# Patent: Canon RF 100-400mm f/3.5-5.6L IS and more



## Canon Rumors Guy (Feb 7, 2019)

> More telephoto zoom lens patents for the RF mount have been uncovered by Canon News. A couple of them look to be “consumer” zoom lenses along with what is likely an L lens in the RF 100-400mm f/3.5-5.6L IS.
> *Japan Patent Application 2019-020679*
> 
> 
> ...



Continue reading...


----------



## hmatthes (Feb 7, 2019)

70~300 will be in my kit if it is more compact than my 70~200 f2.8L
For my work, it will be perfect. With the R sensor, the need for 2.8 is greatly diminished.


----------



## flip314 (Feb 7, 2019)

The EF 70-300 IS II USM lens is criminally underrated, especially for the price. I'll probably hold on to my EF version though and upgrade to the RF 100-400L at some point.


----------



## efmshark (Feb 7, 2019)

Am I correct to assume that telephoto (and telephoto zoom) lenses do not necessarily need major design changes to be ported from EF mount to native RF mount? I would really like to see Canon bring to market some fast wide primes for the RF mount. Is coming up with a fast-wide prime for RF simply a more difficult engineering/design project, or is Canon waiting for customized sensors for the RF mount that have better support for wide angle lenses?

What is the advantage of using a native RF mount telephoto lens compared to using an EF telephoto of same focal length and aperture with an EF-RF adapter? There shouldn't be any advantages in terms of the length or width of the lens. Perhaps better mechanical stability and slightly less weight?


----------



## melgross (Feb 7, 2019)

People con-laining about the lack of consumer lenses for the R mount don’t seem to have too much to worry about. Canon knows they’re needed, and they’re coming, hopefully sooner rather than later.


----------



## padam (Feb 7, 2019)

If they could top the EF 100-400mm L II, that would be a fantastic achievement.


----------



## melgross (Feb 7, 2019)

efmshark said:


> Am I correct to assume that telephoto (and telephoto zoom) lenses do not necessarily need major design changes to be ported from EF mount to native RF mount? I would really like to see Canon bring to market some fast wide primes for the RF mount. Is coming up with a fast-wide prime for RF simply a more difficult engineering/design project, or is Canon waiting for customized sensors for the RF mount that have better support for wide angle lenses?
> 
> What is the advantage of using a native RF mount telephoto lens compared to using an EF telephoto of same focal length and aperture with an EF-RF adapter? There shouldn't be any advantages in terms of the length or width of the lens. Perhaps better mechanical stability and slightly less weight?


You don’t need to bother with an adapter. That’s a pretty major advantage. Slightly shorter, slightly lighter, and the elements can be designed to be closer to the camera so balance is better.


----------



## EverydayPhotographer (Feb 7, 2019)

I've rented the EF 100-400L II several times, and it has impressed me enough that it is on the short list of lenses I would rather own than rent. Given the success so far, a native RF version excites me.

The biggest problem with the R series cameras is the lack of an RF to EF-M adapter. I have been planning a jump to full frame at some point, and have several EF lenses as a result. Upward compatibility has always been a strength in the Canon line. It's nice to know that I can use those lenses now (and I do) while I save up for the full frame body. The full frame mirrorless cameras have the distinct advantage of being more compact, as do the lenses. The M series has been wildly successful, especially in Asia, so I am a bit surprised that there isn't a more distinct upgrade path from M to R cameras.


----------



## Random Orbits (Feb 7, 2019)

efmshark said:


> Am I correct to assume that telephoto (and telephoto zoom) lenses do not necessarily need major design changes to be ported from EF mount to native RF mount? I would really like to see Canon bring to market some fast wide primes for the RF mount. Is coming up with a fast-wide prime for RF simply a more difficult engineering/design project, or is Canon waiting for customized sensors for the RF mount that have better support for wide angle lenses?
> 
> What is the advantage of using a native RF mount telephoto lens compared to using an EF telephoto of same focal length and aperture with an EF-RF adapter? There shouldn't be any advantages in terms of the length or width of the lens. Perhaps better mechanical stability and slightly less weight?



It isn't just the optical formula, but also the data transfer to the body. RF lenses have higher bandwidth, but it's a question as to how much better the performance improves due to the higher bandwidth. However, I would be surprised if the RF telephotos are just remounts of their EF counterparts. Canon has the opportunity to release the RF lenses with the latest optical technologies and it has the luxury of being able to use EF lenses without penalty, so the RF lenses should be released when superior designs can be manufactured.

Zooms sell more, so it's unsurprising that Canon is focusing on bringing out the higher revenue/profit/volume lenses first. The RF 35 is a nice lens. It is lighter, smaller and has higher max magnification and max aperture than the EF 35 f/2 IS, and the RF version is also cheaper.


----------



## Maximilian (Feb 7, 2019)

Comming from the really good EF MkII now they offer an RF with half an aperture more at the wide end (f/3.5).
Not so important to me but it will be interesting what they can to on size and IQ on this lens.
I don't expect much about a smaller size but maybe the IQ can be even improved.
The EF 100-400 II is one of my most used tools, so this would be deciding if I'd ever think about going EOS R... 
Exiting times 

But maybe this patent is more about a 70-300


----------



## slclick (Feb 7, 2019)

A great 100-400L would bring many folks over to the RF system.


----------



## navastronia (Feb 7, 2019)

hmatthes said:


> 70~300 will be in my kit if it is more compact than my 70~200 f2.8L
> For my work, it will be perfect. With the R sensor, the need for 2.8 is greatly diminished.



In what sense do you need f2.8 less with an R sensor?


----------



## Asher (Feb 7, 2019)

Maximilian said:


> Comming from the really good EF MkII now they offer an RF with half an aperture more at the wide end (f/3.5).
> Not so important to me but it will be interesting what they can to on size and IQ on this lens.
> I don't expect much about a smaller size but maybe the IQ can be even improved.
> The EF 100-400 II is one of my most used tools, so this would be deciding if I'd ever think about going EOS R...
> ...



f/3.5 is only 1/3 stop faster. Negligible IMHO, particularly since most of my 100-400 II use is at the long end. But a native RF 100-400 would be great once I finally make the switch.

ETA: Oops, current lens is 4.5 at the wide end, not 4.0.


----------



## AlanF (Feb 7, 2019)

I did suggest that the recent significant price reductions in the 100-400mm II might presage a new lens. Watch this space!


----------



## Chuckmet (Feb 7, 2019)

navastronia said:


> In what sense do you need f2.8 less with an R sensor?


If he's coming from an APS-C system he can shoot at higher ISO so the need for faster glass will be less inportant, but I'm just guessing.


----------



## navastronia (Feb 7, 2019)

Chuckmet said:


> If he's coming from an APS-C system he can shoot at higher ISO so the need for faster glass will be less inportant, but I'm just guessing.



Sure, that makes sense (if that's what he meant), but without him saying that explicitly, I was lost.


----------



## Roy Hunte (Feb 7, 2019)

efmshark said:


> Am I correct to assume that telephoto (and telephoto zoom) lenses do not necessarily need major design changes to be ported from EF mount to native RF mount? I would really like to see Canon bring to market some fast wide primes for the RF mount. Is coming up with a fast-wide prime for RF simply a more difficult engineering/design project, or is Canon waiting for customized sensors for the RF mount that have better support for wide angle lenses?
> 
> What is the advantage of using a native RF mount telephoto lens compared to using an EF telephoto of same focal length and aperture with an EF-RF adapter? There shouldn't be any advantages in terms of the length or width of the lens. Perhaps better mechanical stability and slightly less weight?



I think they are getting the easier stuff out of the way and spending more time and effort on the fast wide primes, so it may be a while before you see them. I'm sure they are coming.


----------



## rh18 (Feb 7, 2019)

I'm intrigued by the 50-250 since that's generally an APS-C lens.


----------



## Ale_F (Feb 7, 2019)

the last rumor talks about 8 RF lenses, five specs are out, these are the last three.


----------



## juststeve (Feb 7, 2019)

The 3.5-5.6 100-400 RF would be 2/3's of a stop faster than the current EF model. 3.5 to 4 is 1/3 stop and 4 to 4.5 is another 1/3 of a stop. Not a lot but there are times when every little bit helps.

And every little bit less can help too. I measured up my current model EF 100-400 L ii and it came to 238 mm from the film plane at 100 mm and 312.5 from the film plane at the long end, versus 204.85 and 291.30 from the film plane for the RF patent lens. So, a little over an inch shorter at the short end and about 3/4 inch shorter at the long end. Not bad.


----------



## riker (Feb 7, 2019)

Haha I just wished for the RF 100-400. This system change will cost me after they have the pro high-res body.


----------



## Asher (Feb 8, 2019)

juststeve said:


> The 3.5-5.6 100-400 RF would be 2/3's of a stop faster than the current EF model. 3.5 to 4 is 1/3 stop and 4 to 4.5 is another 1/3 of a stop. Not a lot but there are times when every little bit helps.
> 
> And every little bit less can help too. I measured up my current model EF 100-400 L ii and it came to 238 mm from the film plane at 100 mm and 312.5 from the film plane at the long end, versus 204.85 and 291.30 from the film plane for the RF patent lens. So, a little over an inch shorter at the short end and about 3/4 inch shorter at the long end. Not bad.



Ah, you're right. For some reason, I was thinking the current lens was f/4.0 at the wide end.


----------



## knight427 (Feb 8, 2019)

As a current 100-400ii owner,I have been curious to see what the RF version would bring. Reduction in size at the wide end is appreciated. 2/3 stop increase at the wide end won’t be very useful for me, and dare I say for most users. I have no idea what that costs in terms of design, but I would be happy with f/5.6 throughout the zoom range if it saved some size or weight. 

Oh well, some day I’ll own the RF version, but only after I can get it used and the extenders are available.


----------



## criscokkat (Feb 8, 2019)

rh18 said:


> I'm intrigued by the 50-250 since that's generally an APS-C lens.


My thought exactly. There has to be something around 18-55 to sell for pretty cheap as the kit lens for this new RP. The f4 lens on the R is to expensive and the 24-240 seems like it would be an upgraded kit at best.


----------



## Maximilian (Feb 8, 2019)

Asher said:


> f/3.5 is only 1/3 stop faster. [_...than f/4.0 _]





juststeve said:


> 3.5 to 4 is 1/3 stop and 4 to 4.5 is another 1/3 of a stop.


Thanks, guys, for pointing that out and showing my lack of precission 
But there is also the real aperture of f/3.83*, so why not calculating with that? 

*_knowing, that the other patents are rounded, too_


----------



## kforrestry (Feb 8, 2019)

A 100-400 RF was a major point that i was hoping would come out soon, but i'm still waiting for a 5D SR replacement in a mirrorless body and a few more RF lenses to come out. I'm pretty impressed with the speed at which they are coming out, but i really want to see some f/4 L lenses (16-35 f/4, 70-200 f/4, or similar to be exact), that are in a better price range than all these 2.8 lenses i see coming out. I'd really like to see the 100-400 be one of the two or three main lenses i take with me backpacking, so i'm hoping the RF version will be lighter and a bit smaller.


----------



## AlanF (Feb 8, 2019)

knight427 said:


> As a current 100-400ii owner,I have been curious to see what the RF version would bring. Reduction in size at the wide end is appreciated. 2/3 stop increase at the wide end won’t be very useful for me, and dare I say for most users. I have no idea what that costs in terms of design, but I would be happy with f/5.6 throughout the zoom range if it saved some size or weight.
> 
> Oh well, some day I’ll own the RF version, but only after I can get it used and the extenders are available.


I doubt if having f/5.6 throughout the range will make it significantly lighter. The size of the front element is determined by the f/number at the long end, not the short. Narrowing the short f-number won't narrow the diameter of the 400mm f/5.6. f/6.3 at 400mm would shave off significant weight.
Interesting what you say about extenders. More RF kit to buy and more EF kit to lose value.


----------



## Del Paso (Feb 8, 2019)

Robbing a bank is becoming an almost acceptable option (1,2/50, 1,2/85, 28-70 F2, 100-400 etc...)
Gimme gimme gimme!!!


----------



## Ale_F (Feb 8, 2019)

So the big difference is the aperture at "wide":
EF 100-400 4.5 -5.6
RF 100-400 3.5-5.6
and obviously the size and weigth.
I think the general discussion about the long backfocus of tele could not be applied to zoom and different zoom optical designs can take advantage of short backfocus


----------



## edoorn (Feb 8, 2019)

Could be a great lens; I already like the 100-400 II adapted better on the R than on my 5D IV . Just seems to be a bit more accurate with focus. Superb combination with a 500 or 600mm for wildlife.


----------



## [email protected] canon rumors (Feb 8, 2019)

rh18 said:


> I'm intrigued by the 50-250 since that's generally an APS-C lens.


When I leave my pro gear at home and go out hiking or for a walk in Venice i always put the cheap and compact EF 55 200 "USM" in the bag, the focal length is so "comfortable" on FF  , also great for traveling (compact and very light and cheap, again) and surprisingly fairly good and quick AF for the price.

if an RF 50-250 will exist i'll have it for sure when i'll switch to the RF system


----------



## dsut4392 (Feb 8, 2019)

rh18 said:


> I'm intrigued by the 50-250 since that's generally an APS-C lens.



16-35 plus 50-250 would be a pretty tempting two lens kit for me, depending on how the relative IQ of the 24-240 pans out. My current travel kit with 6D is 16-35/4 plus Tamron 28-300. IQ of the Tamron is perhaps surprisingly OK, but still leaves me wanting more.


----------



## knight427 (Feb 8, 2019)

edoorn said:


> Could be a great lens; I already like the 100-400 II adapted better on the R than on my 5D IV . Just seems to be a bit more accurate with focus. Superb combination with a 500 or 600mm for wildlife.



Do you have either of the extenders? I'm wondering how the lens plus extender plus adapter feels to shoot with.


----------



## degos (Feb 8, 2019)

Ale_F said:


> So the big difference is the aperture at "wide":
> EF 100-400 4.5 -5.6
> RF 100-400 3.5-5.6



Don't get too excited by the aperture at the wide end until we see the drop-off with increasing focal length. The recent EF 70-300 IS II only has 7mm of length at its widest aperture before it starts closing-down, a bit of a con really but enough to get f/4.0 into the name.

The EF 100-400 II makes it as far as 130mm before closing-down to f/5.0 and doesn't hit f/5.6 until 300mm.


----------



## edoorn (Feb 8, 2019)

knight427 said:


> Do you have either of the extenders? I'm wondering how the lens plus extender plus adapter feels to shoot with.



Yeah the 1.4 extender but I don't use that with the 100-400 anymore; in that case I grab the 500. I know that on the R, the 500 plus extender performs well. 

In the past I've shot the 100-400 with extender and that works ok, although slightly stopping down is a requirement. You're talking about f/9 then or even further.


----------



## slclick (Feb 8, 2019)

Wouldn't the wider aperture at the wide end lend toward a wider aperture focal length spread towards the long end?


----------



## FramerMCB (Feb 8, 2019)

efmshark said:


> Am I correct to assume that telephoto (and telephoto zoom) lenses do not necessarily need major design changes to be ported from EF mount to native RF mount? I would really like to see Canon bring to market some fast wide primes for the RF mount. Is coming up with a fast-wide prime for RF simply a more difficult engineering/design project, or is Canon waiting for customized sensors for the RF mount that have better support for wide angle lenses?
> 
> What is the advantage of using a native RF mount telephoto lens compared to using an EF telephoto of same focal length and aperture with an EF-RF adapter? There shouldn't be any advantages in terms of the length or width of the lens. Perhaps better mechanical stability and slightly less weight?



Caveat: I'm not an engineer. As I understand it, from reading what Canon's engineers (white papers) released about the new RF lenses. They are able to redesign lenses utilizing gains from the larger mount coupled with the shortened flange distance. I would think the R lenses could/can be a little shorter than their EF counterparts. The other gain, as seen in the other post concerning the proposed/rumored RF 100-400mm f3.5-5.6L IS... note the f3.5 that's a 2/3-stop gain at 100mm over the EF Mark II version (f4.5 compared to f3.5). Because of the larger diameter it sounds like the engineers can correct for certain lens aberrations that are inherent when passing light (different colors of the spectrum) thru the various elements in a given lens... It will be fun to see what Canon comes up with and if there are any design changes to some of the "consumer" lenses that make them better performers than their EF counterparts.


----------



## FramerMCB (Feb 8, 2019)

Ale_F said:


> So the big difference is the aperture at "wide":
> EF 100-400 4.5 -5.6
> RF 100-400 3.5-5.6
> and obviously the size and weigth.
> I think the general discussion about the long backfocus of tele could not be applied to zoom and different zoom optical designs can take advantage of short backfocus


Once to market, it will be interesting to see at which focal lengths the max aperture changes - I suspect there may be some gains there too. (As in the max aperture holds a little bit longer as one zooms the lens towards the long end. We shall see.


----------



## AlanF (Feb 8, 2019)

edoorn said:


> Yeah the 1.4 extender but I don't use that with the 100-400 anymore; in that case I grab the 500. I know that on the R, the 500 plus extender performs well.
> 
> In the past I've shot the 100-400 with extender and that works ok, although slightly stopping down is a requirement. You're talking about f/9 then or even further.


The performance of the lens at 560mm depends on both the extender and the lens. I have had 3 1.4xTCs and 3 100-400mm IIs. My present ones pair really well and are excellent wide open.


----------



## Kit. (Feb 8, 2019)

FramerMCB said:


> Caveat: I'm not an engineer. As I understand it, from reading what Canon's engineers (white papers) released about the new RF lenses. They are able to redesign lenses utilizing gains from the larger mount


EF and RF mount diameters are the same, 54 mm.


----------



## Asher (Feb 8, 2019)

edoorn said:


> Could be a great lens; I already like the 100-400 II adapted better on the R than on my 5D IV . Just seems to be a bit more accurate with focus. Superb combination with a 500 or 600mm for wildlife.



Did you microadjust the focus on the 5DIV (or try live view)? The R doesn't need that since it's using the sensor to focus.


----------



## RobbieHat (Feb 8, 2019)

I would love to see the pro-body (5DSR replacement) come out at 75mp. If it did, I would sell my current 5DSR and replace by 600mm with the much lighter 500mm (I already have the extenders). That would allow for BIF cropping on the higher MP at about the same rate as the current 50mp 5DSR and a much lighter set up when I am on the move, handheld or in a kayak. 

Dream set up for me but it appears it will be a bit more time before this comes along.


----------



## juststeve (Feb 8, 2019)

Bringing up teleconverters raises the question if any of these lenses in the patent can be used with a converter. Note how close the back focus at the short end is. The 100-400 is listed at just over 4 mm. A mistake? The other two lenses are close too, well inside the camera lens mount. It will be hard to make a converter for that.

My EF 100-400 ii pairs very well with the 1.4 iii even when it is used with the 5DS. There is a wee bit of edge softening which largely clears up at F8 and some CA. And the lens works well enough with the 2x iii for emergencies. It is best to stop down once for decent performance. An adapted R can focus the lens with the 2x, a bit slowly but accurately. 

Given how well the EF lens can work on the R, I might prefer to keep using the EF 100-400 on the R because of the converters. It is a pain to use the converters with the adapter. There is always the chance of a fumble, especially while in a hurry with frozen hands. It will be too bad if converters cannot be used with the RF 100-400 from my standpoint.


----------



## knight427 (Feb 8, 2019)

juststeve said:


> Bringing up teleconverters raises the question if any of these lenses in the patent can be used with a converter. Note how close the back focus at the short end is. The 100-400 is listed at just over 4 mm. A mistake? The other two lenses are close too, well inside the camera lens mount. It will be hard to make a converter for that.
> 
> My EF 100-400 ii pairs very well with the 1.4 iii even when it is used with the 5DS. There is a wee bit of edge softening which largely clears up at F8 and some CA. And the lens works well enough with the 2x iii for emergencies. It is best to stop down once for decent performance. An adapted R can focus the lens with the 2x, a bit slowly but accurately.
> 
> Given how well the EF lens can work on the R, I might prefer to keep using the EF 100-400 on the R because of the converters. It is a pain to use the converters with the adapter. There is always the chance of a fumble, especially while in a hurry with frozen hands. It will be too bad if converters cannot be used with the RF 100-400 from my standpoint.



I don't think the usefulness of extenders is lost on Canon. I don't pretend to know the optical challenges presented by the lens design in the patent, but I'm highly confident Canon has a plan for extenders, and that was factored into the design already.


----------



## edoorn (Feb 8, 2019)

Asher said:


> Did you microadjust the focus on the 5DIV (or try live view)? The R doesn't need that since it's using the sensor to focus.



Yes it is. It just misses focus now and then and I have the idea the R just misses less. Mind you, in general it is doing really well on the 5d4 and I like it a lot .


----------



## AlanF (Feb 8, 2019)

edoorn said:


> Yes it is. It just misses focus now and then and I have the idea the R just misses less. Mind you, in general it is doing really well on the 5d4 and I like it a lot .


I am just so happy with the 100-400mm II (±1.4xTC) on the 5DSR (and 5DIV) that I am reluctant to change.


----------



## AlanF (Feb 8, 2019)

Looking at the patents, it seems that they might be using the new design principles from the 400/4 and 600/4 III of using smaller elements spaced back from the front element to reduce weight and have the c of g closer to the body?


----------



## highdesertmesa (Feb 8, 2019)

The release of the R replacement for the 5DsR along with the RF 100-400L is going to open the R floodgates. I will pre-order both the minute they are available on the B&H website.

The EF 100-400L II is a near-perfect lens, but for the RF version, I'd love to see less vignetting wide open throughout the range.


----------



## hmatthes (Feb 8, 2019)

navastronia said:


> Sure, that makes sense (if that's what he meant), but without him saying that explicitly, I was lost.


Sorry to have confused folks. I moved from a 6D to the R -- one good sensor to another!
The results, in my hands, are that the R delivers even sharper images using the same lenses. My landscapes are shot with higher ISO before any degradation is apparent. This eliminates (minimizes) the need for full f2.8 for my images. I used to shoot my 70-200 wide open most of the time. 
Looking at EXIF it seems that 'm stopped down just a bit (often f/4) with higher shutter speeds -- thus sharper for my handhelds.


----------



## navastronia (Feb 8, 2019)

hmatthes said:


> Sorry to have confused folks. I moved from a 6D to the R -- one good sensor to another!
> The results, in my hands, are that the R delivers even sharper images using the same lenses. My landscapes are shot with higher ISO before any degradation is apparent. This eliminates (minimizes) the need for full f2.8 for my images. I used to shoot my 70-200 wide open most of the time.
> Looking at EXIF it seems that 'm stopped down just a bit (often f/4) with higher shutter speeds -- thus sharper for my handhelds.



Oh! that makes much more sense  thank you for clarifying!


----------



## efmshark (Feb 9, 2019)

Ale_F said:


> So the big difference is the aperture at "wide":
> EF 100-400 4.5 -5.6
> RF 100-400 3.5-5.6
> and obviously the size and weigth.
> I think the general discussion about the long backfocus of tele could not be applied to zoom and different zoom optical designs can take advantage of short backfocus



I can't imagine the RF100-400 will be any smaller or significantly lighter than the EF version.


----------



## slclick (Feb 10, 2019)

Here's the aperture info for the EF Mk2. Is there anything out there on the Max Aperture spread for the RF?


----------



## bf (Feb 10, 2019)

melgross said:


> People con-laining about the lack of consumer lenses for the R mount don’t seem to have too much to worry about. Canon knows they’re needed, and they’re coming, hopefully sooner rather than later.



I loved going through the discussions in this topic. My point on initial R launch is that Canon released flag-ship lenses with mid-range/prosumer body. Not the best combination to buy both. Questions would be:
Where is the pro body for $$$$ lenses?
Where are the prosumer and consumer grade lenses?
Is there any benefit in the lens eco-system? If not, why the hell to switch if you use 5d or 6d?
What will be the timeline and roadmap?
In the M line, Canon was terrible and still is in listening to itscustomers and showing some light on the ecosystem. 
I personally remain very pragmatic to invest in a new system coming from Canon to the point I see all the components I need.


----------



## Ozarker (Feb 10, 2019)

Patience is a virtue. In our instant gratification world we "want it now". It is impressive how quickly the lens lineup is filling out, to me. A year isn't a long time to wait for pro body release. Available glass will be important to those folks when they purchase. Canon is doing a fine job.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Feb 11, 2019)

flip314 said:


> The EF 70-300 IS II USM lens is criminally underrated, especially for the price. I'll probably hold on to my EF version though and upgrade to the RF 100-400L at some point.


Yes I agree, I think the problem with this lens is that it was so late to the market. I needed to have been released back when the 75-300IS was around. So that it would be precieved as an upgrade to that lens. I used to see a lot of these 70-300LIS on landscape workshops. Far more versatile than a 70-200 f2.8 or f4. In fact a lot of landscapers opted for it over the 70-200 f4LIS and a 1.4x TC. But these days every one has upgraded again for the even more versatile 100-400LIS II.


----------



## melgross (Feb 11, 2019)

bf said:


> I loved going through the discussions in this topic. My point on initial R launch is that Canon released flag-ship lenses with mid-range/prosumer body. Not the best combination to buy both. Questions would be:
> Where is the pro body for $$$$ lenses?
> Where are the prosumer and consumer grade lenses?
> Is there any benefit in the lens eco-system? If not, why the hell to switch if you use 5d or 6d?
> ...


People look at lenses before buying into a system. Back in the “old” days, when I was in the commercial end of the business, people used to come up to me all the time, and ask what cameras I recommended for them. I asked what they were looking at. Very often they would tell me Canon or Nikon. I asked why, and I would often get an inexplicable reply. Because they make 600 to 1200mm lenses (which they did, back then). what?

Seriously, how many people starting out were going to buy a 600-1200mm lens? How many people buy them no matter what they do?

This is why Canon and Nikon come out with a few high end lenses. So Canon has two lenses that few are going to buy - now. But looking at a system, people look at the best, and often most expensive lenses, even though they do know, deep down, that they will never buy them. It’s asperational for them. If Canon just came out with cheap to medium quality and priced lenses at first, a lot of people would think that all they were going to produce, and there would be nothing for them to aspire to, or to brag about being available to them.

The rest of us know that Canon will come out with cheaper lenses for these folk, and we also know that Canon will come out with a body that’s worthy of these lenses. So we really don’t worry about it.


----------



## AlanF (Feb 11, 2019)

That's not the modern scene. People now buy Canon so they can bitch about them and and write they will jump ship to Sony. It beats taking photos.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Feb 12, 2019)

AlanF said:


> That's not the modern scene. People now buy Canon so they can bitch about them and and write they will jump ship to Sony. It beats taking photos.


Many people buy Canon because they are Nikoners at heart but find the Canon range gives them a better option...then they can't get on with Canon and constantly moan about their life choices and then jump to Sony as a sort of protest. Forgetting that Sony also isn't Nikon. Then they jump ship back to their preferred Nikon world....realise they were better off with Canon all along and the wheel rotates for another spin of the dial....

I kind of wonder if the big three deliberately engineer their UI's to lock in users and cause the maximum frustration for users of the other two brands. Ie Canon lenses rotate one way to focus or zoom...Nikon's rotate the opposite way. The camera dials are the same (although mostly editable deep in the UI settings menus).


----------



## knight427 (Feb 12, 2019)

GMCPhotographics said:


> Many people buy Canon because they are Nikoners at heart but find the Canon range gives them a better option...then they can't get on with Canon and constantly moan about their life choices and then jump to Sony as a sort of protest. Forgetting that Sony also isn't Nikon. Then they jump ship back to their preferred Nikon world....realise they were better off with Canon all along and the wheel rotates for another spin of the dial....



This is sounding a lot like a confession.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Feb 13, 2019)

knight427 said:


> This is sounding a lot like a confession.


Ha...no just an observation. I've been a Canon boy all my photographic life. My Dad had an AE-1 Program and 3 lenses. All I could afford was an AV-1 and 50mm f1.8....but I could mostly borrow my Dad's lenses when I needed them. I saw cameras come along like the T90 and then Eos 650. My last film camera was an Eos 33 with eye control focus. Then I went Digital when the Eos 300D was lauched. My first full framer was an Eos 5D from the first batch in Wiltshire....I even helped the shop unbox them from the pallet...I was so eager. 
But I also used to be the president of the Swindon Camera Club...and I noticed a certain look in the eye of the Noikers who were dabbling with Canon. The used the Canon gear but they weren't happy or fulfilled with Canon gear.


----------



## Del Paso (Feb 21, 2019)

AlanF said:


> That's not the modern scene. People now buy Canon so they can bitch about them and and write they will jump ship to Sony. It beats taking photos.


Excellent comment!


----------



## mpmark (Oct 27, 2019)

I'm not a fan of Canon round down or up of numbers, they consider 389 to be 400 and 5.8 to be 5.6, Why can't they make a 400mm actually 400 this time around.


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 27, 2019)

mpmark said:


> I'm not a fan of Canon round down or up of numbers, they consider 389 to be 400 and 5.8 to be 5.6, Why can't they make a 400mm actually 400 this time around.


At what focus distance and how much do you value that 11mm? Stuff like that can be done but it is much more expensive than most photographers are prepared to pay for it.


----------

