# Canon Attempts New Supertele Patents



## [email protected] (Mar 23, 2022)

> Several new catadioptric designs (commonly referred to as “mirror” lenses) appeared in a patent application to Japanese authorities, including a 1200mm f/8 and an 800mm f/5.6.
> First called out in a post on An Image on a Sensor, the embodiments show typical “mirror lens” construction, but with a larger-than-typical number of lens groups and elements extending from the mirror optical tube, back toward the sensor.
> This may imply a much higher level of aberration correction than is normal in this type of lens. Most catadioptric lenses built for cameras are attempts to get at large focal lengths as cheaply as possible, and the catadioptric design allows for more light gathering with less glass.
> And they typically have less length, too. Because the mirror design causes the light to...



Continue reading...


----------



## calfoto (Mar 23, 2022)

I'm wondering if that would also be AF, possibly with additional ILIS?

The patent drawing does have a lens group labeled "Lis" - Lens Image Stabilization perhaps?

Lens group "Lfo" Lens Focus perhaps?


----------



## AlanF (Mar 23, 2022)

calfoto said:


> I'm wondering if that would also be AF, possibly with additional ILIS?
> 
> The patent drawing does have a lens group labeled "Lis" - Lens Image Stabilization perhaps?
> 
> Lens group "Lfo" Lens Focus perhaps?


There is also a heading "Reflex lens with IS and an iris from CANON" so it does have IS.


----------



## mxwphoto (Mar 23, 2022)

The 800mm f3.8 weighed 33lb. Wonder what a new f5.6 would weigh... Would have to be at most around 4-5lb to make sense as rf version is 6.9lb.


----------



## Stig Nygaard (Mar 23, 2022)

I haven't studied details from the sources, but at a first look, this looks very much like same patents as reported by Canon Rumors back in May 2021 ??? :









Patent: Is Canon planning to release catadioptric (mirror) super telephoto lenses?


Keith over at Northlight uncovered a USPTO patent showing various optical designs for catadioptric lenses, better known as mirror lenses. The advantages to mirr



www.canonrumors.com


----------



## LSXPhotog (Mar 23, 2022)

It bothers me that resources are being used to design lenses like this...I don't know why, but it does. LOL


----------



## jam05 (Mar 24, 2022)

Another Canon subject. For those interested. Canon has released the C70 firmware udate with Cinema RAW Light





Canon Support for EOS C70 | Canon U.S.A., Inc.


Find support for your Canon EOS C70. Browse the recommended drivers, downloads, and manuals to make sure your product contains the most up-to-date software.




www.usa.canon.com


----------



## [email protected] (Mar 24, 2022)

Stig Nygaard said:


> I haven't studied details from the sources, but at a first look, this looks very much like same patents as reported by Canon Rumors back in May 2021 ??? :
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Tig to Stig: that's a good find. I saw that too. This is a different set of patents, the biggest difference being that these new ones appear to be more an attempt at a higher-end image quality. Those earlier patent designs show almost no correction, and the "sea grass" graphs show very poor edge aberrations.


----------



## sanj (Mar 24, 2022)

LSXPhotog said:


> It bothers me that resources are being used to design lenses like this...I don't know why, but it does. LOL


I would be interested in the 1200.


----------



## Maximilian (Mar 24, 2022)

I wonder, if Canon can manage the typical trade offs of such a catadioptric design.
(bad contrast, low resolution to the edges, "halo" in the center, bad bokeh).


----------



## masterpix (Mar 24, 2022)

[email protected] said:


> Continue reading...


I that will be within a reasonable pricing that would be great for wild-life. But I wonder, between the 1000$ of the f11 and the 20,000$ of the f5.6 these 800mm and 1200mm has a HUGE price margin.


----------



## 2 cents (Mar 24, 2022)

LSXPhotog said:


> It bothers me that resources are being used to design lenses like this...I don't know why, but it does. LOL


Yes, it bother me too. I'm sure these will be better but mirror lenses are notoriously fragile, fixed aperture, and ugly donut bokeh. 

They had the brilliant EF400mm f5.6L. Light, superb optics, and affordable. The closes they have now is the 100-500mm zoom, which I'd always use on the tele end, unnecessarily heavier, more expensive. And f7.1.

Really wish they come up with the something like the Sony 200-600mm. Serious stuff but not costing as much as a sedan.


----------



## AlanF (Mar 24, 2022)

2 cents said:


> Yes, it bother me too. I'm sure these will be better but mirror lenses are notoriously fragile, fixed aperture, and ugly donut bokeh.
> 
> They had the brilliant EF400mm f5.6L. Light, superb optics, and affordable. The closes they have now is the 100-500mm zoom, which I'd always use on the tele end, unnecessarily heavier, more expensive. And f7.1.
> 
> Really wish they come up with the something like the Sony 200-600mm. Serious stuff but not costing as much as a sedan.


The EF 400mm f/5.6 L was not cheap when it was introduced some 25 years ago. The RF 100-500mm is in a different league in terms of its versatility. The EF 100-400mm L was a far more useful lens and pretty close optically, and the Mk II is in a different league. The RF 100-400mm is pretty close optically, half the weight and half the cost. I have had all of these lenses, and the 400/5.6 is the bottom of my personal list. And if you are worried about weight, the Sony 200-600mm is much heavier than the 100-500mm, and feels even heavier because of its length.


----------



## scyrene (Mar 24, 2022)

I find it slightly amusing (bemusing?) that one of the commonest criticisms of Canon over the years has been their perceived 'lack of innovation' or conservatism, and yet when patents show them considering novel approaches, people say they should just offer what their competitors produce.


----------



## Kit. (Mar 24, 2022)

Could those be for surveillance applications, where bokeh doesn't matter that much?


----------



## Antono Refa (Mar 24, 2022)

LSXPhotog said:


> It bothers me that resources are being used to design lenses like this...I don't know why, but it does. LOL


I think this is inevitable.

The compact cameras market is practically gone, and ILC camera market is shrinking quickly. Smartphone cameras are getting better, including focal length, e.g. Samsung's moon zoom on Galaxy S2x, though I'm not going to argue for the image quality*. One way to increase the pie is getting cheap small lenses that offers abilities not available till now, such as the RF 16mm which requires correction on a computer, and long focal mirror lenses.

I wouldn't bet too much money on this patent becoming a lens, but I understand the motivation.

* If anyone wants to compare, I can shoot the moon with an S21 on the weekend, or when its full on April 16th, and share the images.


----------



## AlanF (Mar 24, 2022)

Antono Refa said:


> I think this is inevitable.
> 
> The compact cameras market is practically gone, and ILC camera market is shrinking quickly. Smartphone cameras are getting better, including focal length, e.g. Samsung's moon zoom on Galaxy S2x, though I'm not going to argue for the image quality*. One way to increase the pie is getting cheap small lenses that offers abilities not available till now, such as the RF 16mm which requires correction on a computer, and long focal mirror lenses.
> 
> ...


Better to shoot half moon as the shadows show up craters and mountains. Full moon is often featureless. Please shoot it.


----------



## Del Paso (Mar 24, 2022)

Kit. said:


> Could those be for surveillance applications, where bokeh doesn't matter that much?


Trouble is you can see these catadioptric lenses from far away, mirrors reflect...
Surveillance, why not, but only if being visible doesn't matter. Definitely no lenses for spying activities...


----------



## Antono Refa (Mar 24, 2022)

AlanF said:


> Better to shoot half moon as the shadows show up craters and mountains. Full moon is often featureless. Please shoot it.


It would be half full in a couple of days, will shoot then.


----------



## entoman (Mar 24, 2022)

Maximilian said:


> I wonder, if Canon can manage the typical trade offs of such a catadioptric design.
> (bad contrast, low resolution to the edges, "halo" in the center, bad bokeh).


Donut bokeh is liked by some people for "artistic effect" but to me it always looks just plain ugly.
It's inherent with catadioptric designs, AFAIK there's no way to hide or minimise the effect.

Personally I'd *much* rather Canon brought out a lightweight "telescopic" 800mm F8, along similar lines to the RF 600mm F11 and RF 800mm F11 designs. Such a lens would probably be cheaper and lighter than this catadioptric 800mm F5.6, it wouldn't have ugly bokeh, and it would be far more useful for bird photography.

It would be interesting to know which of these designs would appeal most to sports photographers - 800mm F5.6 catadioptric, or 800mm F8 telescopic?


----------



## Dragon (Mar 24, 2022)

For those who keep harping about lack of sharpness of cats, here is sample. 100% crop from a new FD 500mm f/8 mirror lens with FD 2X B TC attached and shot with an M6 II. That is 1000mm and a FF equivalent of 82 MP. Note the fine print at the bottom of the warning label. This was shot at around 70 yards distance. Also note that many scenes do not result in doughnut bokeh. The biggest issues with cats are nailing focus and stability, so in my view, a cat with IS and AF would be quite usable over a wide range of applications. The other issue with cats is that the airy disk has a hole in the middle, so the perceived depth of field is less than a refractor. That can be good or bad, depending on the scene, but if you understand it, you can work with it.


----------



## toodamnice (Mar 24, 2022)

I am very much an amateur with an R5, but I have to ask why are they working on lenses like this? I know there are a lot of people looking for L quality native fast primes. Personally I'd love to see a 14 f1.8L and a 35 f1.2L. Wouldn't fast wide primes be more successful and profitable?


----------



## MythPlayer (Mar 24, 2022)

Gregorian Secondary?


----------



## JustUs7 (Mar 24, 2022)

toodamnice said:


> I am very much an amateur with an R5, but I have to ask why are they working on lenses like this? I know there are a lot of people looking for L quality native fast primes. Personally I'd love to see a 14 f1.8L and a 35 f1.2L. Wouldn't fast wide primes be more successful and profitable?


I’m curious how much of that crowd noise comes from spec chasers that want to brag about what’s available for their camera (“Sony doesn’t have one of these!”) vs actual buyers who would pay $2,500 for a 35mm lens.


----------



## Dragon (Mar 24, 2022)

JustUs7 said:


> I’m curious how much of that crowd noise comes from spec chasers that want to brag about what’s available for their camera (“Sony doesn’t have one of these!”) vs actual buyers who would pay $2,500 for a 35mm lens.


Every manufacturer needs some genital envy lenses for marketing, but I think many of the less expensive lenses are where a lot of the money is made. Look up the 800mm f/11 on Flickr and you will see that there has been quite a bit of nice work done already. I suspect that lens has sold very well despite, shall we say, a guarded response from professional reviewers. I have one and it is quite remarkable. It is quite sharp for f/11 and the IS is very good, so you can handhold it at much lower ISOs than you would think. I also have an EF 800 f/5.6 L and it has better IQ, but it also weighs 10 lbs and that severely limits its utility. The 800 f/11 offers some insight into what mirror lenses with AF and IS would be capable of - quite a lot actually, and assuming that the prices may well be in the somewhat affordable range, they would likely sell in pretty large numbers.


----------



## AlanF (Mar 24, 2022)

SwissFrank said:


> There's something to be said for halo lenses, though. Canon had the 1200/5.6, Nikon I think a 1200-1700 zoom and a huge 6mm fisheye that was a monster bubble of glass.
> 
> I think Canon should make the following lenses, even if they're rental-only or by-invitation-only or even if they have pretty poor IQ:
> 
> ...


A 50/.07 would have a 714mm or more front element, which is a bit much.


----------



## sanj (Mar 25, 2022)

Kit. said:


> Could those be for surveillance applications, where bokeh doesn't matter that much?


This is for photography.


----------



## sanj (Mar 25, 2022)

toodamnice said:


> I am very much an amateur with an R5, but I have to ask why are they working on lenses like this? I know there are a lot of people looking for L quality native fast primes. Personally I'd love to see a 14 f1.8L and a 35 f1.2L. Wouldn't fast wide primes be more successful and profitable?


I so want a 25mm RF. I would prefer 1.2 but 1.4 works.


----------



## Alam (Mar 25, 2022)

Can't wait, I don't mind about donut bokeh

Glad traded my Tamron 150-600 G2 for RF 100-400, hope I can recover the missing 600 with 800 or 1200mm that lighter than hauling single 150-600


----------



## AlanF (Mar 25, 2022)

SwissFrank said:


> This was a character transposition. It's hard to proof-read my comments due to cataracts. I don't really appreciate the mockery.


That wasn't mockery. This post of yours yesterday is real mockery, what you wrote about @HarryFilm



SwissFrank said:


> If they're trying to keep this under-the-radar as you keep repeating, you've probably sunk their first-mover advantage by blabbing about it in a widely-read public forum. I also can't believe they let such a loudmouth near their R&D without signing a non-disclosure form. So now it's a couple years later. Where are the fantastic products?


If you can't take a little joke, don't pour out abuse on a harmless poster here.


----------



## Bonich (Mar 25, 2022)

2 cents said:


> Yes, it bother me too. I'm sure these will be better but mirror lenses are notoriously fragile, fixed aperture, and ugly donut bokeh.
> 
> They had the brilliant EF400mm f5.6L. Light, superb optics, and affordable. The closes they have now is the 100-500mm zoom, which I'd always use on the tele end, unnecessarily heavier, more expensive. And f7.1.
> 
> Really wish they come up with the something like the Sony 200-600mm. Serious stuff but not costing as much as a sedan.


Compare this with the Nikon lineup: ultralight 400 2.8 with switchable TC, 500 5,6 PF, 800 6.3 PF. Anything missing? (beside a 200-600 zoom)
Canon's long end is a joke these days beside this f11 lenses which are great budget options together with the 100-400.
The only lens I throw my money on is the 100 to 500 and go on using 200-400 and 600 II from the old EF times.


----------



## cayenne (Mar 25, 2022)

entoman said:


> Donut bokeh is liked by some people for "artistic effect" but to me it always looks just plain ugly.
> It's inherent with catadioptric designs, AFAIK there's no way to hide or minimise the effect.
> 
> <snip>


I like soap bubble (Trioplan) and swirly bokeh (Petzval and M42-2)....if we're talking vintage looks.

Damn...I gotta get out and shoot some now that weather is getting really nice this weekend!!

cayenne


----------



## entoman (Mar 25, 2022)

cayenne said:


> I like soap bubble (Trioplan) and swirly bokeh (Petzval and M42-2)....if we're talking vintage looks.
> 
> Damn...I gotta get out and shoot some now that weather is getting really nice this weekend!!
> 
> cayenne


Yeah, all these weird bokeh effects have their place and can be used to great effect for certain subjects. I only shoot nature and wildlife though, so for my stuff I prefer a more "natural" look. If I could get rid of those aperture polygons, onion rings and other "standard" artefacts, I'd be even happier!


----------



## Del Paso (Mar 25, 2022)

Catadioptric teles? Why not.
But where are the needed WA, 50mm, short teles, macros (sans focus shift) primes?
I think I'm not the only one waiting for them, rather than for 1200mm catas...


----------



## Dragon (Mar 26, 2022)

entoman said:


> Yeah, all these weird bokeh effects have their place and can be used to great effect for certain subjects. I only shoot nature and wildlife though, so for my stuff I prefer a more "natural" look. If I could get rid of those aperture polygons, onion rings and other "standard" artefacts, I'd be even happier!


The 800 f/11 is about as "natural" as it gets for bokeh. perfectly round aperture and I don't see any onion rings .


----------



## AlanF (Mar 26, 2022)

SwissFrank said:


> What is harmless about someone blabbing about apparently secretive business plans?


@HarryFilm is a genial member of CR who writes what many of us consider CR0 rated posts but are at the very worst amusing and often contain some scientifically correct facts, a sort of Baron Munchausen of CR, and he is never offensive to anyone. You have absolutely no idea of whether or not he is blabbing secret business plans, and neither do any of us, and even if he were, it's none of your business and no excuse to flame him.


----------



## entoman (Mar 26, 2022)

Dragon said:


> The 800 f/11 is about as "natural" as it gets for bokeh. perfectly round aperture and I don't see any onion rings .


Bokeh is very good most of the time with the RF 800 F11, but there are some situations where I see pronounced elliptical bokeh at corners and edges. I'd be a very happy bunny if Canon brought out an F8 version with the same design. I'd guess that it would be about the same weight and cost as my EF 100-400mm. I find F11 is fine in sunlight, but it can be a bit restricting in duller conditions, when I have to bump up the iSO higher than I want to.


----------



## justaCanonuser (Mar 26, 2022)

Maximilian said:


> I wonder, if Canon can manage the typical trade offs of such a catadioptric design.
> (bad contrast, low resolution to the edges, "halo" in the center, bad bokeh).


I am with you. 

Maybe Canon plans to implement heavy postprocessing with a lot of algorithms included, like in smartphones, to "correct" the shortcomings of such a lens. Then, the resulting image would not have much in common with the original image projected by the optics on the sensor plane. Well, billions of smartphone users are happy with such an approach to photography.


----------



## Del Paso (Mar 26, 2022)

justaCanonuser said:


> I am with you.
> 
> Maybe Canon plans to implement heavy postprocessing with a lot of algorithms included, like in smartphones, to "correct" the shortcomings of such a lens. Then, the resulting image would not have much in common with the original image projected by the optics on the sensor plane. Well, billions of smartphone users are happy with such an approach to photography.


Maybe I'm old-fashioned, but I want my camera or lens to record what I do see, and not what the opto-electronic engineers want me to see.
Extreme synthetic embellishment of pictures is not what I'm looking for. If the catadioptrics generate donut -type bokeh, let them do so. Some photographers like this characteristic, just like many prefer the non-perfect vintage lenses over the clinically perfect ones...


----------



## unfocused (Mar 26, 2022)

entoman said:


> Bokeh is very good most of the time with the RF 800 F11, but there are some situations where I see pronounced elliptical bokeh at corners and edges. I'd be a very happy bunny if Canon brought out an F8 version with the same design. I'd guess that it would be about the same weight and cost as my EF 100-400mm. I find F11 is fine in sunlight, but it can be a bit restricting in duller conditions, when I have to bump up the iSO higher than I want to.


I have a hard time believing that an f8 800mm lens would be in the same price range as a 400 f5.6 zoom or even a 500mm f7.1 zoom. Especially when a 5.6 800mm is $17,000.


----------



## JustUs7 (Mar 26, 2022)

Del Paso said:


> Maybe I'm old-fashioned, but I want my camera or lens to record what I do see, and not what the opto-electronic engineers want me to see.



Do you see doughnut bokeh when you look at a scene? Or do software corrections removing such things actually get you closer to what you see?

I don’t know if they can or will do this, but it’s an interesting thought exercise. Lens corrections fixing optical flaws to get you closer to reality instead of the distorted view through the lens.


----------



## entoman (Mar 26, 2022)

unfocused said:


> I have a hard time believing that an f8 800mm lens would be in the same price range as a 400 f5.6 zoom or even a 500mm f7.1 zoom. Especially when a 5.6 800mm is $17,000.


I hear you, but the 800mm F5.6 is a full professional lens, built like a tank and with the best optics, full weatherproofing, hood, tripod collar and handle, and I think it even comes with a flight case. That's a very different kettle of fish to a budget "telescopic" design such as the 600mm F11 and 800mm F11, and what I'm suggesting is a 800mm F8 based on the budget/telescopic concept. I think there would be a sizeable market among birders for such a lens, - a lens that would sell in thousands worldwide rather than hundreds, and I think it's feasible that it could sell for around £3000. Limited weather-sealing, no hood, no tripod collar, no flight case, no soft case, fixed F8 aperture, polycarbonate barrel.

It won't happen of course, and neither will my other dream lens a 180mm F5.6 1:2 macro with OIS, although I think there's plenty of demand for that too. Canon only has about 26 RF lenses at the moment, and my dream optics don't seem to be on the road map!


----------



## Jethro (Mar 27, 2022)

SwissFrank said:


> I'm taking him at his explicit word that he is. HE SAID SO, and you're pissed off that my basic assumption is to believe people? Believing people makes me the bad guy?
> 
> He's posting it on a public forum but I'm not supposed to read it? Or I'm not supposed to say anything even if I think it may endanger the range of products we can enjoy in the future? Since I can't seem to figure out when someone who claims they're threatening my future access to groundbreaking products is worthy of having an opinion about or even stating such an opinion, what do you suggest, should I check with you and let you be the final arbiter of whether I voice an opinion or not?


You've supposedly been a member of this forum since 2018 - are you seriously saying you haven't been exposed to Harry's comments (and claims) in the past? 

As Alan says, a lot (an extreme lot) of what Harry writes has to be taken with a kilogram of salt, but it is almost always thought-provoking, and generally amusing as well. The fact that you now choose to take moral offence at one his posts, as "threatening my future access to groundbreaking products" is hyperbole worthy of ... Harry himself! Although, from my experience, it's actually quite different, as Harry would never take such posts that seriously, or reply in such a cringeworthy fashion.


----------



## LogicExtremist (Mar 27, 2022)

justaCanonuser said:


> I am with you.
> 
> Maybe Canon plans to implement heavy postprocessing with a lot of algorithms included, like in smartphones, to "correct" the shortcomings of such a lens. Then, the resulting image would not have much in common with the original image projected by the optics on the sensor plane. Well, billions of smartphone users are happy with such an approach to photography.


An increasing reliance on in-camera post-processing would be a start of a very bad trend in my view. A camera is an expensive optical device with a cheaper and releatively p**-weak, limited and dedicated microcontroller, while a smartphone is a very costly, powerful pocket personal computer with a less expensive camera.

Competing with smartphones in the post-processing game is a bad idea. Look at the tech in iPhones, and how far they've come in their photography and video in the last decade. As their sensors get bigger, and the processors get better, and AI improves, they produce higher quality images, which are good enough for most people, hence the reason they've swallowed most of the lower end camera market.

What distinguishes real cameras from smartphones is the bigger sensors, and better optics with superior light-gathering abilities (fast/wide apertures). Lowering consumer expectations by pushing optically darker lenses and releasing inferior software-corrected optics for a short-term profit is a step in the wrong direction in my mind.


----------



## koenkooi (Mar 27, 2022)

entoman said:


> [..]
> It won't happen of course, and neither will my other dream lens a 180mm F5.6 1:2 macro with OIS, although I think there's plenty of demand for that too. Canon only has about 26 RF lenses at the moment, and my dream optics don't seem to be on the road map!


1:2 or 2:1? I'm really liking the 1.4:1 on the RF100, I don't need to swap to the MP-E65mm as often. But having only half macro on a 180mm would be limiting, I'm mostly between 1:2 and 1:1, especially with the smaller butterflies and damselflies.

Having 2:1 on a 180mm with IS with be *great*, but likely far out of price range I'd be comfortable with


----------



## LogicExtremist (Mar 27, 2022)

entoman said:


> I hear you, but the 800mm F5.6 is a full professional lens, built like a tank and with the best optics, full weatherproofing, hood, tripod collar and handle, and I think it even comes with a flight case. That's a very different kettle of fish to a budget "telescopic" design such as the 600mm F11 and 800mm F11, and what I'm suggesting is a 800mm F8 based on the budget/telescopic concept. I think there would be a sizeable market among birders for such a lens, - a lens that would sell in thousands worldwide rather than hundreds, and I think it's feasible that it could sell for around £3000. Limited weather-sealing, no hood, no tripod collar, no flight case, no soft case, fixed F8 aperture, polycarbonate barrel.
> 
> It won't happen of course, and neither will my other dream lens a 180mm F5.6 1:2 macro with OIS, although I think there's plenty of demand for that too. Canon only has about 26 RF lenses at the moment, and my dream optics don't seem to be on the road map!


How about the Canon EF 100mm L Macro on a APSC (160mm equiv) with a Raynox DCR-250 2.5x lens on the front?


----------



## Del Paso (Mar 27, 2022)

JustUs7 said:


> Do you see doughnut bokeh when you look at a scene? Or do software corrections removing such things actually get you closer to what you see?
> 
> I don’t know if they can or will do this, but it’s an interesting thought exercise. Lens corrections fixing optical flaws to get you closer to reality instead of the distorted view through the lens.


No, I do not see donuts looking at the scene, but will see them looking through the viewfinder, and want to see them on my picture. I bought a catadioptric lens, knowing there will be donuts.
Just like I know some vintage lenses (Summilux 1,4/75) will have a particular glow at F1,4. Unsharp for many, just like the EF 1,2/85, a sought after effect for others...
I do not systematically reject software corrections, but they shouldn't disfigure a lens.
I do agree that it is "an interesting" exercise, but I start getting tired of IPhone- like software"sorcery"!
Give me a good lens, not a poor one electronically "optimized".
My 2 cents...


----------



## entoman (Mar 27, 2022)

koenkooi said:


> 1:2 or 2:1? I'm really liking the 1.4:1 on the RF100, I don't need to swap to the MP-E65mm as often. But having only half macro on a 180mm would be limiting, I'm mostly between 1:2 and 1:1, especially with the smaller butterflies and damselflies.
> 
> Having 2:1 on a 180mm with IS with be *great*, but likely far out of price range I'd be comfortable with


1:2 (half life size) is enough for me, for butterflies, beetles, dragonflies, grasshoppers, small reptiles and amphibians etc.
1:1 would be fine though, as it doesn't add much to the cost/size/weight.
I hardly ever need or want to go closer than 1:1, and I have no need for the aspherical aberration control of the RF100, so I'm happy to stick with the EF 100mm for situations where a shorter working distance is needed.

180mm is my ideal f/l for field work with nervous insects. The depth of field characteristics are great for throwing distracting backgrounds out of focus. The EF 180mm macro is my most commonly used lens - I love the bokeh and the handling, it's one of Canon's finest lenses IMO. But I would like a stabilised version, and I rarely shoot wider than F5.6. The compact size and lighter weight of a F5.6 lens would be advantageous to me. With mirrorless cameras there's no need for wider apertures although on DSLRs F3.5 is beneficial in order to get a bright viewfinder.


----------



## entoman (Mar 27, 2022)

LogicExtremist said:


> How about the Canon EF 100mm L Macro on a APSC (160mm equiv) with a Raynox DCR-250 2.5x lens on the front?


I don't have an APS-C body, although I'll probably jump on the "R7" if it lives up to expectations (for bird photography).

For macro, I've heard good reports about the Raynox, but I'm not convinced that using it on the EF 100mm macro would produce sharpness or bokeh equal to a prime 180mm.


----------



## Dragon (Mar 28, 2022)

entoman said:


> Bokeh is very good most of the time with the RF 800 F11, but there are some situations where I see pronounced elliptical bokeh at corners and edges. I'd be a very happy bunny if Canon brought out an F8 version with the same design. I'd guess that it would be about the same weight and cost as my EF 100-400mm. I find F11 is fine in sunlight, but it can be a bit restricting in duller conditions, when I have to bump up the iSO higher than I want to.


True that you have to kick the ISO up if the target is moving, but the stabilizer is very good, so for non-moving targets, I find I can drop the shutter speed more than I expected and still get sharp images. I am using the lens on an R5, and the IBIS may be helping, but conventional wisdom suggests not that much. And, yes I noticed the elliptical bokeh balls, but bright highlight points are not all that common in 800mm scenes and I don't mind them in any case. At least no pentagons or onion rings.


----------



## Dragon (Mar 28, 2022)

entoman said:


> Bokeh is very good most of the time with the RF 800 F11, but there are some situations where I see pronounced elliptical bokeh at corners and edges. I'd be a very happy bunny if Canon brought out an F8 version with the same design. I'd guess that it would be about the same weight and cost as my EF 100-400mm. I find F11 is fine in sunlight, but it can be a bit restricting in duller conditions, when I have to bump up the iSO higher than I want to.


I think an F/8 design would get some pushback if it didn't have an iris or an ND, so it would be substantially more expensive than the f/11, but I agree that it could be in the ballpark of the EF 100-400. I wonder how many folks would whine about $2grand + for an f/8 lens. Frankly, I think that 1200 f/8 mirror in the OP would be pretty cool with AF and IS. Once again, the DOF is so small at 1200 that you are not going to see doughnuts in that many images.


----------



## AlanF (Mar 28, 2022)

Dragon said:


> I think an F/8 design would get some pushback if it didn't have an iris or an ND, so it would be substantially more expensive than the f/11, but I agree that it could be in the ballpark of the 100-400. I wonder how many folks would whine about $2grand + for an f/8 lens. Frankly, I think that 1200 f/8 mirror in the OP would be pretty cool if AF and IS. Once again, the DOF is so small at 1200 that you are not going to see doughnuts in that many images.


I can't see any space for an 800/8 without high end quality if a smaller, lighter, cheaper only-one-stop-less-bright is already available. A high spec 400/4 would have the same front element diameter and be far more useful, and with a 2xTC give 800/8. 400mm is a nice lens for BIF and gives a generally useful field of view. I'd get one, especially if very light and close focussing.


----------



## entoman (Mar 28, 2022)

AlanF said:


> I can't see any space for an 800/8 without high end quality if a smaller, lighter, cheaper only-one-stop-less-bright is already available. A high spec 400/4 would have the same front element diameter and be far more useful, and with a 2xTC give 800/8. 400mm is a nice lens for BIF and gives a generally useful field of view. I'd get one, especially if very light and close focussing.


Yes, a 400/4 and 2x would be a better and more versatile option, but that would be looking at a 5 figure sum, whereas a fixed aperture 800/8 (as described) would be feasible for less than 3K. All academic of course, because Canon are unlikely to prioritise such a design. A pity, because an extra stop of light over the 800/11, and a potentially affordable price, would I think make it very popular with birders. Not many of us can afford, or can justify, 5 figure optics.


----------



## AlanF (Mar 28, 2022)

entoman said:


> Yes, a 400/4 and 2x would be a better and more versatile option, but that would be looking at a 5 figure sum, whereas a fixed aperture 800/8 (as described) would be feasible for less than 3K. All academic of course, because Canon are unlikely to prioritise such a design. A pity, because an extra stop of light over the 800/11, and a potentially affordable price, would I think make it very popular with birders. Not many of us can afford, or can justify, 5 figure optics.


A 5-figure sum for a 400/4? That's more than £10,000. Nikon's 500/5.6, which is only marginally smaller is only £3000 or so.


----------



## Dragon (Mar 28, 2022)

entoman said:


> Yes, a 400/4 and 2x would be a better and more versatile option, but that would be looking at a 5 figure sum, whereas a fixed aperture 800/8 (as described) would be feasible for less than 3K. All academic of course, because Canon are unlikely to prioritise such a design. A pity, because an extra stop of light over the 800/11, and a potentially affordable price, would I think make it very popular with birders. Not many of us can afford, or can justify, 5 figure optics.


I think these new cats are about size and price. Note that the design appears to have flat glass at the front and not a doughnut lens, so the only large optic in the whole thing is the mirror and it appears that is spherical, so not hard to grind.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 28, 2022)

Dragon said:


> Note that the design appears to have flat glass at the front and not a doughnut lens...


What makes you think so? They all have a secondary mirror right behind the front element.


----------



## unfocused (Mar 28, 2022)

AlanF said:


> A 5-figure sum for a 400/4? That's more than £10,000. Nikon's 500/5.6, which is only marginally smaller is only £3000 or so.


Lens cost estimates from forum experts are useful only for their entertainment value.


----------



## Dragon (Mar 28, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> What makes you think so? They all have a secondary mirror right behind the front element.
> 
> View attachment 202886


The secondary mirror is typically glued to the back of the front element. In this case, the front element appears flat and the diagram shows the light rays coming straight in to a mirror of the same diameter. I did not mean that the lens would not have doughnut bokeh, but rather that the front element would not be ground lens of doughnut shape, which is typical of most cats (and the mirror is typically smaller than the front element).


----------



## AlanF (Mar 28, 2022)

Nikonrumors has the Nikon 800/6.3 at $6,000 and 2.3kg based on some leaks from China! https://nikonrumors.com/2022/03/28/...ates-price-6k-weight-2-3-kg.aspx/#more-168246

800/6.3 similar to 500/3.9 and 400/3.1 in terms of front element.


----------



## entoman (Mar 28, 2022)

Dragon said:


> I think these new cats are about size and price. Note that the design appears to have flat glass at the front and not a doughnut lens, so the only large optic in the whole thing is the mirror and it appears that is spherical, so not hard to grind.


My suspicion is that these cats, if they actually get into production (which I doubt), would be rather more expensive than you think.
I don't think they'd be "budget" lenses in the same price band as e.g. the 600/11, 800/11 and 100-400/5.6-8, in fact it wouldn't surprise me if they were "L" standard weather-sealed lenses, with a hefty price tag to match.

I would envisage the primary target buyers as media agencies and paparazzi types, needing highly portable get powerful lenses to capture politicians, "celebrities" etc from a safe distance.

I may have misunderstood your final sentence, but having "donut" bokeh is inherent in the design. The reflector behind the middle of the front element will automatically produce a "hole" in the bokeh.

Having used mirror lenses in the past, I took an instant very strong dislike to the effect. Donut bokeh won't appear in *every* image, but it will be particularly prominent in highlights on out-of-focus marine backgrounds, and that renders it useless (to me) for photographing waders, herons, gulls and other birds that frequent rivers, ponds or shorelines.


----------



## AlanF (Mar 28, 2022)

entoman said:


> My suspicion is that these cats, if they actually get into production (which I doubt), would be rather more expensive than you think.
> I don't think they'd be "budget" lenses in the same price band as e.g. the 600/11, 800/11 and 100-400/5.6-8, in fact it wouldn't surprise me if they were "L" standard weather-sealed lenses, with a hefty price tag to match.
> 
> I would envisage the primary target buyers as media agencies and paparazzi types, needing highly portable get powerful lenses to capture politicians, "celebrities" etc from a safe distance.
> ...


Amusingly, you a Brit spell it "Donut" and Dragon who is in Oregon spells it "Doughnut"!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 29, 2022)

Dragon said:


> The secondary mirror is typically glued to the back of the front element. In this case, the front element appears flat and the diagram shows the light rays coming straight in to a mirror of the same diameter. I did not mean that the lens would not have doughnut bokeh, but rather that the front element would not be ground lens of doughnut shape, which is typical of most cats (and the mirror is typically smaller than the front element).


Sorry, but I think you are misinterpreting the diagrams. These are typical catadioptric lens designs. There are no light rays coming straight through, only two peripheral rays are shown (the central line is labeled OA for optical axis, that's not a ray diagram). 

I suspect you believe the mirror is transparent or something like that (and there have been catadioptric using a half-silvered central spot on the back of the front element as the secondary mirror), but consider that a light ray passing through that central region of the front element then passing straight through to the lens elements behind the primary mirror (as that line labeled OA does) would not be reflected at all, and thus would lose about half the focal length compared to the reflected rays. Such rays could not be part of the final image. The patent mentions a ring-shaped entrance pupil.


----------



## Dragon (Mar 29, 2022)

entoman said:


> ar





neuroanatomist said:


> Sorry, but I think you are misinterpreting the diagrams. These are typical catadioptric lens designs. There are no light rays coming straight through, only two peripheral rays are shown (the central line is labeled OA for optical axis, that's not a ray diagram).
> 
> I suspect you believe the mirror is transparent or something like that (and there have been catadioptric using a half-silvered central spot on the back of the front element as the secondary mirror), but consider that a light ray passing through that central region of the front element then passing straight through to the lens elements behind the primary mirror (as that line labeled OA does) would not be reflected at all, and thus would lose about half the focal length compared to the reflected rays. Such rays could not be part of the final image. The patent mentions a ring-shaped entrance pupil.


Sorry, but somehow I am not getting through. All I am trying to point out is that the front element does not appear to be a "lens", but rather a cover glass. Many catadioptric telescopes are simply open around the secondary mirror. In this case, the cover glass would protect the interior from moisture and dust. In contrast, most cat camera lenses have a magnifying element around the secondary mirror.


----------



## Dragon (Mar 29, 2022)

AlanF said:


> Amusingly, you a Brit spell it "Donut" and Dragon who is in Oregon spells it "Doughnut"!


A proper doughnut starts with dough, not do  .


----------



## Dragon (Mar 29, 2022)

Another interesting oddity of these lenses is that the light rays cross the optical axis between the secondary mirror and the first lens element. This is effectively an image plane and means that the image at the specified image plane will be right side up and not inverted as is the case with normal camera lenses. This would cause the image in the viewfinder to be inverted unless the camera were programmed to not invert the image for these specific lenses.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 29, 2022)

Dragon said:


> Sorry, but somehow I am not getting through. All I am trying to point out is that the front element does not appear to be a "lens", but rather a cover glass.


I see. Still a donut, just not a 'lens'. The old supertele lenses (MkI) had a flat piece of protective glass as the first element.


----------



## SteveC (Mar 29, 2022)

AlanF said:


> Amusingly, you a Brit spell it "Donut" and Dragon who is in Oregon spells it "Doughnut"!


You might be surprised to hear this, but "doughnut "is actually the preferred spelling in the States...or at least it was until very recently. The language is changing, as languages do. I expect dictionaries to be slightly behind the times, but Merrian Webster (fairly authoritative in the States) still shows "doughnut" as more common. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/doughnut


----------



## SteveC (Mar 29, 2022)

Dragon said:


> A proper doughnut starts with dough, not do  .


You clearly haven't consulted Homer Simpson.


----------



## AlanF (Mar 29, 2022)

SteveC said:


> You might be surprised to hear this, but "doughnut "is actually the preferred spelling in the States...or at least it was until very recently. The language is changing, as languages do. I expect dictionaries to be slightly behind the times, but Merrian Webster (fairly authoritative in the States) still shows "doughnut" as more common. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/doughnut


Oxford Dictionary: Definition of “common”
3 BRITISH
showing a lack of taste and refinement supposedly typical of the lower classes; vulgar.
"she's so common"


----------



## SteveC (Mar 29, 2022)

AlanF said:


> Oxford Dictionary: Definition of “common”
> 3 BRITISH
> showing a lack of taste and refinement supposedly typical of the lower classes; vulgar.
> "she's so common"


Fair enough, but I wasn't using the word "common" in _that_ sense but rather the sense of more frequently used.

In any case, I am surprised that you seem to be implying that "doughnut" is more vulgar than "donut."


----------



## AlanF (Mar 29, 2022)

SteveC said:


> Fair enough, but I wasn't using the word "common" in _that_ sense but rather the sense of more frequently used.
> 
> In any case, I am surprised that you seem to be implying that "doughnut" is more vulgar than "donut."


I am not implying anything, just joking that you are implying "doughnut" is more vulgar to highlight the imprecision of language! Anyway here are the data on frequency. Both donut and doughnut are more frequent in US than British English.


----------



## SteveC (Mar 29, 2022)

AlanF said:


> I am not implying anything, just joking that you are implying "doughnut" is more vulgar to highlight the imprecision of language! Anyway here are the data on frequency. Both donut and doughnut are more frequent in US than British English.



Hah! Yes, a very imprecise language we have here. (Though with great care and a lot of wordiness precision can be achieved. Sometimes.)



AlanF said:


> View attachment 202897
> View attachment 202898


I guess the conclusion here is that doughnuts _themselves_ are more common here than in the UK.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 29, 2022)

SteveC said:


> I guess the conclusion here is that doughnuts _themselves_ are more common here than in the UK.


On a 4 mile stretch of the main east-west road running through my city, there are seven Dunkin’ Donuts locations, including a pair of them literally across the road from one another. So, yeah…apparently we’re nuts for donuts here.


----------



## Dragon (Mar 29, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> I see. Still a donut, just not a 'lens'. The old supertele lenses (MkI) had a flat piece of protective glass as the first element.
> 
> View attachment 202894


Yes, still a doughnut but in my original post I was speaking to cost and the fact that the front glass was not a large lens, so thus the only large optical element in the entire design is the mirror. The old superteles actually had a flat piece of protective glass in front of the first element (sort of a "must have" clear filter), but they still had a very large actual first element. In the case of these cat designs, the flat glass is not replacing an optical element, but rather keeping dust and water out of the lens and it also provides support for the secondary mirror without the diffraction spike inducing support arms used in telescopes. I am not suggesting these lenses would be dirt cheap, but given the relative size of the elements, they could be MUCH cheaper than the current (or past) big whites. If the corrective lenses do a good job of correcting, the result could be very useful.


----------



## takesome1 (Mar 29, 2022)

Another CR spelling lesson thread.
Do or Dough.
But why are Do or Dough-nut holes called donut or doughnut holes? They look more like nuts than a regular doughnut.


----------



## SteveC (Mar 29, 2022)

takesome1 said:


> Another CR spelling lesson thread.
> Do or Dough.
> But why are Do or Dough-nut holes called donut or doughnut holes? They look more like nuts than a regular doughnut.


Depends on the kind of nuts. Lug nuts have a hole in the center.


----------



## unfocused (Mar 29, 2022)

takesome1 said:


> Another CR spelling lesson thread.
> Do or Dough.
> But why are Do or Dough-nut holes called donut or doughnut holes? They look more like nuts than a regular doughnut.


You are joking, right? If not, they are made from the leftover dough that is cut from the center of the donut/doughnut (the hole).


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 29, 2022)

takesome1 said:


> Another CR spelling lesson thread.
> Do or Dough.
> But why are Do or Dough-nut holes called donut or doughnut holes? They look more like nuts than a regular doughnut.


Here in New England they're called Munchkins, at least at Dunkin'. The first time I want into a DD after relocating to MA, I asked for a box of donut holes and the guy behind the counter looked at me like I was ordering foie gras. I pointed at the racks behind him, and he said, "Oh, you mean munchkins." I wondered why he expected me to eat little people from Oz.


----------



## Jethro (Mar 30, 2022)

Man, we need more actual rumours!


----------



## takesome1 (Mar 30, 2022)

SteveC said:


> Depends on the kind of nuts. Lug nuts have a hole in the center.


 According to the know all source Wikipedia the first known source of "dough nuts" is found in "The Frugal Housewife: or, Complete Woman Cook" 1803 version.
Found on page 206:
It seems the original version had no hole.
Some of CR debates can be very educational.




Boiled in hog's lard, yummy and so healthy.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 30, 2022)

takesome1 said:


> Boiled in hog's lard, yummy and so healthy.


Maybe that's what Dunkies uses, too?


----------



## Del Paso (Mar 30, 2022)

Similar but different...
When I last was in Scotland, I needed fuel for my little camping burner. Since I didn't know the precise English word for a product named "petrole" in French, I just asked for "petroleum".
All wrong...the salesman didn't understand me.
Using my hands and feet, I tried to explain what I meant. Reaction: "Oh, you mean pink paraffin"...which in French means a kind of solid grease.
Other stores sold it as "blue paraffin", "lamp oil"etc...
In the US, it's named "kerosine", the French "kerosene" being exclusively an aviation fuel...
"Petrol" in the UK is "essence" in France, "gasoline" in the US, and the French "petrole" stands for crude oil...
And, if I'm not mistaken, "petroleum" in the UK is crude oil, in Germany it means "petrole, kerosine, pink paraffin".
What a mess!


----------



## AlanF (Mar 30, 2022)

Del Paso said:


> Similar but different...
> When I last was in Scotland, I needed fuel for my little camping burner. Since I didn't know the precise English word for a product named "petrole" in French, I just asked for "petroleum".
> All wrong...the salesman didn't understand me.
> Using my hands and feet, I tried to explain what I meant. Reaction: "Oh, you mean pink paraffin"...which in French means a kind of solid grease.
> ...


Let's settle on British English and all will be clear.


----------



## takesome1 (Mar 30, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Maybe that's what Dunkies uses, too?


Makes sense, they use Munchkins and lard from Hogs flown in from Kansas.

_(In actuality, Dunkies uses Palm Oil, the impact of deforestation is another issue entirely. It has almost no nutritional value and as you eat your favorite variety enjoy as you contribute to destroying the forests of the world. We could get another thread derailed with this issue.)_


----------



## takesome1 (Mar 30, 2022)

AlanF said:


> Let's settle on British English and all will be clear.


In the US lorry is a girl who I used to date who spelled her name with one to many R's. I used to pick her up in my truck to take her to the movies.


----------



## Del Paso (Mar 30, 2022)

AlanF said:


> Let's settle on British English and all will be clear.


Pink paraffin or blue paraffin or lamp-oil?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 30, 2022)

Del Paso said:


> Pink paraffin or blue paraffin or lamp-oil?


Wood.


----------



## AlanF (Mar 30, 2022)

takesome1 said:


> Makes sense, they use Munchkins and lard from Hogs flown in from Kansas.
> 
> _(In actuality, Dunkies uses Palm Oil, the impact of deforestation is another issue entirely. It has almost no nutritional value and as you eat your favorite variety enjoy as you contribute to destroying the forests of the world. We could get another thread derailed with this issue.)_


Had you noticed that the increase in the frequency of Doughnut and Donut parallels the increase in obesity? Doughnuts are off-topic but what else can we talk about when the Nikonistas are cock-a-hoop over the first YouTubes of the Z 800mm f/6.3?


----------



## takesome1 (Mar 30, 2022)

AlanF said:


> Had you noticed that the increase in the frequency of Doughnut and Donut parallels the increase in obesity? Doughnuts are off-topic but what else can we talk about when the Nikonistas are cock-a-hoop over the first YouTubes of the Z 800mm f/6.3?


Doing a quick Yahoo search of "are doughnuts fattening" provided the answer:
_"Hell no, donuts aren't fattening. The secret is to eat only one per day, and nothing else. Just the one donut."_
Of course this is one reason I do not get my news from Yahoo news anymore.

Google provided a less pleasant answer:
_"Eating too many of them may lead to weight gain and increase your risk of diabetes and heart disease over time."_
By my personal observations I think this answer is accurate.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 31, 2022)

takesome1 said:


> Doing a quick Yahoo search of "are doughnuts fattening" provided the answer:
> _"Hell no, donuts aren't fattening. The secret is to eat only one per day, and nothing else. Just the one donut."_
> Of course this is one reason I do not get my news from Yahoo news anymore.
> 
> ...


Thus munchkins. You can eat more of them because they’re smaller.


----------



## AlanF (Mar 31, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Thus munchkins. You can eat more of them because they’re smaller.


Eating the holes left behind by the munchkins is better still.


----------



## cayenne (Mar 31, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Here in *New England they're called Munchkins*, at least at Dunkin'. The first time I want into a DD after relocating to MA, I asked for a box of donut holes and the guy behind the counter looked at me like I was ordering foie gras. I pointed at the racks behind him, and he said, "Oh, you mean munchkins." I wondered why he expected me to eat little people from Oz.


Damned yankees.....
Got a different word for everything.


----------



## SteveC (Mar 31, 2022)

Wait, I thought all the calories ended up in the punched out part of the donut (the hole or munchkin or whateverthebloodyhell).


----------

