still, ISO 800 or ISO 1600 (to shoot at up to 1/1600 sunny) aren't horrible even on the sensors we already have. The next gen may be a bit better.


 You would hope to be shooting at least 1/800s with 800mm lens even when shooting a dead bird. 
yeah, IS and everything I know


----------



## Ozarker (Jun 10, 2020)

SecureGSM said:


> 2 stop is a helluva difference if you are Exposure limited already.
> tell someone running and gunning with a f/2.8 zoom that now they are limited to f/5.6 at the aperture numbeR. Se what happens.
> For an enthusiast F11 prime is too slow.
> for a curious entrant into the market prime is way too uncomfortable. X1.4 or x2.0 converter on 100-400 / 100-500 zoom sounds like a better option for those folks.
> ...


You guys are all reading it wrong. It's f/1 point 1... you just can't see the decimal because 800mm.


----------



## SecureGSM (Jun 10, 2020)

CanonFanBoy said:


> You guys are all reading it wrong. It's f/1 point 1... you just can't see the decimal because 800mm.


Oh, man. 1.1? Does it come with designation “Hubble” in the name?


----------



## navastronia (Jun 10, 2020)

SecureGSM said:


> Thank you.
> 
> You would hope to be shooting at least 1/800s with 800mm lens even when shooting a dead bird.
> yeah, IS and everything I know



Just as a test today, I went out this afternoon under totally overcast skies, in the Pacific Northwest, and captured a usable EOS RP photo at f/11, ss 1/1000, at ISO 6400. Original JPG here (shrunken, of course), no noise reduction applied, no IS (this is the Sigma 35/1.4).

Since these new teles _will_ have IS, let's estimate 3 stops of improvement. That would mean that with either of them, I could have expected to shoot this same scene at f/11, ss 1/125, at ISO 800.

Of course, it doesn't help much with action, unless you're good at panning with moving persons/vehicles at slower shutter speeds, but it's still food for thought. If I were shooting action with either of the new teles, under these conditions, I'd opt for f/11, ss 1/2000, ISO 12800, and then plan to work with the RAWs to get grain and noise looking manageable.

Personally, I'm far more interested in the 100-500 4.5-7.1, but everyone can have it their own way.


----------



## SecureGSM (Jun 10, 2020)

navastronia said:


> Just as a test today, I went out this afternoon under totally overcast skies, in the Pacific Northwest, and captured a usable EOS RP photo at f/11, ss 1/1000, at ISO 6400. Original JPG here (shrunken, of course), no noise reduction applied, no IS (this is the Sigma 35/1.4).
> 
> Since these new teles _will_ have IS, let's estimate 3 stops of improvement. That would mean that with either of them, I could have expected to shoot this same scene at f/11, ss 1/125, at ISO 800.
> 
> ...


All good thoughts and well spoken.

++++I'd opt for f/11, ss 1/2000, ISO 12800, and then plan to work with the RAWs to get grain and noise looking manageable.

A.M. shooting at f/8 would see ISO being at around 6400. That would be an excellent option to have


----------



## davidcl0nel (Jun 10, 2020)

Kjsheldo said:


> My main problem with Canon lenses is they either have fast (f1.2 or f1.4) lenses that are great, well made, feel solid OR they have slower aperture lenses (f1.8, f2) that are cheap, loud, and plastic-y.
> 
> I'd love a set of F2 primes (24, 35, 85) and awesome to see an 85mm F2 IS - that's a great combo. However, if it is made like the 35mm f1.8 IS (which I'm guessing it will be), it will be loud, plastic-y, and cheap. That was the same with their EF lenses.



I like the EF 35 IS f/2 very much, it is well built and "small".
The RF 1.8 with the changing length (by focus) seems to be more vulnerable and looks poor.

But yes, a RF 35 / 85 with 2 IS would be nice. But because there is a RF35 1.8, there will be many other new lenses before they update this one with a similar (but well-built) pendant....
I don't need a RF 35 1.2 without IS. This is may be superb, but not for my usage.


----------



## Aussie shooter (Jun 10, 2020)

navastronia said:


> Just as a test today, I went out this afternoon under totally overcast skies, in the Pacific Northwest, and captured a usable EOS RP photo at f/11, ss 1/1000, at ISO 6400. Original JPG here (shrunken, of course), no noise reduction applied, no IS (this is the Sigma 35/1.4).
> 
> Since these new teles _will_ have IS, let's estimate 3 stops of improvement. That would mean that with either of them, I could have expected to shoot this same scene at f/11, ss 1/125, at ISO 800.
> 
> ...


Now do that with an 800mm lens of a little bird sitting on one of the branches in the shaded area under the tree. Because that is what an 800mm lens is for. Not for taking landscape shots of a back garden.


----------



## Joules (Jun 10, 2020)

SecureGSM said:


> For an enthusiast F11 prime is too slow.
> [...]
> My point is though: F11 telephoto is an extremely limiting tools.


I completely agree with you there.

As I see it, these must be priced aggressively to make any kind of sense. Of they are above 1000 $, I don't see who they'll sell these things at all.*

But if they are cheap enough, I can see how some folks that are more enthusiastic about size and weight might be pulled into the Canon system over MFT for casual wildlife by this.

*Edit: well, people with enough income to own a proper telephoto lens and one of these as a lightweight backup.


----------



## Canon-Chas (Jun 10, 2020)

F11 is fine for Macro and those rare occasions when light is good etc. but lets be honest an f11 lens is pretty much useless for any action stuff . Yes, we can all show f11 or even f22 shots but they are the exception and not the norm


----------



## Daner (Jun 10, 2020)

I have been using my EF 85mm f/1.8 for portrait work with my EOS R. I would love to replace it with the RF 85mm f/1.2 DS, but I can't justify the expense at this point. The RF 85mm f/2 Macro IS STM would add both IS and at least some level of Macro capability. I'm also hopeful that it would improve IQ and autofocus speed and accuracy. While not being a direct substitute for the f/1.2 lenses, it is likely to be a significant improvement at a much more affordable price.

Of course, the rumored RF 70-135 f/2 would be even more tempting...


----------



## Joules (Jun 10, 2020)

Canon-Chas said:


> F11 is fine for Macro and those rare occasions when light is good etc. but lets be honest an f11 lens is pretty much useless for any action stuff . Yes, we can all show f11 or even f22 shots but they are the exception and not the norm


How can it be useless, if there are circumstances where you can use it? 

Here is a picture of an "action" scene, taken on my 80D with the Sigma 150-600mm C at 600mm f/7.1 1/1600s ISO 500. That is the full frame equivalent of 960mm f/11 ISO 500 in terms of FoV and noise. I use these settings all the time, so it's not "the exception" to me. If something is demonstrably usable, don't you fell like calling it useless is silly?






Obviously, these images are utter rubbish!  If only I could have used a lower f-number...

Could the image quality have been better? Sure. It always can be. Am I happy with the shot? Hell yeah!
If the price is right, these lenses could add something interesting to the Canon lineup. Before we know all the details, I wouldn't trash a lens because it has some design compromises that are likely meant to make it more affordable.


----------



## Traveler (Jun 10, 2020)

bergstrom said:


> what the hell do you do with a Canon RF 800mm f/11 ? Definitely not for nighttime shooting.


You can shoot the Moon hand held with that


----------



## navastronia (Jun 10, 2020)

Aussie shooter said:


> Now do that with an 800mm lens of a little bird sitting on one of the branches in the shaded area under the tree. Because that is what an 800mm lens is for. Not for taking landscape shots of a back garden.



Relax, friend  focal length isn’t relevant to my test, just the exposure triangle and image quality.


----------



## Mark3794 (Jun 10, 2020)

*They are coming


 https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1270641058464948224*


----------



## Aussie shooter (Jun 10, 2020)

navastronia said:


> Relax, friend  focal length isn’t relevant to my test, just the exposure triangle and image quality.


Sorry. I Reread my post and it defintely came across a bit more aggressive than intended. I apologize. I understand the exposure point you were making and it is correct. It can produce acceptable images. My.point was just that as soon as the lens is used in the way it would be 90% of the time the everything would fall apart. Sure. IF the little bird flew out into the open then yes. You COULD get a shot. But the situations in which you could would be very limited.


----------



## Canon-Chas (Jun 10, 2020)

Joules said:


> How can it be useless, if there are circumstances where you can use it?
> 
> Here is a picture of an "action" scene, taken on my 80D with the Sigma 150-600mm C at 600mm f/7.1 1/1600s ISO 500. That is the full frame equivalent of 960mm f/11 ISO 500 in terms of FoV and noise. I use these settings all the time, so it's not "the exception" to me. If something is demonstrably usable, don't you fell like calling it useless is silly?
> 
> ...


Thats f7.1 , not F11 . I agree the image is rubbish  I had the Sigma 150 600m , it was a good fairweather walk about option


----------



## Joules (Jun 10, 2020)

Canon-Chas said:


> Thats f7.1 , not F11 . I agree the image is rubbish


You are free to have your subjective opinion of my image and voice it in a matter you see fit.

But f/7.1 on an APS-C sensor is equivalent to f/11 on FF in all aspects that people generally care for when talking about image quality. If you disagree with that, you are just wrong. Do you need a demonstration, or are you okay with researching it on your own?


----------



## dolina (Jun 10, 2020)

f/11 800mm or 600mm would cost... $2,000? A lot of budget birders will be buying this.

To visualize this imagine a 70-200 f/2.8 lens physical dimensions. The height and width are the same but double the physical length.


----------



## Aussie shooter (Jun 10, 2020)

Joules said:


> How can it be useless, if there are circumstances where you can use it?
> 
> Here is a picture of an "action" scene, taken on my 80D with the Sigma 150-600mm C at 600mm f/7.1 1/1600s ISO 500. That is the full frame equivalent of 960mm f/11 ISO 500 in terms of FoV and noise. I use these settings all the time, so it's not "the exception" to me. If something is demonstrably usable, don't you fell like calling it useless is silly?
> 
> ...


No one is saying it cant be effective. But the big difference is that with your sigma you can adjust to less ideal conditions than you have with that relatively large bird in bright front lit conditions. If you have 600 f11 you are limited to those conditions and would therefore require lenses to cover other conditions. A 'budget' photographer would get the sigma and have a more versatile lens.


----------



## Del Paso (Jun 10, 2020)

CanonFanBoy said:


> You guys are all reading it wrong. It's f/1 point 1... you just can't see the decimal because 800mm.


With a front lens wide as a truck tyre...


----------



## Joules (Jun 10, 2020)

Aussie shooter said:


> No one is saying it cant be effective.
> [...]
> A 'budget' photographer would get the sigma and have a more versatile lens.


The post I was replying to literally said "an f11 lens is pretty much useless for any action stuff". My point is that different people have a different threshold for what they find acceptable. So calling something generally useless comes across as dismissing those people with different requirements to me.

These appear to be lenses for a specific market. People who value size and weight, even if it means compromising on flexibility and quality. And it might be aimed at budget limited people, as STM implies a pretty low price to me.

However, you are absolutely right that the there are already options out that that will perform better in a wider range of circumstances. If Canon doesn't factor that into the pricing, thede lenses are odd in my view. I personally would not have invested in any prime over the Sigma 150-600mm C unless it was priced similarly and had noticeably better IQ. We don't know the pricing yet, that will be an interesting bit of information to come out. 

But I do use it mostly at 600mm and sometimes the size and weight mean it stays at home when I go for a walk with the camera. So I can see how somebody else would decide differently.


----------



## tron (Jun 10, 2020)

Joules said:


> You are free to have your subjective opinion of my image and voice it in a matter you see fit.
> 
> But f/7.1 on an APS-C sensor is equivalent to f/11 on FF in all aspects that people generally care for when talking about image quality. If you disagree with that, you are just wrong. Do you need a demonstration, or are you okay with researching it on your own?


First, I believe he was joking about your picture. I personally believe it is VERY good (super sharp, open wings, nice lighting). I do not believe that someone could dislike this specific picture. Anyway this is also subjective.

But allow me to express some concern about your conversions. I am not 100% familiar I admit but I believe that you take into account that you would fill the frame the same in both cases (hence the different distance, the different total light - so different probably signal to noise ratio -on the sensor, the different DOF, etc).

In my case I can select between a crop (20mpixel) and a FF (50mpixel) Add to that the fact that in birding at 90% of the cases we are FL limited. So the distance from the bird would be the same crop or FF. At the same time both cameras I mentioned have approximately the same pixel density 20 * (1.6^2) = 20 * 2.56 ~ close to 50

In other words the same number of same size pixels would exist for the bird. We could either crop a lot in FF case or less at APS-C case. The final pixels would be the same.

Of course we are talking about using the exact same lens in both cases.

Taking all the above into account and assuming similar sensor technologies

1. How can you claim that f/7.1 on aps-c is the same as ff at f/11?
2. How about wanting to use these f/11 lenses on crop cameras (a mirrorless crop could happen just like z50). Assuming your conversions the equivalent ff stops would be a disaster!

P.S Aside all of the above, I believe that 800 f/11 will be a huge success!


----------



## tron (Jun 10, 2020)

Del Paso said:


> With a front lens wide as a truck tyre...


And ten assistants for carrying and holding it!


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Jun 10, 2020)

Joules said:


> But f/7.1 on an APS-C sensor is equivalent to f/11 on FF in all aspects that people generally care for when talking about image quality. If you disagree with that, you are just wrong. Do you need a demonstration, or are you okay with researching it on your own?



This equivalence is quite conditional. What matters in the context of action photography is the shutter speed that depends on the aperture.
You shot at 600mm, 1/1600s f7.1 ISO 500. In order to get the same angle of view on a FF you'll have to get a 960mm lens, and you would have same 1/1600s shutter speed at f7.1, but because you'll be limited to f11, you'll have to go down to 1/640s.

So on a FF you'll have 960mm, 1/640, f11, ISO 500. Or, in order to keep the same 1/1600s, you'll have to go up to ISO 1600.
How is it equivalent to what was on your crop sensor camera?



Joules said:


> taken on my 80D with the Sigma 150-600mm C at 600mm f/7.1 1/1600s ISO 500. That is the full frame equivalent of 960mm f/11 ISO 500 in terms of FoV and noise.



These calculations are flawed, see above. We're not concerned about the FoV, we're concerned about the shutter speed.


----------



## Joules (Jun 10, 2020)

tron said:


> But allow me to express some concern about your conversions. I am not 100% familiar I admit but I believe that you take into account that you would fill the frame the same.
> 
> In my case I can select between a crop (20mpixel) and a FF (50mpixel) Add to that the fact that in birding at 90% of the cases we are FL limited. So the distance from the bird would be the same crop or FF. At the same time both cameras I mentioned have approximately the same pixel density 20 * (1.6^2) = 20 * 2.56 ~ close to 50
> 
> In other words the same number of same size pixels would exist for the bird.


Yeah, you are right. When talking about equivalency it really helps to be explicit and state the details. I should have written it in more detail, but didn't, as this was discussed a good amount in the past.

If in your example you have the same lens on both the 1.6 crop body and the FF body, uncropped the FF image will look wider. It will have a lower magnification. So if your settings are the same between the two images, the FF one will look just over one stop cleaner in terms of ISO. However, if you crop the FF image to the same FoV as the 1.6 Crop one, they will be virtually identical. Same FoV, DoF, noise, detail.

The notion of equivalency that I used is this:

You take a picture on FF with 800mm f/11 and one with 1.6 Crop 500mm f/7.1, both from the same spot with otherwise identical settings. So the subject distance is the same for both shots. The perspective is identical, because you're standing in the same spot. The FoV is also identical, because due to the 1.6 crop factor the 500mm lens delivers a FoV like a 1.6*500mm = 800mm lens.

Since the FF sensor is 1.6*1.6 = 2.56 times larger than the crop sensor one, it captures 2.56 times as much light, or log2(2.56) = 4/3 of a stop more. However, since it also uses an aperture that is 4/3 stops slower than the crop, they gather the same amount of light. So as long as you don't crop either one, they are equivalent in the FoV and the amount of light collected, with results in comparable noise. The DoF and actual detail in the image aren't necessarily identical. Hence, I used the term equivalent with regards to FoV and noise and not identical.


----------



## Joules (Jun 10, 2020)

Quarkcharmed said:


> So on a FF you'll have 960mm, 1/640, f11, ISO 500. Or, in order to keep the same 1/1600s, you'll have to go up to ISO 1600.
> How is it equivalent to what was on your crop sensor camera?


Yes, you'll have to go up in ISO or push in post to match the brightness. Absolutely right. Thanks for bringing it up, it certainly is worth keeping in mind when making these comparisons. But I never talked about brightness, I said noise. And since a FF sensor has over a stop advantage in terms of noise or ISO performance or what ever you want to call it, you come out with the same quality as the crop after raising the ISO or applying the push in post.

Do you see an issue in that? I think I can use pictures to illustrate my view if necessary. 

I know you don't view ISO and noise quite the same way from the DR discussions a while back. I'm always talking about the entire image here. No cropping, no per-pixel values.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Jun 10, 2020)

Joules said:


> I know you don't view ISO and noise quite the same way from the DR discussions a while back. I'm always talking about the entire image here. No cropping, no per-pixel values.



It's all correct, only I see the flaw is that we're mainly concerned about the shutter speed, not the FoV. The noise between a FF and a crop at the same ISO may be wildly different because sensors are different. But if we consider the same sensor, just used in FF and cropped modes, then yes, FF mode will have less noise, but only when both crop and FF images are downscaled to the same size.
As above, in order to keep the same shutter speed at f11, we'll have pump the ISO up to 1600. Will ISO 1600 on a FF look the same as ISO 500 on a crop camera? I'm not sure.

f11 sounds very limiting to me, although I'm very far from buying RF lenses anyway.


----------



## Mark3794 (Jun 10, 2020)

Why is everyone panicking? I mean, if you think this lens is too dark for your uses just don't buy it. Of course Canon will release the F2.8, F4 and F5.6 superteles.


----------



## Del Paso (Jun 10, 2020)

navastronia said:


> Just as a test today, I went out this afternoon under totally overcast skies, in the Pacific Northwest, and captured a usable EOS RP photo at f/11, ss 1/1000, at ISO 6400. Original JPG here (shrunken, of course), no noise reduction applied, no IS (this is the Sigma 35/1.4).
> 
> Since these new teles _will_ have IS, let's estimate 3 stops of improvement. That would mean that with either of them, I could have expected to shoot this same scene at f/11, ss 1/125, at ISO 800.
> 
> ...


This is a really nice garden!


----------



## Eclipsed (Jun 10, 2020)

Some here get it, but let me say it: these f11 teles are mostly for FUTURE cameras.

There is some market for slow and long now, but as with Moore’s law, camera sensors advance rapidly and inexorably. How many years has it typically taken per stop of low light performance. Do the math and see that these f11 lenses in several years will be performing like the f2.8 pro lenses of recent years.

Of course sensor improvements and lens sharpness mean that extreme lengths might not be needed with the ability to crop to zoom from, say a 400.


----------



## Eclipsed (Jun 10, 2020)

Mark3794 said:


> Why is everyone panicking? I mean, if you think this lens is too dark for your uses just don't buy it. Of course Canon will release the F2.8, F4 and F5.6 superteles.



Yes, and the RF versions are simply a matter of having a summer engineering intern redo the rear housing of existing lenses for RF. I predict this is being held until the R1 release with a whole library of big white RF lenses simultaneously released.


----------



## Mark3794 (Jun 10, 2020)

Eclipsed said:


> Some here get it, but let me say it: these f11 teles are mostly for FUTURE cameras.
> 
> There is some market for slow and long now, but as with Moore’s law, camera sensors advance rapidly and inexorably. How many years has it typically taken per stop of low light performance. Do the math and see that these f11 lenses in several years will be performing like the f2.8 pro lenses of recent years.
> 
> Of course sensor improvements and lens sharpness mean that extreme lengths might not be needed with the ability to crop to zoom from, say a 400.



Unfortunately unless some magic software trickery happens we are almost at the limit.

https://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Canon EOS 1D X Mark III,Ideal FF/FX,Sony ILCE-7M3


----------



## dflt (Jun 10, 2020)

Mark3794 said:


> Unfortunately unless some magic software trickery happens we are almost at the limit.
> 
> https://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Canon EOS 1D X Mark III,Ideal FF/FX,Sony ILCE-7M3


Like multiple image combined into one in almost real time.


----------



## SecureGSM (Jun 10, 2020)

Eclipsed said:


> Some here get it, but let me say it: these f11 teles are mostly for FUTURE cameras.
> 
> There is some market for slow and long now, but as with Moore’s law, camera sensors advance rapidly and inexorably. How many years has it typically taken per stop of low light performance. Do the math and see that these f11 lenses in several years will be performing like the f2.8 pro lenses of recent years.
> 
> Of course sensor improvements and lens sharpness mean that extreme lengths might not be needed with the ability to crop to zoom from, say a 400.


+++++ these f11 lenses in several years will be performing like the f2.8 pro lenses of recent years.

+++++Some here get it, but let me say it...

A.M.:let me say it: this is a pure garbage. Not even going to explain that F11 is a 4 full stops slower than F2.8 And what are the implications.
some here get it. correct. Not you though.


----------



## stevelee (Jun 10, 2020)

tron said:


> And ten assistants for carrying and holding it!


When I think about some of the lenses that folks here ask for, the word that comes to my mind is "sherpas."


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Jun 10, 2020)

Eclipsed said:


> Do the math and see that these f11 lenses in several years will be performing like the f2.8 pro lenses of recent years.



... and in a few more years after that, these f11 lenses will be able to detect habitable planets in distant galaxies.


----------



## alejandrobox (Jun 10, 2020)

And... what about a RF 35 1.2 IS??????

I think 35 mm is one of the best lenses and I don´t know why don´t have one professional (I have the RF 35 1.8 and is not what I am talking about...).


----------



## mpmark (Jun 10, 2020)

blackcoffee17 said:


> Canon seems to be really bold these days, which i like.
> 
> Imagine an under 1kg 800mm lens. Could be great for hiking and travelling and used in decent light.


yes I can imagine it, then forget it quite quickly, if you every do wildlife in the forest this will be completely useless.


----------



## AlanF (Jun 10, 2020)

Eclipsed said:


> Some here get it, but let me say it: these f11 teles are mostly for FUTURE cameras.
> 
> There is some market for slow and long now, but as with Moore’s law, camera sensors advance rapidly and inexorably. How many years has it typically taken per stop of low light performance. Do the math and see that these f11 lenses in several years will be performing like the f2.8 pro lenses of recent years.
> 
> Of course sensor improvements and lens sharpness mean that extreme lengths might not be needed with the ability to crop to zoom from, say a 400.


Fortunately for now and unfortunately for the future, current sensors are so efficient for light gathering that there is not much room for improvement. It's a quite different situation from microprocessor chips and Moore's Law. Low light performance has hardly improved in the last couple of years because it is now limited predominantly by light flux and not sensor efficiency.


----------



## Joules (Jun 10, 2020)

Quarkcharmed said:


> As above, in order to keep the same shutter speed at f11, we'll have pump the ISO up to 1600. Will ISO 1600 on a FF look the same as ISO 500 on a crop camera? I'm not sure.
> 
> f11 sounds very limiting to me, although I'm very far from buying RF lenses anyway.


I just set up the experiment in the garden with the 80D and EF-S 55-250mm 4.0-5.6 IS STM:

Take 4 pictures from the same spot, over a quick period of time under a clear sun. So the perspective is identical and the lighting conditions are identical.

Same shutter speed in all of them, so that they all can be magnified to the same extent because they all have the same motion blur.

2 images are taken at 100mm and enlarged by a factor of 2 horizontally and vertically. 2 are taken at 200mm and not enlarged. So the FoV is basically identical.

For both focal lenghts, one image was taken at f/5.6 and ISO 2000 and one at f/11 and ISO 8000. So they all have the same brightness.

They are all taken at the same whitebalance and focussed on the same flower.

There are not adjustments to the brightness or anything else in lightroom. No sharpnes, no profiles. Turned down all the chroma and luminance noise reduction. The following comparison shows only the center 1920 X 1080 section of each image (after enlargement of the 100mm ones), so that differences are more apparent. There is a bit of uncorrected vignette in the wide open shots that may appear to impact brightness.

My expectation and understanding of the subject: Enlarging / Cropping by a factor of 2 has a comparable effect on image noise as decreasing the aperture by 2 stops.

The results:




To me it looks like the bottom right looks best, the top left looks worst and the two others look close enough for me to call that equivalent. Obviously, one is a bit softer due to being a 6 MP section of an image that is upscaled to 24 MP (factor of 2 horizontally and vertically). But so far I stand by my original point: If I can get images that I like with my 150-600mm C at 600mm f/7.1 (And 500mm f/7.1 for that matter, to use the exact equivalent), I don't agree with the assesment that 800mm f/11 is a useless lens for the same applications as it should deliver very comparable images. Nonetheless, I totally agree with you that a prime with f/11 is very much a lens with a narrow range of applications and I personally would only consider it if the price or weight are outstandingly low.

Here is a variation of the same comparison, where the diagonally opposing image is set beside each one for a better look:




Should the upload have messed up the files (Edit: It did, these were originally 4K images. You can still see the differences though) and somebody doubts my assessment, maybe conduct the experiment yourself. Or make a suggestion where I can upload the files elsewhere for acces to a better quality version. If you see an issue with this demonstration, please let me know.

Please do not see this as me trying to be right. I'm just trying to confirm and demonstrate what I'm saying here so that we don't need to argue endlessly. Far more than 1000 words have surely been said about the subject, and I think images add more than written back and forth.


----------



## Canon-Chas (Jun 10, 2020)

Joules said:


> You are free to have your subjective opinion of my image and voice it in a matter you see fit.
> 
> But f/7.1 on an APS-C sensor is equivalent to f/11 on FF in all aspects that people generally care for when talking about image quality. If you disagree with that, you are just wrong. Do you need a demonstration, or are you okay with researching it on your own?


It wasn't a subjective opinion I was just agreeing with your comment on your own images * " Obviously, these images are utter rubbish! "*. I still think F11 is nonsense, I doubt if Canon would be so stupid, time will tell when the rumours are finished. I wouldn't recommend an F11 lens to anyone, there are far better options out there . Good luck if you enjoy the challenge and image quality at F11, hope you enjoy it .


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Jun 10, 2020)

mpmark said:


> yes I can imagine it, then forget it quite quickly, if you every do wildlife in the forest this will be completely useless.



And it will be useless shooting football inside a stadium at night too.

It will be a budget lens. Not for every occasion or lighting condition but plenty. I did shot very good images in the dark forest at ISO 800-1600 at F5.6 and 640mm on old Canon 20D/7D so 1 or 2 stop ISO increment should be still usable on a modern full frame.

Of course, you can always buy the $15000 800mm 5.6 and carry all the 4.5 kg weight up to a mountain. I am happy that there will be choice.
Brighter lenses will be there too.

I have a feeling these lenses will be more unusual than the specs show. They will have some weird optics/design.


----------



## Joules (Jun 10, 2020)

Canon-Chas said:


> It wasn't a subjective opinion, I was just agreeing with you. I still think F11 is nonsense, I doubt if Canon would be so stupid, time will tell when the rumours are finished


"Agreeing" with me on a statement that was meant to be obviously sarcastic. I'm not sure what to make of that.

Still, that's not what I was rejecting. I stated that f/11 on FF should deliver results that are comparable to /7.1 on APS-C with regards to noise. And as I can tell from personal experience that the latter isn't useless, even for wildlife, the former should not be called that either.

To which you seemed to object that this comparison is not valid. Did I miss understand you there? Else see this post for a demonstration of what I meant.


----------



## stevelee (Jun 10, 2020)

Sometimes it is useful as a shorthand to say that something on a crop-sensor camera is equivalent to something on a FF camera. If the writer and reader make the same assumptions about "in what way?" then there is useful communication. Otherwise you get the recurring arguments about whether f/4 is f/4 or f/6.4 or f/6.9644 and the like. I bought a 50mm f/1.4 as my portrait lens for the T3i, but I didn't expect the laws of physics to change just because I bought it.


----------



## stevelee (Jun 10, 2020)

I find that overexposure is more of an issue with a full moon than camera shake on a clear night.


----------



## SecureGSM (Jun 10, 2020)

blackcoffee17 said:


> And it will be useless shooting football inside a stadium at night too.
> 
> It will be a budget lens. Not for every occasion or lighting condition but plenty. I did shot very good images in the dark forest at ISO 800-1600 at F5.6 and 640mm on old Canon 20D/7D so 1 or 2 stop ISO increment should be still usable on a modern full frame.
> 
> ...


Dark forest at ISO 800-1600, F5.6 and 640mm. 
ok. What shutter speed though? And what lens? 640mm focal length sounds fancy. A genuine interest. Thanks.


----------



## Random Orbits (Jun 10, 2020)

I'm not seeing much discussion on the 85mm f/2 macro IS STM. That would be an interesting lens. If it can do 1:1, then it could replace both the 85 f/1.8 portrait lens and a 100mm macro for most people, so it seems like a value play. I'm guessing that the 100mm focal length will only have the "L" macro unlike the current offerings in the EF system.


----------



## Joules (Jun 10, 2020)

stevelee said:


> Sometimes it is useful as a shorthand to say that something on a crop-sensor camera is equivalent to something on a FF camera. If the writer and reader make the same assumptions about "in what way?" then there is useful communication. Otherwise you get the recurring arguments.


I have a feeling that Canon is preparing the RF ecosystem for being FF exclusive. And that means in order to still have some very compact lenses, we're now seeing what appears to be shockingly slow apertures.

But in reality people with MFT and APS-C have been getting by with camera and lens combinations that are the same or worse with regards to low light performance. People also have and still do put teleconverters to good use, which are even worse than these lenses as they can impact AF performance. I think talking about it just helps to put Canon's actions into context. I've read the terms absurd and stupid used to describe Canon's new lenses in this thread, so I believe there is a benefit to bring up some of the technical contexts that can explain why they are doing what they do.

In the end, not everybody can afford a big white. If Canon moves away from DSLR entirely, slow lenses allow them to offer something in the RF system to those that don't fancy the limits if the M system without offering a RF crop line of lenses. It makes sense to me.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Jun 10, 2020)

SecureGSM said:


> Dark forest at ISO 800-1600, F5.6 and 640mm.
> ok. What shutter speed though? And what lens? 640mm focal length sounds fancy. A genuine interest. Thanks.



The 400 5.6 prime on APS-C. Shutter speed was quite low and static subject of course.


----------



## jolyonralph (Jun 10, 2020)

Mark3794 said:


> The big mistery for me is: what are the teleconverters for?



No mystery at all. They were announced and shown alongside the RF 100-500L lens. As far we can see that's the only lens they currently work with. They certainly WON"T work with the RF 70-200 f/2.8


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Jun 10, 2020)

jolyonralph said:


> No mystery at all. They were announced and shown alongside the RF 100-500L lens. As far we can see that's the only lens they currently work with. They certainly WON"T work with the RF 70-200 f/2.8



1000mm f/14 makes the new f/11 lenses seem super fast. I'll count on Canon having tested these things out and ISO 51200 being super clean (1/250, F14, shade).


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Jun 10, 2020)

Joules said:


> Please do not see this as me trying to be right. I'm just trying to confirm and demonstrate what I'm saying here so that we don't need to argue endlessly. Far more than 1000 words have surely been said about the subject, and I think images add more than written back and forth.



Fantastic comparison!
Yes I must confess they look very close. But surprisingly that means, instead of getting say 800mm f11 lens you can get the same quality at the same shutter speed by using a faster 400mm at f5.6 - considering the images will be normalised/scaled to the same size.


----------



## Kit. (Jun 10, 2020)

Eclipsed said:


> Some here get it, but let me say it: these f11 teles are mostly for FUTURE cameras.
> 
> There is some market for slow and long now, but as with Moore’s law, camera sensors advance rapidly and inexorably. How many years has it typically taken per stop of low light performance.


Moore's law has nothing to do with photoelectric conversion. Nothing at all.

But I have a better idea about future cameras: these lenses are for making sketches. The AI of the future cameras will take these sketches and paint the pictures they could correspond to.


----------



## Joules (Jun 10, 2020)

Quarkcharmed said:


> Fantastic comparison!
> Yes I must confess they look very close. But surprisingly that means, instead of getting say 800mm f11 lens you can get the same quality at the same shutter speed by using a faster 400mm at f5.6 - considering the images will be normalised/scaled to the same size.


You can definitely see a difference in the grain structure in the original files I have here. The 200mm 11 image looks a bit less mushy than the enlarged 100mm 5.6 one. So even though numerically speaking, the noise should be the same, it isn't quite in practical terms. It's close though. It's not the same quality, but similar enough that I feel it is appropriate for me to call it equivalent.

But yes, a high resolution sensor and a fast, but not super long lens, might be a practical substitute for a long, but pretty slow lens. It depends on how high the sensor resolution is and how sharp the lens is. If you aren't left with enough detail after the crop, the longer lens would have been better. Still, that is the reason I for one am excited for higher resolution sensors, even though they don't provide much benefit for most situations and may sacrifice on per pixel dynamic range.


----------



## mpmark (Jun 10, 2020)

blackcoffee17 said:


> And it will be useless shooting football inside a stadium at night too.
> 
> It will be a budget lens. Not for every occasion or lighting condition but plenty. I did shot very good images in the dark forest at ISO 800-1600 at F5.6 and 640mm on old Canon 20D/7D so 1 or 2 stop ISO increment should be still usable on a modern full frame.
> 
> ...



Firstly, there is far more practically options then the 800/5.6 from this 800/11. Secondly, this obsession with extreme high telephoto lenses is just overboard, I have no problem getting close enough to wildlife at 420mm/F4 which is my setup. It takes some practice and patience to get wildlife to get close, creates a more intimate encounter as well but you can get close to wildlife if you know what you are doing. Shooting at such high focal lengths just seems quite lazy to be honest.

I would much rather have my 420/f4 combo and get amazing photography that is useful another 15minutes past the sun setting then to have a f/7.1 or f/11 which is honestly poor light gathering and really only useful in harsh daytime sunlight. People tend to say, oh well the iso is getting better and you can push this. What they fail to mention that the opposite is true as well, if you have faster glass, that can be pushed far more as well. But too each their own.


----------



## Traveler (Jun 10, 2020)

SwissFrank said:


> tricky... even 1/180 with 600mm + 2x moves 2-3 pixels and blurs detail. You need 1/500th if shooting around 1000mm to get a sharp image.


No problem. The moon is almost as bright as anything on the Earth during the day. You can shoot at 1/500s and the iso will be reasonable


----------



## privatebydesign (Jun 10, 2020)

mpmark said:


> It takes some practice and patience to get wildlife to get close, creates a more intimate encounter as well but you can get close to wildlife if you know what you are doing. Shooting at such high focal lengths just seems quite lazy to be honest.


I think the counterpoint to that mentality is, just because you can doesn't mean it is the best for the animal. For example there have been many incidences of people thinking they can get close to bears, and they can, but then the bears get comfortable around humans and then become considered pests and are then euthanized, or they take a dislike to the humans, hurt them and are then euthanized, neither scenario is good for the bear.

I have deer in my backyard, I don't want them to get comfortable around people because 90% of my neighbors would happily 'hunt' them. If I want close and intimate I can go to a petting zoo where the animal has nothing to fear.


----------



## stevelee (Jun 10, 2020)

Traveler said:


> No problem. The moon is almost as bright as anything on the Earth during the day. You can shoot at 1/500s and the iso will be reasonable


Of course. You are seeing the moon in the middle of the day, even if you are in the middle of the night.


----------



## SteveC (Jun 10, 2020)

tron said:


> 1. How can you claim that f/7.1 on aps-c is the same as ff at f/11?



I too wonder about this.

I don't recall seeing sensor size OR focal length on the exposure triangle--which pretty much talks about amount of light per unit sensor area, unless I'm totally off base. For purposes of exposure f/7.1 is in no way equivalent to f/11, though you can get to a similar amount of "brightness" in the picture by altering time or ISO.

EDIT: I see you're talking about noise, not exposure.


----------



## Joules (Jun 10, 2020)

SteveC said:


> The exposure triangle--which pretty much talks about amount of light per unit sensor area, unless I'm totally off base.
> 
> EDIT: I see you're talking about noise, not exposure.


Yes, sorry that I didn't mention brightness / ISO properly in my first statements.

The thing is this: the more light you gather, the less prominent noise appears in an image. I am not talking about brightness (which can be significantly altered in post anyway) or DOF here. 

As you said, f-number determines the amount of light per unit area. So f/11 is 4/3 stop slower or 7.1^2 / 11^2 = 0.417 times as much light per unit area as f/7.1. And the area of a FF sensor is 1.6^2 = 2.56 times as large as an APS-C one.

So less light per area multiplied with more area yields the absolute difference in gathered light. 0.417 * 2.56 = 1.07. Which is close enough for me to call that equivalent, since the actual dimensions in lenses don't quite match the reported numbers and therefore there is a certainargin of error anyway.

I posted a visual demonstration of what I'm talking about earlier: https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/i...non’s-lens-roadmap-for-2020.38657/post-835901


----------



## SteveC (Jun 10, 2020)

I guess I am treating exposure as equivalent to the concept of "flux" (amount of something flowing through per unit area, used for radiation and electromagnetic fields), and the exposure triangle is just a quickie way of comparing two different sets of settings to see they have the same flux (or how different they are). But photographers never use the word flux (my engineering background betrays itself). 

There is, however, one more thing to consider, and that's how much of the light is simply absorbed in the glass elements of the lens itself. If you're using the same lens in two different settings, you can ignore that (since you're making comparisons), but with two different lenses that can become a factor as they might differ.

Once accounting for that I think I can safely think of the two things as equivalent.

It sounds like for noise comparisons you will want to compare the amount of light hitting each pixel, and of course the pixels will have different areas AND might be engineered differently to boot (imagine a pixel off a fifteen year old sensor versus one today). You then have total light hitting an object (flux times its size). (And thus it seems to me the total sensor size is relevant ONLY IF paired with the number of pixels so you can then effectively be using its the pixel size.) 

I wonder if all the arguments about "full frame being less noisy than APS-C" or alternatively "Resolution being proportional to noise" are just because people are leaving out half of what determines pixel size (either the count or the sensor size).


----------



## Joules (Jun 10, 2020)

SteveC said:


> There is, however, one more thing to consider, and that's how much of the light is simply absorbed in the glass elements of the lens itself.
> 
> [...]
> 
> It sounds like for noise comparisons you will want to compare the amount of light hitting each pixel, and of course the pixels will have different areas AND might be engineered differently to boot


Good point, how much light effectively passes the lens, also called T-stop, should be considered for comparisons of pictures with different lenses. But I'm not aware of any site that measures and publishes these values for regular lenses. In cinema lenses it is common to consider T-stop, but f-number is all the photography world seems to use. Would be interesting to know how big the discrepancy is with the new RF lenses. 

On that note, do we know how DO affects transmission?

As for pixel size, noise isn't something that is directly tied to resolution. You can sample your image at a lower frequency / downscale it / view it with smaller magnification, and that will have an effect on how prominent the noise appears in the image. How apparent the noise in the whole picture is to the viewer doesn't really depend on the size of the pixels that originally formed it. What matters is how they are sampled. If you look at an image from very far away, you'll see less noise than when you're really close.

You are absolutely right that the sensor does play a big role in these comparisons as well. After all, while most of the noise is actually part of the signal itself, some noise is generated in the camera during image capture. If we're talking about cameras from very different generations, that clearly muddies any comparison one could make. 

But the component of the noise that is inherent to the light itself, the shot noise, does not depend directly on the pixel size. If you view your images at 1:1, yes a higher resolution sensor will look noiser than a lower resolution one when comparing an otherwise identical image. But by viewing them both at 1:1, the comparison is flawed. At the same magnification, given sensors from the same generation, noise will appear similar even between sensors with different resolutions. I can't demonstrate that with my equipment, but there are appropriate images in the studio shot comparison tool by DPR to demonstrate that.


----------



## arbitrage (Jun 10, 2020)

So would anyone here opt for the 600/11 over the 800/11? The patents show the 600 to be about 5.5cm shorter. The 600 will have a smaller front element so overall, shorter, narrower and lighter. But still, I think I'd just go to 800 no matter what. If they'd gone for the 600/8 in the patent then I'd go for that one if it accepted the 1.4TC.


----------



## Aussie shooter (Jun 10, 2020)

Joules said:


> I have a feeling that Canon is preparing the RF ecosystem for being FF exclusive. And that means in order to still have some very compact lenses, we're now seeing what appears to be shockingly slow apertures.
> 
> But in reality people with MFT and APS-C have been getting by with camera and lens combinations that are the same or worse with regards to low light performance. People also have and still do put teleconverters to good use, which are even worse than these lenses as they can impact AF performance. I think talking about it just helps to put Canon's actions into context. I've read the terms absurd and stupid used to describe Canon's new lenses in this thread, so I believe there is a benefit to bring up some of the technical contexts that can explain why they are doing what they do.
> 
> In the end, not everybody can afford a big white. If Canon moves away from DSLR entirely, slow lenses allow them to offer something in the RF system to those that don't fancy the limits if the M system without offering a RF crop line of lenses. It makes sense to me.


As someone who uses aps-c(7d2) for wildlife I can let you know how I work. Sigma 150-600c is the most used lens. Generally shot wide open and very occasionally stopped down to 7.1 or 8 if shooting in perfect light conditions. Light shade(cloudy conditions and not too dense woodlands and the sigma is still acceptable with a bump of the ISO(I generally shoot auto ISO limited to 3200 but dislike going over 1600). Deep shaded forest and woodlands I switch to a 70-200 2.8 and crop if needed. Not only because it does produce better images despite giving up resolution but also because the AF performs WAAAAAAAAAY better. I also run the 2x extender on the 70-200 but only in perfect lighting conditions and only if the travel I am doing means it is impractical to take the sigma.
I am currently considering the possibility of the R6 but would definitely stick with the sigma or the 70-200 2.8 and retain the ability to get a wider apature when needed


----------



## Kit. (Jun 11, 2020)

SteveC said:


> I guess I am treating exposure as equivalent to the concept of "flux" (amount of something flowing through per unit area, used for radiation and electromagnetic fields),


That would be "flux density". "Flux" itself is the amount of something flowing through the contour.



SteveC said:


> and the exposure triangle is just a quickie way of comparing two different sets of settings to see they have the same flux (or how different they are).


...to see they hit the same slope on the sensor's response curve.

As far as the sensor can be considered linear for our practical purposes, the exposure triangle (and in particular, the "ISO" part of it) can be ignored.


----------



## scyrene (Jun 11, 2020)

post: 835609 said:


> I also have used my 500mm 4L IS II with 2XIII at f/8 f/9 and f/10 with my 5DsR. But there is always the option to use it at f/8 to be close to DLA (f/6/7) and at the same time to enjoy 1000mm. And I realy have enjoyed the results!
> 
> But 1000mm at f/8 is not the same as 800mm at f/11. Of course portability is a totally different matter. But for that there is always D500 + 500mm f/5.6 PF !!! A really portable combo.
> 
> Now if only they made 800DO a stop brighter (but that would be rather big like 400DO +2X big).



I stop down the 500+2x combination to f/10 because I found the IQ was slightly better than way. In my opinion, 1000mm f/10 is close enough to 800mm f/11 for the purposes of countering the claim that such a lens could never be used in anything but bright midday light, a claim which seems to be based of supposition and received wisdom. I present my experience as a counterexample.


----------



## scyrene (Jun 11, 2020)

Tom W said:


> Ok, so lets say you're birding in the dark shadows of the woods. You need some shutter speed so you're shooting at 1/1000, f.5.6, ISO 3200 for proper exposure. Lets go to f/8 - now you're at iSO 6400, or you give up more shutter speed. At f/11, you're at ISO 12800 for the same exposure. Unless 12,800 in the new camera can give me the same noise characteristics as today's ISO 3200, then it's a non-starter for me.



I've shot birds in the woods at ISO 12800 on the 5D3, and it can produce okay results - the newest Canon sensors are better at high ISO than that old body, and I'd argue you could go down to 1/500 or even 1/320 with some birds. It's not going to be perfect for these conditions, but it will open up new opportunities to some people.


----------



## dolina (Jun 11, 2020)

SecureGSM said:


> +++++ these f11 lenses in several years will be performing like the f2.8 pro lenses of recent years.
> 
> +++++Some here get it, but let me say it...
> 
> ...


It's a budget lens. 

People who cannot afford to plunk down more than $2,000 or carry anything heavier than 2kg of lens will buy the f/11 lens.

Sigma, Tamron and Tokino proves there's a market for it.

Still photography market's in a 10 year free fall with the last year being the worst in terms of units shipped.

Canon probably has a image sensor that can go to crazy high ISO and be clean with somewhat alright autofocus.

Retirees are a large market for photography so gear they can move around is great for them,


----------



## scyrene (Jun 11, 2020)

SecureGSM said:


> You would hope to be shooting at least 1/800s with 800mm lens even when shooting a dead bird.
> yeah, IS and everything I know



What on earth are you talking about?


----------



## SecureGSM (Jun 11, 2020)

scyrene said:


> What on earth are you talking about?


Talking Shooting handheld with IS on @800mm. That’s 400/2.8 II + x2III. I could not get sharp shots unless was shooting at around 1/800s. 
5d4. It could be me or could be my setup but my experience is as described.


----------



## scyrene (Jun 11, 2020)

SecureGSM said:


> Talking Shooting handheld with IS on @800mm. That’s 400/2.8 II + x2III. I could not get sharp shots unless was shooting at around 1/800s.
> 5d4. It could be me or could be my setup but my experience is as described.



It does sound like you, sorry. Are you sure the IS is switched on? The standard used to be 1/focal length (so 1/800 for an 800mm lens); for pixel-level sharpness on higher resolution sensors, maybe a bit more, say 1/(focal length x1.5), so 1/1200. But the IS in the mark II superteles is good for 4 stops, so you should be able to shoot at ~1/160 and get a lot of keepers. I've shot static subjects handheld at 500mm 1/15 with no motion blur, but the keeper rate is naturally pretty low when you go to such extremes.

PS when you say sharp, you're talking about motion blur, right?


----------



## scyrene (Jun 11, 2020)

mpmark said:


> Firstly, there is far more practically options then the 800/5.6 from this 800/11. Secondly, this obsession with extreme high telephoto lenses is just overboard, I have no problem getting close enough to wildlife at 420mm/F4 which is my setup. It takes some practice and patience to get wildlife to get close, creates a more intimate encounter as well but you can get close to wildlife if you know what you are doing. Shooting at such high focal lengths just seems quite lazy to be honest.
> 
> I would much rather have my 420/f4 combo and get amazing photography that is useful another 15minutes past the sun setting then to have a f/7.1 or f/11 which is honestly poor light gathering and really only useful in harsh daytime sunlight. People tend to say, oh well the iso is getting better and you can push this. What they fail to mention that the opposite is true as well, if you have faster glass, that can be pushed far more as well. But too each their own.



Saying you prefer your way is one thing, castigating those with a different approach as lazy is pretty arrogant. Getting closer almost always results in a better image. But sometimes it's physically impossible, and how close you can get varies a lot by species, habitat, and region. Get over yourself.

I would just add - not everyone has the same standards with regard to 'acceptable image quality'. All my years of being a photography enthusiast have taught me that for most people, budget and subject matter are far more important than technical minutiae, even findamental stuff like sharpness, noise, and the quality of the light. Your shots may end up better, but if the buyers of these lenses are happy with what they produce, they will be serving their purpose well.


----------



## SecureGSM (Jun 11, 2020)

scyrene said:


> It does sound like you, sorry. Are you sure the IS is switched on? The standard used to be 1/focal length (so 1/800 for an 800mm lens); for pixel-level sharpness on higher resolution sensors, maybe a bit more, say 1/(focal length x1.5), so 1/1200. But the IS in the mark II superteles is good for 4 stops, so you should be able to shoot at ~1/160 and get a lot of keepers. I've shot static subjects handheld at 500mm 1/15 with no motion blur, but the keeper rate is naturally pretty low when you go to such extremes.
> 
> PS when you say sharp, you're talking about motion blur, right?


+++++ Are you sure the IS is switched on?

A.M.: appreciate the humour 
Is on, mode 3. Could be issue with IS in the lens. I am not claiming otherwise. Typically was shooting with the lens at around 1/2000s with IS off. Was never happy with IS in the lens. Sold one 11 months ago.


----------



## Eclipsed (Jun 11, 2020)

Kit. said:


> Moore's law has nothing to do with photoelectric conversion. Nothing at all.
> 
> But I have a better idea about future cameras: these lenses are for making sketches. The AI of the future cameras will take these sketches and paint the pictures they could correspond to.


How do you reconcile that with the consistent past advancement of every aspect of image quality? Do you think that advancement has stopped? My only point is that I assume it has not and will not.


----------



## PhotonShark (Jun 11, 2020)

Here's a thought that a couple of posts have alluded to it, but not clarified.

Surely this is all about luring/tempting customers away from APS-C SLR to full frame?

It's all good and well with your EOS ?0D and an EF 100-400 IS II. But, how do you get the equivalent focal length for even remotely reasonable money on Full Frame (3rd party lenses excluded). 

Enter a 100-500mm RF lens. Granted, it's down to 7.1 but at high ISO, the noise advantage of Full Frame takes care of the difference?

Just a thought.


----------



## Joules (Jun 11, 2020)

Eclipsed said:


> How do you reconcile that with the consistent past advancement of every aspect of image quality? Do you think that advancement has stopped? My only point is that I assume it has not and will not.


Advancements certainly haven't stop, but with regards to most aspects, they have slowed down a lot.

For noise and low light performance for example, there are two aspects that are subject to improvements. There is the efficiency of how much of the light hitting a sensor is converted to electricity and therefore detected. This is currently in the high 80% range for consumer cameras AFAIK. So even if 100% was achievable, that would make things not much better.

And the other aspect is the noise generated inside the camera electronics due to heat (dark current noise) and the read and amplifier circuitry (read noise). The latter is what has improved over the last years a lot. But it also has a lower limit. I don't know where exactly that would be, but obviously the read noise is very small in modern sensors and as it can't go negative, it seems we are approaching the practical minimum. Dark current can be reduced by cooling the sensor, which is actually a big part of dedicated astro cameras. But for general purpose photography, not much heat is generated in the sensor. And it should also be less now that the newer cameras are using more energy efficient parts.

As for megapixels, this is where we have seen most improvements in the recent past. You now can get as far as 32 MP APS-C sensors! Scaled up to FF that would be just over 80 MP. Quite a lot. But there's a limit as well: the diffraction limit. One your resolution has climbed so high that all apertures you frequently use are beyond the diffraction limit, you're getting the most detail for your money. But adding more MP won't help anymore. We are not at that point yet, a 32 MP sensor can resolve all the detail from f/6.3 and upward.

But getting past the diffraction limit involves some pretty specific techniques, so once we are there, that should be Pretty much it for the megapixel race. At the current rate of MP growth, it while take over a decade to get there though.

There are improvements to be had in DR. Canon has demonstrated that with its new Dual Gain Output sensor, and Sony has a different approach with dual amplifier stages that does also improve DR, although far less.


----------



## tron (Jun 11, 2020)

scyrene said:


> I stop down the 500+2x combination to f/10 because I found the IQ was slightly better than way. In my opinion, 1000mm f/10 is close enough to 800mm f/11 for the purposes of countering the claim that such a lens could never be used in anything but bright midday light, a claim which seems to be based of supposition and received wisdom. I present my experience as a counterexample.


In 500+2X case there is always the option to use f/8 to avoid higher iso so I disagree 1000 f/8 is not the same as 800 f/11. Also we cannot know if IQ will be excellent fully open for that rumored (and possibly non-L) lens.

But, as mentioned in a previous post I believe 800 f/11 will be a successful lens. Portability and cost are they keywords.


----------



## tron (Jun 11, 2020)

Canon had planned a 600 4 DO but I guess this got abandoned due to the new 600 4L IS III which is 3.1 Kg although not 31cm long (as the prototype). At least they could proceed by making some DO lenses in between like 500 5.6 (Nikon's is superb) 600 5.6 800 8 and 1000 11.


----------



## Kit. (Jun 11, 2020)

Eclipsed said:


> How do you reconcile that with the consistent past advancement of every aspect of image quality?


Consistent with what? With Moore's law? I don't think so.

There's less than 2 stops of increase in high ISO DR of FF cameras in the last 15 years. And now we are already pretty close (within 1 stop) to its theoretical limit.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 11, 2020)

Joules said:


> Wow, these guys should be incredibly light weight! At least from that drawing they look basically empty
> 
> 370 mm length sticking out from the mount is also pretty decent for an 800mm lens. And 310 for the 600mm.
> 
> ...



Those total lengths are to the imaging plane. Subtract 20mm to get the length in front of the flange ring.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 11, 2020)

SteB1 said:


> Interesting. But a DO 500mm f5.6 would be far more useful. With a 1.4X converter it would be a 700mm f8 and a 1000mm f11 with a 2x extender. f5.6 is far more usable in a situation where you need high shutter speeds.



More expensive, too. I'd be willing to bet these f/11 lenses won't take extenders, at least not officially. The designs are very simple. They're going to be (relatively) cheap for their focal lengths.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 11, 2020)

cazza132 said:


> F11 - could be a Cassegrain style mirror lens with primary and secondary mirror elements. This greatly reduces the lens length to possibly 150mm long.



See the patents posted above. A couple of those look suspiciously like these two f/11 tele lenses.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 11, 2020)

Mr Majestyk said:


> Where the hell are the 500 f/4 and 300 f/2.8 not this ultra slow rubbish.



They're been in the catalogue for years and will continue to be.

Why introduce "duplicate" lenses when the EF tele lenses work just as well on RF bodies? 

Canon is wise to introduce affordable tele lenses not already in their EF catalog first. It will sell a _*TON*_ of RPs (and possibly R6s if the price is right) to budget conscious shooters.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 11, 2020)

Codebunny said:


> A 500mm f/5.6 and a 600mm f/5.6 would be ideal. After seeing the Nikon 500mm f/5.6 in person I am sold. F/11 is just not going to work here unless it’s at ISO 18000 in a forest.
> 
> Edit: I missed these are rumoured to be STM lenses so they aren’t aimed at me anyway. I am wanting a 500 or 600 f/5.6 L lens with all the weather sealing it can have so I can have a light prime for going on long walks.



These will not be "L" lenses. These are for the budget conscious masses who shoot birds, air shows, and similar in bright daylight.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 11, 2020)

Maximilian said:


> Suppose the 100mm f/2.0 Macro is a 1:1 and the 85mm f/2 Macro IS STM is a 1:2 like the RF35/F1.8.
> 
> 
> Time will tell...
> Most popular lenses first.



And lenses that aren't already in the EF catalog. The EF 100mm f/2.8 L IS Macro does perfectly well on an RF body.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 11, 2020)

Chaitanya said:


> F11 , I would like to know what Canon engineers are smoking.



The entire Micro Four-Thirds geosystem. They're about to light it up like Obi Wan did Anakin.

800mm f/11 on a FF RP is "equivalent" to 400mm f/5.6 on µ4/3.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 11, 2020)

bergstrom said:


> what the hell do you do with a Canon RF 800mm f/11 ?



You sell a crap-ton of RP and maybe R6 bodies with them. That's what you do.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 11, 2020)

blackcoffee17 said:


> F8 would be more acceptable. The 2 stops and DO over the 600mm F4 would make it much smaller and cheaper.



And sell in numbers the 600mm f/4 will never hope to approach.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 11, 2020)

Architect1776 said:


> This is pretty amazing, Long lenses with small max apertures shows Canon has something up their sleeve as far as incredible sensor technology. ISO 120,000 with NO noise at all?



Nope. These are FF daylight teles to convert the APS-C 150-600mm crowd over to FF RF.

This lens is a match made in heaven for the RP and whatever follows it. Perhaps the R6 if the price is right.





highdesertmesa said:


> These specs aren't telling me Canon expects me to use f/11 with current tech. They're telling me the R5/6 high ISO performance is going to be as big a leap as was the leap to 8K. Imagine ISO 6400 that looks like the current ISO 400. At least this is what I'm telling myself they're telling me



That's not what they are telling you.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 11, 2020)

joestopper said:


> So far there were amazing lenses released but bodies were somewhat underwhelming. Now this overwhelming body (R5) is on its way and no new lens to match???
> Looks like the lens division is running out of steam.



It looks to me like they're just getting started. 

Those lenses you're turning your nose up at will sell in unit numbers 10:1 vs. lenses like the RF 28-70/2 or the RF 50/1.2 and RF 85/1.2 which we already have. They'll also draw a lot of Rebel owners into the RF system with the RP or whatever replaces it. They might draw a bunch of µ4/3 shooters to FF, too.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 11, 2020)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> I can use f/11 with my R. I can also use it in live view with my 5D MK IV. I think some of the better communications in the RF lenses may help autofocus.
> 
> F11 is F11, the focal length does not change that. Obviously, the amount of light needed to get a low ISO exposure at a high shutter speed is critical, and for moving subjects, a fast shutter speed is going to be a issue. Lots of wildlife is not moving, birds in flight might require high ISO.



That depends on how good the R6 IBIS will be for panning...


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 11, 2020)

Bambel said:


> Maybe they are EF to RF TCs?



Maybe they are EF/EF-S to RF TCs that can enlarge the image circle enough for EF-S lenses to cover the entire full frame? 1.4X is not that far from 1.6X.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Jun 11, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> Nope. These are FF daylight teles to convert the APS-C 150-600mm crowd over to FF RF.
> 
> This lens is a match made in heaven for the RP and whatever follows it. Perhaps the R6 if the price is right.



F11 it's still too dark for 600mm. For 800mm it might be acceptable. But for 600mm you can add a TC to the 100-400 and still have 1 stop advantage.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 11, 2020)

Tom W said:


> Ok, so lets say you're birding in the dark shadows of the woods. You need some shutter speed so you're shooting at 1/1000, f.5.6, ISO 3200 for proper exposure. Lets go to f/8 - now you're at iSO 6400, or you give up more shutter speed. At f/11, you're at ISO 12800 for the same exposure. Unless 12,800 in the new camera can give me the same noise characteristics as today's ISO 3200, then it's a non-starter for me.



These lenses will not be for birding in the dark woods. Got it?


----------



## stevelee (Jun 11, 2020)

I don't think Moore's Law has worked for a while even in for the kinds of things that Moore had in mind.


----------



## Joules (Jun 11, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> Those total lengths are to the imaging plane. Subtract 20mm to get the length in front of the flange ring.


I actually have already subtracted those 20mm for that reason in those numbers. But it really doesn't matter on lenses of this scale I think


----------



## Joules (Jun 11, 2020)

stevelee said:


> I don't think Moore's Law has worked for a while even in for the kinds of things that Moore had in mind.


Dang those pesky laws of physics!


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 11, 2020)

Laytonp said:


> This could be the answer. Canon has developed a Dual Gain Output censor, Each photo diode outputs 2 photos at the same time. One for high dynamic range, and the other for low noise. They are combined at output to give High Dynamic range and low noise in the image. This tech was developed for C300 Cinema camera. will it be used in the new R5 and R6 cameras, I hope so.



The customers Canon is aiming these f/11 telephoto lenses at are not the same customers Canon is aiming at with anything having a dual gain sensor in it. They're at opposite ends of their customer base.


----------



## Joules (Jun 11, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> The customers Canon is aiming these f/11 telephoto lenses at are not the same customers Canon is aiming at with anything having a dual sensor in it. They're at opposite ends of their customer base.


I think the comment was speculating that the R5 / R6 may be equipped with the new DGO sensor tech that they introduced in the C300 III. That doesn't have two sensors. It appears to read the separate halves in a Dual Pixel at different amplifications and merge them to create HDR. Unfortunately, their marketing materials aren't quite clear about it.

Regardless, it won't improve low light performance so the point the post you replied to was definitely moot. I'm just not sure at this point if this tech really is for a different market or if it may appear in stills ILC at some point.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 11, 2020)

Whowe said:


> I think they are making less expensive lenses for the masses. There are not a lot of R bodies that have been sold, compared to other brands and DSLRs. For canon to get market share, they have to sell a lot of units and there are a lot more inexpensive units sold. Most people on this forum would not be thrilled with using a Rebel series body today, but canon has sold more of those than 5D series cameras.
> 
> Canon needs better bodies for the great glass they have produced for the pro and high end enthusiast. But, they also really need inexpensive glass to attract the large group of buyers at the lower end of the price spectrum. (There is probably more profit there in the long run...)




^^^^^^^^^THIS^^^^^^^^^^


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 11, 2020)

Joules said:


> I think the comment was speculating that the R5 / R6 may be equipped with the new DGO sensor tech that they introduced in the C300 III. That doesn't have two sensors. It appears to read the separate halves in a Dual Pixel at different amplifications and merge them to create HDR. Unfortunately, their marketing materials aren't quite clear about it.
> 
> Regardless, it won't improve low light performance so the point the post you replied to was definitely moot. I'm just not sure at this point if this tech really is for a different market or if it may appear in stills ILC at some point.



Dual _gain_ sensor in it. I was trying to type too fast and left out a word.

And folks who have been buying Rebels and 150-600s are definitely at the opposite end of Canon's customer base from those who buy C300, C200, and C100 cameras.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 11, 2020)

degos said:


> No, an m43 f/5.6 or 8 is exactly physically that. The equivalent FoV and alleged equivalent aperture are irrelevant.
> 
> If you're shooting at 5.6, that's what you're shooting at. It's a physical ratio.
> 
> Think of it this way: you shoot an 600 f/4 at 5.6 on a Canon FF. You then crop the centre portion to match m43 FoV. Did the aperture change? No.



When you crop from FF to µ4/3 the aperture doesn't change, but the DoF sure as hell does. BIG TIME. So does the overall image S/N ratio.


----------



## Joules (Jun 11, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> Dual _gain_ sensor in it. I was trying to type too fast and left out a word.
> 
> And folks who have been buying Rebels and 150-600s are definitely at the opposite end of Canon's customer base from those who buy C300, C200, and C100 cameras.


Fair enough. Not disagreeing with you here. Sorry for misunderstanding you. 

But I find the DGO tech very interesting. If it truly is just amplifying the two halves of each pixel differently, it does not seem to add much cost to a sensor to me. Magic Lantern enabled a mode where the alternating rows of pixels were amplified differently and used that to create one shot HDR images. This was something available in the sensor hardware, not just software based. I used it in my 600D a couple times. The problem with that were artifacts in areas that were saturated in one image due to parallax.

But with higher resolutions and less parallax due to having the two diodes under the same micro lens, maybe Canon is having another attempt with this concept. We've now seen it first in an expensive camera, but it does not sound so far off that it may be found in consumer models too. Maybe not this generation, but eventually. After all, Canon already had something similar in the older models, just not supported in the software side.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 11, 2020)

Bonich said:


> This year for the 2.0 85mm Macro and the 2.8 70-200, next year for crazy stuff like 2.0 400 DO or 2.8 600 DO.



The RF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS will not take extenders, at least none that have elements that extend into the back of the lens. Look at the rear of an RF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS. The rear element is almost flush with the flange ring.




I doubt the RF 85mm f/2 Macro will, either. I can't remember for sure, but I think it's been revealed that the two RF 85mm f/1.2 L lenses will not take extenders either.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 11, 2020)

Joules said:


> Fair enough. Not disagreeing with you here. Sorry for misunderstanding you.
> 
> But I find the DGO tech very interesting. If it truly is just amplifying the two halves of each pixel differently, it does not seem to add much cost to a sensor to me. Magic Lantern enabled a mode where the alternating rows of pixels were amplified differently and used that to create one shot HDR images. This was something available in the sensor hardware, not just software based. I used it in my 600D a couple times. The problem with that were artifacts in areas that were saturated in one image due to parallax.
> 
> But with higher resolutions and less parallax due to having the two diodes under the same micro lens, maybe Canon is having another attempt with this concept. We've now seen it first in an expensive camera, but it does not sound so far off that it may be found in consumer models too. Maybe not this generation, but eventually. After all, Canon already had something similar in the older models, just not supported in the software side.



How many stops difference was there between the two amplifications? If you gain one stop and have to reduce exposure by one stop to protect the highlights from never blowing out, what have you really gained?


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 11, 2020)

degos said:


> But people here are commenting as if it affects exposure ( as in how could you shoot f/11 at night etc ). It doesn't, the same shutter-aperture-ISO will give the same exposure on all sensors with the exception of differences due to true transmission ratio of the lenses.
> 
> And noise equivalence is dependent on sensor technology, it's not inversely linear to sensor size.



When you take a FF image and crop that image, the sensor technology is _identical_, since the same sensor was used both before and after you cropped the same image.


----------



## Joules (Jun 11, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> How many stops difference was there between the two amplifications? If you gain one stop and have to reduce exposure by one stop to protect the highlights from never blowing out, what have you really gained?


I don't think there was any limit on how far apart the two amplifications needed to be. The feature is called dual ISO. I'm pretty sure I used ISO 100 and ISO 1600 at one point, just to try itA. As this was on a T3i (strong, strong fixed pattern noise when pushing shadows too much), you did actually gain something there since the sensor was far from ISO invariant.

Here is the thread the developers assigned for posting images made using the feature:

https://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=7402

(Obviously, the HDR look is pretty over the top in many there. But that's basically the point)

But thinking about it, for the current generation sensors that are so close to being ISO invariant, using a high and a lot magnification should indeed yield little advantage over just using the lower one and creating the HDR in post... Or maybe I'm too tired and missing something currently.

Edit: then again, Canon is writing 16 stops Dr in their material. So clearly they see an advantage in terms of readnoise and DR. So I guess I'll get some needed sleep


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 11, 2020)

Marximusprime said:


> Maybe for very small birds, but I routinely shoot with an EFL north of 900 (600mm lens on a crop body, 500 + 1.4x on a crop body, etc.) and I'm usually pretty good at finding the bird.



Yeah, some folks think if something is beyond their abilities, it has to be beyond everyone's abilities. 

I've seen some pretty impressive work of birds in flight from this guy. He even shoots a 600/4 III + 2X handheld but usually not when they're flying. 

Here he's using a 400/2.8 + 2X III handheld with the new 1D X Mark III. That's 800/5.6.

This is a time lapse of 63 still frames tracking a bird in flight.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 11, 2020)

sanj said:


> I want that lens too.



Where is the rumor that a 70-135mm f/2 is even in the works? I've seen a few members here talk about it, but I don't recall and actual Canon Rumor form the grand poobah saying there was one on the way. Maybe I just missed it?


----------



## Bonich (Jun 12, 2020)

Aussie shooter said:


> Also cant forget that while you can shoot at f11 in limited circumstances your camera is not autofocusing at f11. It is autofucusing at whatever the max apature of the lens is. These would be focusing AT f11. Not easy to be fast or accurate. It would work in perfect conditions. Bright light. Front lit subjects. Very still subjects. And most likely on a tripod. UNLESS as I suggested that maybe the sensors are substantially better at high ISO than we have seen before.


Why no AF @F11 with the R series???
Why only very still objects?
Yes, perfect framing without monopod/beanbag, tripod will be some challenge especially with the 800mm.
To give you an Idea about F11 here a shot with 16 years old technology F10, 500mm x1.4, ISO200, 1/800sec (EOS 1D MII):
Sorry canonrumors had stolen the sun reflection point on the eye :-(


The very first important issue is to be at the right moment at the right location with the right light and the right subject.

Not too bad having equipment with you. You never take around F4.0 just accidentally. (I know, I use F4.0 600mm or 500mm for nearly 3 decades now).


----------



## Bonich (Jun 12, 2020)

blackcoffee17 said:


> I totally agree with that. It's like someone who doesn't want to lug around a 3kg 1.2 prime does not want weather sealing or better build quality either.





davidcl0nel said:


> I like the EF 35 IS f/2 very much, it is well built and "small".
> The RF 1.8 with the changing length (by focus) seems to be more vulnerable and looks poor.
> 
> But yes, a RF 35 / 85 with 2 IS would be nice. But because there is a RF35 1.8, there will be many other new lenses before they update this one with a similar (but well-built) pendant....
> I don't need a RF 35 1.2 without IS. This is may be superb, but not for my usage.


May be it looks poor in your eyes, the 35 1.8 produces stunning results and is very versatile.
Give it a try, it even changed my shooting style enabling perspectives never been able before.
Yes, it extends focussing: Wide aperture, very compact, 1:2 magnification, limited focus breathing, how to be done without?


----------



## Aussie shooter (Jun 12, 2020)

Bonich said:


> Why no AF @F11 with the R series???
> Why only very still objects?
> Yes, perfect framing without monopod/beanbag, tripod will be some challenge especially with the 800mm.
> To give you an Idea about F11 here a shot with 16 years old technology F10, 500mm x1.4, ISO200, 1/800sec (EOS 1D MII):
> ...


I disnt say it cant focus with a max apature of f11. I said it is much harder than f4. I know the mirrorless do far better than a dslr at that apature but it still slows everything down. But your example shot(nice shot by the way) is an example of good light and a relatively still subject(a hovering tern is not easy as they dont often hover for long but there is always that period of pause before the dive). I have shot them quite often as they do make such awesome subjects. I have no doubt these will be very good lenses but they will have to be cheap( in comparison to a big white not compared to a nifty fifty) to be worthwhile. Of they are then they will sell like hotcakes despite the limitations they will have


----------



## SecureGSM (Jun 12, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> You sell a crap-ton of RP and maybe R6 bodies with them. That's what you do.


How you can sell a crap-ton of such a specialty focal length lens in such a stagnant, downward spiral market? 600/11, 800/11..
out of all non pro camera owners left Out there, what percentage of those will ever consider longer than 200mm PRIME lens?
Yeah, 100-400 zoom. May be. Only if compact and cheap. Take a look at Sigma and Tamron 100-400 lenses. F6.3 at the long end. Size of your stubby.
Yup, makes sense.
there is no market to sell tons of these cheap telephoto primes in volume.
Sell tons of RP / R6 bodies? Yup, with 24-105 STM as kit. 100-400 / xx -6.3 or 7?? Yup.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 12, 2020)

Dexter75 said:


> Where is the RF 135? The EF 135 f/2 is the oldest lens in Canons lineup, 24 years old and never been updated. Ridiculous.



And still takes great photos.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 12, 2020)

Aussie shooter said:


> Now do that with an 800mm lens of a little bird sitting on one of the branches in the shaded area under the tree. Because that is what an 800mm lens is for. Not for taking landscape shots of a back garden.



That's _one_ of the things an 800mm lens may be for. It's far from the _only_ thing.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 12, 2020)

tron said:


> First, I believe he was joking about your picture. I personally believe it is VERY good (super sharp, open wings, nice lighting). I do not believe that someone could dislike this specific picture. Anyway this is also subjective.
> 
> But allow me to express some concern about your conversions. I am not 100% familiar I admit but I believe that you take into account that you would fill the frame the same in both cases (hence the different distance, the different total light - so different probably signal to noise ratio -on the sensor, the different DOF, etc).
> 
> ...



The difference for budget limited folks is that a 20 MP EF crop body currently goes for about $1,400. A 50MP EF FF body is still $3,400 from authorized dealers.

In the future it appears the 20 MP crop body will not be part of the RF system. A 20 MP FF body, however, is on the near horizon.

If you can afford a $3,500 camera and $5,000 lenses, these f/11 lenses are not for you.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 12, 2020)

SwissFrank said:


> tricky... even 1/180 with 600mm + 2x moves 2-3 pixels and blurs detail. You need 1/500th if shooting around 1000mm to get a sharp image.



The moon is in direct sunlight. Use the "lunar 11" rule of thumb. It's only one stop dimmer than "sunny 16."

Due to the Moon's motion relative to the surface of the Earth, it moves its own diameter every two minutes.

At f/11 one would need to use ISO 800 to use 1/800 second, or ISO 1600 to use 1/1,600.

Now consider that an R mount camera to use with this lens will have IBIS in addition to the lens having IS. The only motion to be concerned with will be that of the subject.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 12, 2020)

stevelee said:


> I find that overexposure is more of an issue with a full moon than camera shake on a clear night.



Just use the "lunar 11" rule of thumb. It's only one stop slower than "sunny 16." The moon is illuminated by direct sunlight. But if you properly expose the moon, you won't have very many stars, if any, break through the noise floor. And nothing on the ground will be anything other than totally dark unless you have another source of illumination.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 12, 2020)

Random Orbits said:


> I'm not seeing much discussion on the 85mm f/2 macro IS STM. That would be an interesting lens. If it can do 1:1, then it could replace both the 85 f/1.8 portrait lens and a 100mm macro for most people, so it seems like a value play. I'm guessing that the 100mm focal length will only have the "L" macro unlike the current offerings in the EF system.



I'm not a fan of using macro lenses for portraits. The flat field correction a lens needs to do macro well tends to kill the smooth bokeh we desire in portrait lenses.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 12, 2020)

blackcoffee17 said:


> And it will be useless shooting football inside a stadium at night too.
> 
> It will be a budget lens. Not for every occasion or lighting condition but plenty. I did shot very good images in the dark forest at ISO 800-1600 at F5.6 and 640mm on old Canon 20D/7D so 1 or 2 stop ISO increment should be still usable on a modern full frame.
> 
> ...



You can't shoot football in most stadiums at night with an 800/5.6, a 600/4, or a 500/4, either. And those lenses cost a lot more than the 800/11 and 600/11 will. Night stadiums are why 300/2.8 and 400/2.8 lenses are so popular among sports shooters even as expensive as they are. If you're in a larger pro or major college stadium, then f/4 can be useful (which is why 1.4X TC/extenders are also in the bags of most sports pros). But for high schools and small or mid-size colleges, forget it . You need f/2.8. Period.

Not every lens is made to do everything


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 12, 2020)

SteveC said:


> I guess I am treating exposure as equivalent to the concept of "flux" (amount of something flowing through per unit area, used for radiation and electromagnetic fields), and the exposure triangle is just a quickie way of comparing two different sets of settings to see they have the same flux (or how different they are). But photographers never use the word flux (my engineering background betrays itself).
> 
> There is, however, one more thing to consider, and that's how much of the light is simply absorbed in the glass elements of the lens itself. If you're using the same lens in two different settings, you can ignore that (since you're making comparisons), but with two different lenses that can become a factor as they might differ.
> 
> ...




In the context of what you're talking about, most noise is due to the Poisson distribution of photons in light. Light's "flux density" is not uniform. The more total photons you gather, the less the randomness of the distribution of photons will affect your result.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 12, 2020)

PhotonShark said:


> Here's a thought that a couple of posts have alluded to it, but not clarified.
> 
> Surely this is all about luring/tempting customers away from APS-C SLR to full frame?



Not only APS-C , but also Micro Four-Thirds. 

If Canon's entry level FF RF body with IBIS and the lenses it can use are as light and cheap as comparable µ4/3 bodies and lenses with half the focal length and max aperture, a lot of folks will move.

A 400mm f/5.6 lens on a µ4/3 body should perform about the same as an 800mm f/11 lens on FF with regard to field of view and noise performance, all else being equally.


----------



## SecureGSM (Jun 12, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> I'm not a fan of using macro lenses for portraits. The flat field correction a lens needs to do macro well tends to kill the smooth bokeh we desire in portrait lenses.


Very well said. Thank you.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 12, 2020)

Joules said:


> Advancements certainly haven't stop, but with regards to most aspects, they have slowed down a lot.
> 
> For noise and low light performance for example, there are two aspects that are subject to improvements. There is the efficiency of how much of the light hitting a sensor is converted to electricity and therefore detected. This is currently in the high 80% range for consumer cameras AFAIK. So even if 100% was achievable, that would make things not much better.
> 
> ...



Don't mistake diffraction limited aperture with the much narrower diffraction cutoff frequency. DLA is when diffraction _begins_ to be significant enough to be detected _at the single pixel level_. You can go several stops beyond the DLA before the increased effect of diffraction becomes noticeable at typical display sizes and viewing distances.

Current circles of confusion used for typical display sizes are about 6-8 pixels wide with the densest current FF and APS-C sensors. So unless you are blowing an image up to 60x40 inches and viewing it from one foot (or viewing a 24 MP image on a 96 ppi monitor at 100%), the DLA doesn't really come into play like most folks think.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 12, 2020)

Kit. said:


> Consistent with what? With Moore's law? I don't think so.
> 
> There's less than 2 stops of increase in high ISO DR of FF cameras in the last 15 years. And now we are already pretty close (within 1 stop) to its theoretical limit.



And most of the improvement made in the last fifteen years was already available by around 2012. From 2005 to 2012 the best sensors on the market of the same size gained almost two stops in terms of DR and base ISO. From about 2012 until 2020 we've gained maybe an additional half stop. It is true that it took Canon a little longer to get here, but others were within about a half stop of the current state of the art seven or eight years ago.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 12, 2020)

blackcoffee17 said:


> F11 it's still too dark for 600mm. For 800mm it might be acceptable. But for 600mm you can add a TC to the 100-400 and still have 1 stop advantage.



I'm guessing these non-L STM lenses will be noticeably cheaper than the 100-400 II before one adds the cost of a TC.

These lenses are not for folks who currently use 100-400 II + 1.4X III combos.


----------



## Dexter75 (Jun 12, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> And still takes great photos.



so does the 15 year old 5D but that’s not the point. We shouldn’t have to be using 24 year old lenses adapted on our brand new mirrorless cameras....


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 12, 2020)

Joules said:


> I don't think there was any limit on how far apart the two amplifications needed to be. The feature is called dual ISO. I'm pretty sure I used ISO 100 and ISO 1600 at one point, just to try itA. As this was on a T3i (strong, strong fixed pattern noise when pushing shadows too much), you did actually gain something there since the sensor was far from ISO invariant.
> 
> Here is the thread the developers assigned for posting images made using the feature:
> 
> ...



My point is: If you have to reduce exposure to protect highlights for the parts of the sensor amplified at ISO 1600, then at the same time you're also forced to reduce exposure of the parts of the sensor amplifying at ISO 100 by four stops compared to what you could expose if you only needed to protect the highlights at ISO 100. Only if the technology can overcome the blown highlights in the ISO 1600 portions without precipitating weird artifacts will it be very useful. Magic Lantern did not achieve that. One can stretch a single frame raw image using "HDR" software and get similar results to those examples that used ML.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 12, 2020)

SwissFrank said:


> You can see the brightest parts but only as a mid-tone. If you want an exposure where the brightest parts of the moon are only value 90 or something, sure, shoot at 1/500 with moderate aperture. But to get the full contrast range of the moon you'll need much higher ISO or longer shutter.



The more you raise ISO, the less DR you have, because the highlights blow out much sooner.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 12, 2020)

Bonich said:


> May be it looks poor in your eyes, the 35 1.8 produces stunning results and is very versatile.
> Give it a try, it even changed my shooting style enabling perspectives never been able before.
> Yes, it extends focussing: Wide aperture, very compact, 1:2 magnification, limited focus breathing, how to be done without?



Some folks care more about how a lens looks mounted on their camera and what others will think about how it looks mounted on their camera than they care about how the images they get with that lens look.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 12, 2020)

SecureGSM said:


> How you can sell a crap-ton of such a specialty focal length lens in such a stagnant, downward spiral market? 600/11, 800/11..
> out of all non pro camera owners left Out there, what percentage of those will ever consider longer than 200mm PRIME lens?
> Yeah, 100-400 zoom. May be. Only if compact and cheap. Take a look at Sigma and Tamron 100-400 lenses. F6.3 at the long end. Size of your stubby.
> Yup, makes sense.
> ...



How many 150-600mm f/6.3 lenses has Sigma and Tamron sold to APS-C shooters?

It seems to me they've sold far more than Canon and the others combined have sold 100-400s since the 150-600 lenses came out. I used to see a TON of the first generation of 100-400s out and about. Now I see very few 100-400 IIs and a TON of 150-600/6.3 lenses where there were once first generation 100-400s.

That's who these f/11 lenses are for: Those who are currently shooting 150-600mm lenses on Rebels. It will draw them to FF RF.

These lenses are not for those who are willing to spend $2,200 on a Canon 100-400/6.3 and another $450 for a 1.4X III. They're for those who are willing to get a Canon 600/11 or 800/11 for half that.


----------



## Kit. (Jun 12, 2020)

Dexter75 said:


> so does the 15 year old 5D but that’s not the point. We shouldn’t have to be using 24 year old lenses adapted on our brand new mirrorless cameras....


You don't have to. You can just use RF85 and crop to 135mm.


----------



## stevelee (Jun 12, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> Just use the "lunar 11" rule of thumb. It's only one stop slower than "sunny 16." The moon is illuminated by direct sunlight. But if you properly expose the moon, you won't have very many stars, if any, break through the noise floor. And nothing on the ground will be anything other than totally dark unless you have another source of illumination.


I usually start with looney 11 and back off from there for a couple of brackets. The main variation for the full moon is the haze in the sky. I shudder (shutter?) to think of what exposure it would take to get detail in the actual shadows. Usually several of the shots are usable when adjusted in ACR.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 12, 2020)

Dexter75 said:


> so does the 15 year old 5D but that’s not the point. We shouldn’t have to be using 24 year old lenses adapted on our brand new mirrorless cameras....



If it gets the job done, why not?

Are there newer 135/2 lenses available that can shoot the edges of a flat test chart sharper when focus is set to be optimal on the center of the chart? Absolutely. You're free to buy one of them and use it on your new mirrorless camera. That is, if your biggest desire is to be remembered as the best shooter of flat test charts there ever was. Or maybe you need to do document reproduction. If so, knock yourself out (though you'd be better off using a medium format scan back for that).

But shooting a flat test chart is a different thing from shooting a three dimensional world. Design decisions that make a lens great for shooting flat test charts tend to make a lens less than great for some of the things we want out of lenses such as our 135/2s. Things such as buttery smooth bokeh.

Some of us would rather produce other kinds of images than really sharp flat test charts.




EOS 5D Mark III + EF 135mm f/2 L. ISO 5000, f/2.2, 1/80 (EV100 = 3 )




EOS 5D Mark III + EF 135mm f/2 L. ISO 200, f/3.2, 1/320 (EV100 = 11)




EOS 5D Mark III + EF 135mm f/2 L. ISO 3200, f/2.8, 1/160 (EV100 = 5)


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 12, 2020)

stevelee said:


> I usually start with looney 11 and back off from there for a couple of brackets. The main variation for the full moon is the haze in the sky. I shudder (shutter?) to think of what exposure it would take to get detail in the actual shadows. Usually several of the shots are usable when adjusted in ACR.



Well, it's not exactly detail in the shadows but most of the moon was not receiving sunshine in this one. It's Earthshine that is illuminating all but the sliver of New Moon at the bottom. The sky was quite a bit darker than this exposure makes it look. I shot it at EV = 0. It's been too long to remember what I did in post.



EOS 5D Mark II + EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II. ISO 400, f/3.2, 3.2 seconds (EV100 = 0)


----------



## Joules (Jun 12, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> Don't mistake diffraction limited aperture with the much narrower diffraction cutoff frequency. DLA is when diffraction _begins_ to be significant enough to be detected _at the single pixel level_. You can go several stops beyond the DLA before the increased effect of diffraction becomes noticeable at typical display sizes and viewing distances.


Yes. But it is a limit. The post I replied to appeared to suggest things will improve indefinitely, so I wanted to bring it up as one area where we actually are pretty far off from the limit, but have a limit nonetheless. 

My only point was that megapixels will continue to go up, but even those will reach a point where an increase is pointless for the vast majority of applications.

Good that you mentioned the role of diffraction though, it is indeed sometimes treated as a far greater evil than it usually is.


----------



## BillB (Jun 13, 2020)

Joules said:


> Good that you mentioned the role of diffraction though, it is indeed sometimes treated as a far greater evil than it usually is.


In photography, the importance of anything that involves magic numbers is often greatly exaggerated.


----------



## Dexter75 (Jun 13, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> If it gets the job done, why not?
> 
> Are there newer 135/2 lenses available that can shoot the edges of a flat test chart sharper when focus is set to be optimal on the center of the chart? Absolutely. You're free to buy one of them and use it on your new mirrorless camera. That is, if your biggest desire is to be remembered as the best shooter of flat test charts there ever was. Or maybe you need to do document reproduction. If so, knock yourself out (though you'd be better off using a medium format scan back for that).
> 
> ...



nothing spectacular about those images. Colors aren’t great either. 24 years is ancient in the photographhy world. sure, 24 year old camera can still take photos but newer technology is better, period.why is asking for an update on a 24 YEAR OLD lens such a big issue among you cupcakes? EF Mount is dead, we need new glass


----------



## Aussie shooter (Jun 13, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> How many 150-600mm f/6.3 lenses has Sigma and Tamron sold to APS-C shooters?
> 
> It seems to me they've sold far more than Canon and the others combined have sold 100-400s since the 150-600 lenses came out. I used to see a TON of the first generation of 100-400s out and about. Now I see very few 100-400 IIs and a TON of 150-600/6.3 lenses where there were once first generation 100-400s.
> 
> ...


I shoot with a 150-600 on an apsc. I would still take the 150-600 on the full frame over these primes. Simply for versatility. IF however ones subjects do not require that versatility then you may be correct


----------



## SecureGSM (Jun 13, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> How many 150-600mm f/6.3 lenses has Sigma and Tamron sold to APS-C shooters?
> 
> It seems to me they've sold far more than Canon and the others combined have sold 100-400s since the 150-600 lenses came out. I used to see a TON of the first generation of 100-400s out and about. Now I see very few 100-400 IIs and a TON of 150-600/6.3 lenses where there were once first generation 100-400s.
> 
> ...


+++ How many 150-600mm f/6.3 lenses has Sigma and Tamron sold to APS-C shooters?

A.M.: not that many in absolute numbers even back to 2012-2014, when market conditions were pretty amazing. its a zoom though, a much more useful lens. ans can be had in Australia for around US$600 a pop. Tony in his video is hinting at Canon 800/11 price to be around US$2,000. in his view, anyway.
now, in my view: I can obtain an excellent 100-400/5.6 lens + x2 TC for that much. and that gives me : 100-400 and 200-800 range at f/11 maximum?

with 2 cameras I am covering 24-400 or 24-800 zoom range if needed. and faster apertures..

this is exactly what I am going to do: get a x 1.4 and x2 TC to use with Canon 100-400/5.6 II L on R5.


----------



## Aussie shooter (Jun 13, 2020)

SecureGSM said:


> +++ How many 150-600mm f/6.3 lenses has Sigma and Tamron sold to APS-C shooters?
> 
> A.M.: not that many in absolute numbers even back to 2012-2014, when market conditions were pretty amazing. its a zoom though, a much more useful lens. ans can be had in Australia for around US$600 a pop. Tony in his video is hinting at Canon 800/11 price to be around US$2,000. in his view, anyway.
> now, in my view: I can obtain an excellent 100-400/5.6 lens + x2 TC for that much. and that gives me : 100-400 and 200-800 range at f/11 maximum?
> ...


Damn that sounds like a sweet kit. I wish I had the bucks for it.


----------



## SecureGSM (Jun 13, 2020)

Aussie shooter said:


> Damn that sounds like a sweet kit. I wish I had the bucks for it.


Canon 100-400 II L in an excellent condition - is around A$1,450.00 on Gumtree.
Canon x2 TC III - A$350-450 on Gumtree.


----------



## Aussie shooter (Jun 13, 2020)

SecureGSM said:


> Canon 100-400 II L in w=excellent condition - is around A$1,450.00 on Gumtree.
> Canon x2 TC III - A$350-450 on Gumtree.


Already have the 2x. Could get the 100-40 if I sold the 150-6-- and put in another grand. It is the R5 that would stop me. That will be pushing 6k and therefore off the list. Looking seriously at the R6 as a compliment to the 7d2 however but will wait to see reviews and then give it 6 months to find out what people real world experience is like


----------



## SecureGSM (Jun 13, 2020)

Aussie shooter said:


> Already have the 2x. Could get the 100-40 if I sold the 150-6-- and put in another grand. It is the R5 that would stop me. That will be pushing 6k and therefore off the list. Looking seriously at the R6 as a compliment to the 7d2 however but will wait to see reviews and then give it 6 months to find out what people real world experience is like


I am with you. I was able to find a mint 5D4 for around A$3,000.00 only 6 months following the official release in Australia with a remainder of the 3 years warranty. with 2500 clicks on it. I hope to pull this trick with R5 again.  People buy and sell cameras all the time due to either personal circumstances have changed or going out of hobby...


----------



## stevelee (Jun 13, 2020)

SwissFrank said:


> That's a common misconception. The problem is that the moon is made of rocks, that are less than fully reflective, and which at their brightest, once you have the averaging effect of a zillion kilometers' distance, will only be a mid-tone.
> 
> If you want your photo to have mid-tones as the maximum value, then sure, sunny 16 or 11 all night long, baby!
> 
> But most people shooting the moon want the brightest parts to be max or near-max exposure, values of 250, say if not 255. Go find some medium grey rocks, stand way back, and try to get high pixel values with sunny-16 (or -11). You can't.


I'm not sure how most people want their moon pictures to look. I think a lot of folks probably want it to look orange, judging from some of the shots I see. Even here, I find some moon pictures too jazzed up in terms of contrast or over-sharpening, for my tastes anyway. We have had threads in which people asked opinions on different versions of their moon pictures, and some people liked more sharpening, and some liked less. I tended to be in the latter category.

I just looked back at the raw files for some moon pictures I have shot. One of the best-detailed pictures was shot at sunny 16. The moon was almost full. As you say, it is a bunch of rocks, so none of them are pure bright white in real life. There was small enough dynamic range in the moon image itself in the Raw file that I could, if I wanted to, expand it from 0 to 255. I think it would look funny, but I could do it.

I also looked at some shots I took during a total eclipse of the moon. Even at the halfway point, a shot I took at looney 11 was fine if maybe not optimal.


----------



## Aussie shooter (Jun 13, 2020)

SecureGSM said:


> I am with you. I was able to find a mint 5D4 for around A$3,000.00 only 6 months following the official release in Australia with a remainder of the 3 years warranty. with 2500 clicks on it. I hope to pull this trick with R5 again.  People buy and sell cameras all the time due to either personal circumstances change or going out of hobby...


I am not to upset as despite only being pegged at 20mp the R6 is actually looking like a pretty good bit of kit for what i want. It has enough speed to act as a back up wildlife body for when it is low light conditions and the 7d2 starts to struggle. It will be a nice small and light body for travel purposes. Will be fine for aurora photography which is where i really struggle with the 7d2 and i have no issues with 20mp for landscapes and big prints.


----------



## Czardoom (Jun 13, 2020)

Dexter75 said:


> nothing spectacular about those images. Colors aren’t great either. 24 years is ancient in the photographhy world. sure, 24 year old camera can still take photos but newer technology is better, period.why is asking for an update on a 24 YEAR OLD lens such a big issue among you cupcakes? EF Mount is dead, we need new glass



You sound like someone who is better suited to just buying a new smartphone every year. Although, even smartphones are at the point now where there isn't that much improvement from one generation to the next.

Optics are not a new technology. A 24 year old lens is not necessarily any worse than a lens made today - in fact there are probably some older lenses that are just as good if not better than what is made today. Which is why getting some used lenses are a huge bargain and why many folks with lenses 30-50 years old are always looking for adapters so they can use these lenses on today's cameras. 

Of course, Canon and other lens makers love folks like you who can be so easily be convinced that newer is better! And believe that EF mount is dead. It means more lenses sold for them as you needlessly replace lenses that are perfectly fine.


----------



## SteveC (Jun 13, 2020)

Czardoom said:


> You sound like someone who is better suited to just buying a new smartphone every year. Although, even smartphones are at the point now where there isn't that much improvement from one generation to the next.
> 
> Optics are not a new technology. A 24 year old lens is not necessarily any worse than a lens made today - in fact there are probably some older lenses that are just as good if not better than what is made today. Which is why getting some used lenses are a huge bargain and why many folks with lenses 30-50 years old are always looking for adapters so they can use these lenses on today's cameras.
> 
> Of course, Canon and other lens makers love folks like you who can be so easily be convinced that newer is better! And believe that EF mount is dead. It means more lenses sold for them as you needlessly replace lenses that are perfectly fine.



But hey, I don't wanna use an adapter! They're horrible!!!

(/sarc)


----------



## Canon-Chas (Jun 14, 2020)

We can all take shots at f11 or even f40, buts lets be serious these apertures on 600/800mm lenses are quite ridiculous for normal everyday action shots. I have never gone above f8 for action shots as shutter speed and or iso were unusable for a quality image. If you want to buy F11 600/800mm lens and shoot stationary objects , fine, but there are far better lenses for this type of shot. Yes, you can take bird in flight sky shots at f11 to give depth of field to a flock of birds but its a very limiting option


----------



## stevelee (Jun 14, 2020)

SwissFrank said:


> Uh, yes it is. It's been utterly reinvented by computerized computation of lens formulae. CAD/CAM allows more complicated assemblies than previously possible. Camera makers and their prospective buyers continue to learn about the art. For instance in the 1980s people were so happy just to get an image that huge numbers of lenses had just five-bladed apertures, including not only the Canon 50mm/1.4, but even medium format 80mm's and so on. Now makers are much more concerned about aperture shape.
> 
> Thanks to these factors, the very sharpest lenses made today (Canon RF 50/1.2, Otus 50/1.4, Leica APO-Summicron 50/2) simply couldn't have been made a decade or two ago. The RF 50/1.2 is about 10x sharper than the EF 50/1.2 it replaces. You can see it's 30 lp/mm lines are higher than the old lens' 10 lp/mm lines; >3x sharper linearly is >9x sharper by area. If they could have done that 10 years ago they would have!


I got my first SLR about 1970. Zoom lenses were large, heavy, expensive, and not very good (or at least 3 of those 4). I never considered buying one. I was a grad student with some part-time jobs, so not much disposable income. I assembled a bunch of prime lenses instead. They seemed remarkable to me at the time, and I was able to take a lot of rather nice photos if I do say so myself.

Over time not just computer-aided design but also advances in rare earth glass, coatings, etc. have brought huge changes to what lenses, especially zoom lenses, can do. Profile-based computer adjustments work after the fact to smooth out much of the remaining faults. O Brave New World!


----------



## SteveC (Jun 15, 2020)

<blockquote>
rare earth glass with a half-life measured in perhaps decades. 
</blockquote>

You mean to say the glass contains a radioisotope?

That would suggest to me it has (or rather, had) promethium in it, as no other rare earth would _have_ to have a radioisotope used--the others all have stable isotopes. (Optical properties depend on the electron configuration, not the number of neutrons in the nucleus.)


----------



## Cat_Interceptor (Jun 15, 2020)

Well I cant say I *like* the idea of an F11 but if I use a EF 2x mk1 and a 100 - 400 II I could get an equivalent to it so... see what I get?

DSLR (7D mk II) - manual focus only, as expected. Not enough ligt for it to really work well. No tracking etc

M6 mk II with EF adapter - Autofcus was slow to do the initial accquire but WTF it not only GETS focus but also reliably tracks say people running - ALL tracking modes unhindered. Maximum aperature was indeed f11 and this is what.... 960 equivalent? Sharper than I expected and I think more limited by the old teleconverter so ifI was using a EF 2x Mk III I would have seen better images. I also was silly and tried the same combination at night ..... notonly didit work but it wasnt entirely just noise. 

I was also surprised by the amount the background blew out. Even targeting a tree a km away, very distinct background and front of focus pane blowout - not exactly pleasing Toneh but with that setup I wasn't expecting much. 

So while I think a Toneh f11 600 isnt a great idea still, a f11 800 on a MILC I now think is actually a unexpectedly good and workable idea. The fact all tracking modes were still there and worked as fast as with no extender was a pleasent surprise so that bodes well for that proposed lens - it's pretty obvious such a lens is not possible to work on a DLSR but MILC? Yeah. I can see it actually see it as useful and with a ISO invariant sensor this'll be much better in low light than some people seem to presume. 

I still would prefer to have a max f of 5.6 on 100-500 but if the R5/R6 are really ISO invariant f7.1 will work fine.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jun 15, 2020)

Cat_Interceptor said:


> Well I cant say I *like* the idea of an F11 but if I use a EF 2x mk1 and a 100 - 400 II I could get an equivalent to it so... see what I get?
> 
> DSLR (7D mk II) - manual focus only, as expected. Not enough ligt for it to really work well. No tracking etc
> 
> ...


The new lens is a RF lens for full frame mirrorless. Its a more direct comparison to try it on a "R" or a 5D MK IV in liveview,, I also think some of Canon's recent patents improving autofocus on DPAF sensors may be coming.

I can stack my 2X II and 1.4X III and get limited autofocus on my R, but only if focus is already in the general distance.


----------



## SecureGSM (Jun 15, 2020)

Cat_Interceptor said:


> Well I cant say I *like* the idea of an F11 but if I use a EF 2x mk1 and a 100 - 400 II I could get an equivalent to it so... see what I get?
> 
> DSLR (7D mk II) - manual focus only, as expected. Not enough ligt for it to really work well. No tracking etc
> 
> ...


ISO invariant up to ISO 1600 apparently. Not much help with higher ISOs around 6400 or so.


----------



## Canon-Chas (Jun 15, 2020)

SwissFrank said:


> Even at f/8, is your camera capable of autofocus? Is it at f/11? Perhaps the wall keeping you to bigger apertures is the SLR AF's requirement for f/8 or wider? Perhaps with a MILFF focusing quickly and accurately even at f/11, you could actually get shots you like? Further, technology continues to improve so perhaps the sensors these lenses will be paired with, either starting with the R5/R6, or at some later date, will get better images at f/11 than you're used to at even say f/5.6?
> 
> I mean it's not as if there is some kind of chasm of quality between any two ISOs a stop apart. If you're able to shoot f/8 for some shots, and get a usable result, then there will be some shots you can shoot at f/11 and also get a usable result. I challenge you to explain a scenario and image where one would be acceptable and the other dismissed out of hand.
> 
> ...



I'm a wildlife tog and there is rarely sufficient light to allow more than f8. I can't see any wildlife or action togs queuing up to buy and a f11 600/800 lens! Let's wait and see what Canon actually come up with, F11 is a rumour , maybe it's f7.1 so wait and see 

_"I mean it's not as if there is some kind of chasm of quality between any two ISOs a stop apart. If you're able to shoot f/8 for some shots, and get a usable result, then there will be some shots you can shoot at f/11 and also get a usable result. I challenge you to explain a scenario and image where one would be acceptable and the other dismissed out of hand." _

I could list any number of scenarios where iso or shutter speed would be unacceptable ( to me anyway, you may have different standards ? ) at F11 too noisy or blurry . I prefer my f2.8 or f4 lenses, there is a good reason why they are more expensive otherwise we would all buy F11 lenses


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 22, 2020)

SecureGSM said:


> +++ How many 150-600mm f/6.3 lenses has Sigma and Tamron sold to APS-C shooters?
> 
> A.M.: not that many in absolute numbers even back to 2012-2014, when market conditions were pretty amazing. its a zoom though, a much more useful lens. ans can be had in Australia for around US$600 a pop. Tony in his video is hinting at Canon 800/11 price to be around US$2,000. in his view, anyway.
> now, in my view: I can obtain an excellent 100-400/5.6 lens + x2 TC for that much. and that gives me : 100-400 and 200-800 range at f/11 maximum?
> ...



I think Tony is overestimating the prices of those lenses. They're not "L" lenses.




Aussie shooter said:


> I shoot with a 150-600 on an apsc. I would still take the 150-600 on the full frame over these primes. Simply for versatility. IF however ones subjects do not require that versatility then you may be correct




IMHO the crowd that Canon is aiming for with the EOS R5 and the 600/800mm f/11 lenses are not those who follow Canon rumors. I think for them the lure of an affordable 800mm lens will be irresistible. I also think the 600/11 is going to be smaller and much lighter than the 150-600mm lenses are in the same way that the RF 70-200/2.8 is smaller (when collapsed) and lighter than the EF 70-200/2.8s are. Don't forget, there's talk that even tough they are primes, they will collapse when stored.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 22, 2020)

SwissFrank said:


> That's a common misconception. The problem is that the moon is made of rocks, that are less than fully reflective, and which at their brightest, once you have the averaging effect of a zillion kilometers' distance, will only be a mid-tone.
> 
> If you want your photo to have mid-tones as the maximum value, then sure, sunny 16 or 11 all night long, baby!
> 
> But most people shooting the moon want the brightest parts to be max or near-max exposure, values of 250, say if not 255. Go find some medium grey rocks, stand way back, and try to get high pixel values with sunny-16 (or -11). You can't.



Yes, the moon's average albedo is only about 12% (0.12). But not everyone wants to push it all the way to the verge of blowing out.

I guess it all depends upon what you want. This one was exposed 1 2/3 stops brighter than looney 11 because I was more concerned with getting Jupiter's bands, and the highlights of the moon are brighter than I prefer. To each his own.

[https://flic.kr/p/dUFBPu]


Jupiter and Luna by Michael Clark, on Flickr


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 22, 2020)

SwissFrank said:


> Uh, yes it is. It's been utterly reinvented by computerized computation of lens formulae. CAD/CAM allows more complicated assemblies than previously possible. Camera makers and their prospective buyers continue to learn about the art. For instance in the 1980s people were so happy just to get an image that huge numbers of lenses had just five-bladed apertures, including not only the Canon 50mm/1.4, but even medium format 80mm's and so on. Now makers are much more concerned about aperture shape.
> 
> Thanks to these factors, the very sharpest lenses made today (Canon RF 50/1.2, Otus 50/1.4, Leica APO-Summicron 50/2) simply couldn't have been made a decade or two ago. The RF 50/1.2 is about 10x sharper than the EF 50/1.2 it replaces. You can see it's 30 lp/mm lines are higher than the old lens' 10 lp/mm lines; >3x sharper linearly is >9x sharper by area. If they could have done that 10 years ago they would have!



The EF 50mm f/1.2 was not primarily designed to be the sharpest lens around. It was designed to do other things, because back then most folks cared more about how the actual photos they took looked than how sharp they could take a photo of a flat test chart. Some of us still do, but the flat test chart lenses are what sell now, even if the out of focus areas don't look near as good as some of the older lenses do.


----------



## SecureGSM (Jun 22, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> The EF 50mm f/1.2 was not primarily designed to be the sharpest lens around. It was designed to do other things, because back then most folks cared more about how the actual photos they took looked than how sharp they could take a photo of a flat test chart. Some of us still do, but the flat test chart lenses are what sell now, even if the out of focus areas don't look near as good as some of the older lenses do.


So true with an exception of some modern lenses that are sharp and also “pleasing”
I thoroughly regret selling this puppy here. It was way to large to be practical. In fact some of my subjects felt intimidated in front of this lens. I had to use something else instead. 
I am thinking of buying the lens back in 2021 though.

https://www.myclickmagazine.com/click-pro-review-sigma-art-105mm-lens-magic-of-childhood/


----------



## Ozarker (Jun 22, 2020)

SecureGSM said:


> So true with an exception of some modern lenses that are sharp and also “pleasing”
> I thoroughly regret selling this puppy here. It was way to large to be practical. In fact some of my subjects felt intimidated in front of this lens. I had to use something else instead.
> I am thinking of buying the lens back in 2021 though.
> 
> https://www.myclickmagazine.com/click-pro-review-sigma-art-105mm-lens-magic-of-childhood/


I really do love the style in the processing of those images. I would love to learn how to do that. I can never get it quite right.


----------



## SecureGSM (Jun 22, 2020)

CanonFanBoy said:


> I really do love the style in the processing of those images. I would love to learn how to do that. I can never get it quite right.


Yeah.. it’s a film like. Classics.
here is Meg’s website:

http://www.megloeks.com/she is also on FB and Instagram. Reach out to her and see what transpires.
A rendition that this lens is offering is quite unique though.


----------



## Ozarker (Jun 22, 2020)

SecureGSM said:


> Yeah.. it’s a film like. Classics.
> here is Meg’s website:
> 
> http://www.megloeks.com/she is also on FB and Instagram. Reach out to her and see what transpires.
> A rendition that this lens is offering is quite unique though.


Very true about the lens. I have a friend with one, but for Sony mount... so I can't use it.

I see she offers editing and color workshops. Thanks so much for the links. I absolutely love what she does.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 22, 2020)

SecureGSM said:


> So true with an exception of some modern lenses that are sharp and also “pleasing”
> I thoroughly regret selling this puppy here. It was way to large to be practical. In fact some of my subjects felt intimidated in front of this lens. I had to use something else instead.
> I am thinking of buying the lens back in 2021 though.
> 
> https://www.myclickmagazine.com/click-pro-review-sigma-art-105mm-lens-magic-of-childhood/



If you're into that style, Elena Shumilova does pretty much the same thing with the EF 50mm f/1.2 L, EF 85mm f/1.2 L, and EF 135mm f/2 L. She also does a TON of postprocessing and even compositing. The backlit backgrounds are not always from the same frame as the front/side lit subjects. She claims to rarely if ever use flash, but analysis of a very small portion of some of her work says otherwise.


----------



## SecureGSM (Jun 22, 2020)

[


Michael Clark said:


> If you're into that style, Elena Shumilova does pretty much the same thing with the EF 50mm f/1.2 L, EF 85mm f/1.2 L, and EF 135mm f/2 L. She also does a TON of postprocessing and even compositing.


yup, I am familiar with what Elena is doing. 
that’s way too much for my taste though. 
however, see if you can find some OOC or moderately processed images taken with Sigma 105 Art on internet. See if you like it.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 22, 2020)

SwissFrank said:


> Actually, one or two of the classic Leica lenses used a rare earth glass with a half-life measured in perhaps decades. Not enough to be a health threat, but enough to physically change the chemical composition and thus optics of the lens. These probably make quite different images now as element A changes to B over time. (And the reason I can be sure the optical result is different is that if the elements were the same or even similar optically, Leica would have simply used stable product B to start out with...)
> 
> And the _one_ factor (now to argue against my broader point) that might _possibly_ make older lenses a bit better in some cases is that nowadays, some lens materials like I believe lead are restricted, on grounds that normal disposal would put them into the environment. While I'm totally behind the safety factor, I think photography as a community would be willing to promise to throw away broken lenses as a special trash item, if it means that we get better lenses in compensation. I mean, write in an 8pt font right on the barrel: "contains leaded glass and requires special disposal to avoid health issues in your community".
> 
> But that's just one factor, and in practice the stellar results we're seeing now tell us that this worry is more academic than not.



There were far more than one or two lenses from Leica that used thorium oxide in their glass. For example, Kodak Ektar and Aero-Ektar large format lenses produced from the 1940s through the 1960s used it. Kodak also used it in the glass of some of their high end Instamatics, like the 800 and 814. Some Minolta Rokkor lenses from the 1960s used radioactive rare earth elements. So did the Nikkor 35mm f/1.4 lens and the Asahi Super Takumar 50mm f/1.4 lenses from that era. Some Canon FL and early FD lenses, such as the FL 50/1.4 and FD 55/1.2 S.S.C. are also radioactive. Zeiss, Voigtlander, and Olympus had a few such lenses. Fujica and Yashinon had more than a few.

Here's a list of over 100 such lenses that have been recently measured with radioactivity.


----------



## Ozarker (Jun 22, 2020)

SecureGSM said:


> [
> 
> yup, I am familiar with what Elena is doing.
> that’s way too much for my taste though.
> however, see if you can find some OOC or moderately processed images taken with Sigma 105 Art on internet. See if you like it.


She's another of my favorites.


----------



## Antono Refa (Jun 22, 2020)

Regarding Canon not duplicating lens lines, my photography teacher said one reason certain focal lengths became popular because the human mind is somehow predisposed to like the perspective created by them (I half expected him to compare it to the way people like meadows in a sunny day, a la XP default wallpaper), and went on a bit to note how close the ratio of primes' focal lengths was to 1.414, e.g. 20/14, 28/20, 35/24, 50/35, etc. I think he had a bit of numerology in his argument, and that it has more to do with photographers like focal lengths nicely spaced. E.g. People would buy either an 85mm lens or a 100mm lens, but not both. Then one might not be comfortable cropping too much, so the next reasonable prime is 135mm, not 200mm.


----------



## stevelee (Jun 22, 2020)

There really isn't enough of a focal length difference between 85mm and 100mm to justify having both. I'm not sure why I wound up with both among my FL lenses, but I did use them differently, I think. I'm not sure whether the longer one was 100mm or 105mm, come to think of it, not that it would have made a practical difference. 

I have both now in EF lenses for more obvious reasons. I have the non-L 100mm macro, but don't care for the look for portraits. So when Canon had a refurb sale, I bought an 85mm f/1.8 lens for <$300 which works great for that. So the focal lengths are close, but the lenses are very different in use. I do use the 100mm in non-macro situations sometimes, still. But with 24-105mm and the 100-400mm zooms, I have that focal length more than adequately covered.

For reasons unknown, I don't believe I ever owned a 135mm lens. I know it is a favorite for a lot of people, even for portraits. Back in my film days I got to where I tended to take the 28mm, the 85mm, and the 200mm with me as my all-purpose set.


----------



## SteveC (Jun 22, 2020)

stevelee said:


> For reasons unknown, I don't believe I ever owned a 135mm lens. I know it is a favorite for a lot of people, even for portraits. Back in my film days I got to where I tended to take the 28mm, the 85mm, and the 200mm with me as my all-purpose set.



I'd probably get one...if there were a non-L version around.


----------



## stevelee (Jun 23, 2020)

SteveC said:


> I'd probably get one...if there were a non-L version around.


I wouldn’t bother to carry around the 100-400mm to get the 135mm focal length. I’d just shoot at 105mm with my kit lens and crop a bit. I rarely need the whole 26MP of the 6D2. I realize that I would’t get the look of a wide open 135mm f/2 whatever I would do, but that is not something I have ever missed.


----------



## SteveC (Jun 23, 2020)

stevelee said:


> I wouldn’t bother to carry around the 100-400mm to get the 135mm focal length. I’d just shoot at 105mm with my kit lens and crop a bit. I rarely need the whole 26MP of the 6D2. I realize that I would’t get the look of a wide open 135mm f/2 whatever I would do, but that is not something I have ever missed.



I don't use primes enough to justify truly expensive ones, but even the (relative) cheapies have a better f/number than the zooms. I do have the 85mm 1/4; 135mm would be a logical step up...again if there were a non-L, an L isn't worth it to me. (My 100mm macro is f/2.8 and I tend to use it for...macro. The relatively minor focal length difference between it and an 85 is outweighed by the 85's aperture.)


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 23, 2020)

SteveC said:


> I'd probably get one...if there were a non-L version around.



The EF 135mm f/2 L is generally available for well under $1,000 if you're willing to buy refurbished (when the Canon refurb store has them) or used from reputable sellers. My favorite used seller is currently Lensrentals.com's used department, lensauthority.com. They've currently got at least three listed for sale.

I got my 135/2 direct from Canon refurb for a little over $700 plus tax, but it took a long time of watching for when they had one listed in stock. I had a notification set up (I think via CPW) and missed a couple of opportunities because I didn't see the e-mail for 4-6 hours after they were listed and they were already sold out.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 24, 2020)

SwissFrank said:


> Disagree. People were as concerned with resolution then as now, and I haven't seen a comparison where the EF 50/1.2 produced a more pleasing or otherwise aesthetically preferable image to the RF 50/1.2, except for the vignetting in the RF (which is fully corrected by software should you wish). The only plus I'd give the EF's was size, but I imagine the coming RF 1.8 will be small enough. I had all the EF 50s (1.8 1.0 1.4 1.2) and was so glad to sell them once I realized how good my RF was.



People were not as concerned about resolution back then to the degree they are now for a variety of reasons, mostly to do with the limitations of roll film. It doesn't lay perfectly flat against the back plate. The three color emulsions are at slightly different distances from the lens. Grain in the emulsion was not perfectly distributed.

For non-Macro lenses, people also were not nearly as concerned about resolution at the edge of the frame when the lens was wide open and focused optimally on the center of the frame as they were about resolution at the center of the frame back then. If they wanted edge to edge sharpness, they expected they would need to stop down a bit.

Lenses do not need to be near as sharp to exploit the limits of film or early digital sensors with well less than 10 MP of resolution as they need to be to exploit the limits of 50MP+ sensors. Why do you think Canon released so many upgrades to the "L" series lineup in the couple of years before the release of the EOS 5Ds / 5Ds R? It was because most of their lenses, including some of the top tier primes and f/2.8 zooms were not up to the challenge of a 50MP sensor if one is going to go pixel peeping with the results.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jun 24, 2020)

I think people that worry about lens sharpness and resolution are in an enchanted forest and are looking at a twig on the ground.

I have seen utterly stunning images from the EF 50 f1.2, simply stunning; in contrast most of the images I see from the RF 50 f1.2 look overly ‘digital’ and clinical, like images shot with a macro lens.

The vast majority of images I find compelling do not rely on micro-contrast in the corners they are compelling because of the subject matter, the timing, the light etc etc etc.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 24, 2020)

SwissFrank said:


> I have no idea what you're talking about.
> 
> We're talking about the RF 50mm f/1.2 vs. the EF 50mm f/1.2. The EF 50mm f/1.2 came out in like 2007 and you're talking film and sub-10MP sensors?
> 
> https://global.canon/en/c-museum/product/ef392.html



I have no idea what you're talking about, either.

What I actually said (which you couldn't even include to the first comma because it weakens your depiction of what you want to pretend I meant) is, " People were not as concerned about resolution back then _*to the degree they are now*_ for a variety of reasons..."

I also said, "For non-Macro lenses, people also were not nearly as concerned about resolution *at the edge of the frame when the lens was wide open* and focused optimally on the center of the frame *as they were about resolution at the center of the frame back then*."

So please stop pretending I said no one cared about resolution at all without any qualifications.

The EF 50mm f/1.2 L is a classic double Gauss design that has been around for far longer than 2007, even if that is when this particular lens using it was introduced. It's basically a minor modification of the Taylor, Taylor & Hobson Series O f/2 designs from 1920. The fourth and fifth elements are a group that acts in the same way as the fourth element of the TT&H design, and the sixth and seventh elements are a group that acts in the same way that the fifth element in the TT&H design does. The only real modification is the use of a single aspherical surface in the final element.




As Roger Cicala noted in the blog entry linked above, "It’s also not surprising that each of the 50mm lenses have some characteristics in common (wickedly sharp in the center, a bit of field curvature, a bit of edge astigmatism, etc.)." If you want to argue that the EF 50mm f/1.2 L is not sharp in the center, argue with Uncle Roger.

In January of 2007 when the EF 50mm f/1.2 L was introduced, the current cameras in Canon's EOS lineup included:

8.2 MP 1D Mark II N
12.8MP 5D
8.2MP 30D
10.1MP Rebel XTi/400D
16.7MP 1Ds Mark II

The 10.1MP 1D Mark III was introduced later in 2007, as was the 10.1MP 40D.


----------



## Funit (Jun 25, 2020)

Not a single new or updated EF lens. When I get to the point where I want an updated version of one of my EF-L lenses, and the only way to get it is to buy an RF mount version. That means I also have to buying a RF mount body. Before I do that, I will look long and hard at other camera makers systems.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jun 25, 2020)

Funit said:


> Not a single new or updated EF lens. When I get to the point where I want an updated version of one of my EF-L lenses, and the only way to get it is to buy an RF mount version. That means I also have to buying a RF mount body. Before I do that, I will look long and hard at other camera makers systems.


I’d like to see the images you are making when you feel Canon don’t make an EF lens good enough.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 27, 2020)

SwissFrank said:


> Thanks for the lecture, Mikey, though we all know this. Your initial, and quite mistaken, claim wasn't about lens _designs_ but _lenses themselves_. I'm kind of insulted that you think the readership of this forum would forget your initial thesis and applaud your scrambling attempt to support it, but no, we can scroll up and see what you were initially talking about. When you're caught out wrong, just admit it and learn something. Don't double down on stupid.



What I originally said was:

"The EF 50mm f/1.2 was not primarily designed to be the sharpest lens around. It was designed to do other things, because back then most folks cared more about how the actual photos they took looked than how sharp they could take a photo of a flat test chart. Some of us still do, but the flat test chart lenses are what sell now, even if the out of focus areas don't look near as good as some of the older lenses do."


Nothing I've said since backs away from that in any way. It was not designed to be a Macro lens. Canon already had plenty of Macro lenses when the EF 85mm f/1.2 L ( and later EF 85mm f/1.2L II) was introduced. Flat field performance was not the overriding design feature that lens was created to meet. Disagree all you want, but that doesn't change the facts. If Canon had wanted to create an 85mm lens with superior flat field performance they'd already previously demonstrated rather well that they could have done so. They didn't, ergo that was not what they created the 85/1.2 to do.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 27, 2020)

SwissFrank said:


> Thanks to these factors, the very sharpest lenses made today (Canon RF 50/1.2, Otus 50/1.4, Leica APO-Summicron 50/2) simply couldn't have been made a decade or two ago. The RF 50/1.2 is about 10x sharper than the EF 50/1.2 it replaces. You can see it's 30 lp/mm lines are higher than the old lens' 10 lp/mm lines; >3x sharper linearly is >9x sharper by area. If they could have done that 10 years ago they would have!



On the other hand, you seem to forget that you said no one could make a lens like the RF 50/1.2 a decade ago and then criticize a lens designed more than a decade ago for not meeting a standard you just claimed couldn't be matched at that time.


----------

