# Patent: Canon RF 50-80mm f/1.1, because crazy is good



## Canon Rumors Guy (Aug 8, 2019)

> We’ve been told that some “crazy” lenses were coming to the RF mount, and here’s a patent uncovered by Northlight that fits the bill.
> Canon appears to be working on a fast portrait zoom for the RF mount, with the fastest of the bunch being an RF 50-80mm f/1.1. The number of lens elements in the lens design is remarkable.
> *Canon RF 50-80mm f/1.1:*
> 
> ...



Continue reading...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 8, 2019)

I’m not sure this one will ever see the light of day.


----------



## robburrito (Aug 8, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> I’m not sure this one will ever see the light of day.


It's because the f stop is absorbing it all.


----------



## Canon1966 (Aug 8, 2019)

"Also included in this patent are optical formulas for a RF 50-80mm f/1.2, RF 50-80mm f/1.4, RF 50-80mm f/1.6 and a RF 50-80mm f/1.8."

*I don't understand the idea of making similar lenses. Just make one 50-80mm f1.2. Marketing I guess...$$$*


----------



## keithcooper (Aug 8, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> I’m not sure this one will ever see the light of day.


Depends on what camera it appears with - this looks so much like a 'because we can' product intended to plant a marketing foot in a particular area. I believe the term 'aspirational' is still beloved by some marketing types ;-)

What Canon does to try and occupy some of the 'high ground' in this rapidly changing market will be interesting to see over the next few years.

But hey, the 90D is on its way to keep some of the masses happy (as if)


----------



## keithcooper (Aug 8, 2019)

Canon1966 said:


> "Also included in this patent are optical formulas for a RF 50-80mm f/1.2, RF 50-80mm f/1.4, RF 50-80mm f/1.6 and a RF 50-80mm f/1.8."
> 
> *I don't understand the idea of making similar lenses. Just make one 50-80mm f1.2. Marketing I guess...$$$*


It's patent application - you show multiple examples demonstrating whatever is the novel feature(s) of the particular patent. Always bear this in mind when looking at any patent info here or elsewhere. It shows things the company is looking at, not a product roadmap.

*Remember that a patent application does not equal a new product. *


----------



## 6degrees (Aug 8, 2019)

A RF zoom covering 20mm (F1.4) makes more sense than this at this point, giving the fact RF 85mm F1.2 L is probably the best on the planet for medium telephoto lenses (portraits) and RF 35mm F1.2 L (street shooting) will be release soon.

Again, a EOS R pro body, better or equivalent to a7riv, should be the highest priority.


----------



## LSXPhotog (Aug 8, 2019)

What a radical lens concept! I would certainly enjoy having this lens if it were to ever be made.


----------



## Sharlin (Aug 8, 2019)

Canon1966 said:


> "Also included in this patent are optical formulas for a RF 50-80mm f/1.2, RF 50-80mm f/1.4, RF 50-80mm f/1.6 and a RF 50-80mm f/1.8."
> 
> *I don't understand the idea of making similar lenses. Just make one 50-80mm f1.2. Marketing I guess...$$$*



Repeat after me:

_Patent applications are about possible designs, not products
Patent applications are about possible designs, not products
Patent applications are about possible designs, not products
…_


----------



## codynpatterson (Aug 8, 2019)

Holy crap, this on a crop body like the 80D if it was RF would be INCREDIBLE. Low light zoom from Canon. Even the 1.8 version.


----------



## amorse (Aug 8, 2019)

Well, every lens has its market, but not every market is large enough to justify the manufacturing cost. Could be that Canon has some optical design ideas which they want to protect in the event that markets change, or manufacturing costs change so that they're positioned to create something that doesn't exist elsewhere. 

I bet they work on all sorts of weird designs and end up patenting things which have elements which could eventually be of value. I'm actually curious about what ideas hit the cutting room floor.


----------



## bellorusso (Aug 8, 2019)

Knowing Canon, we'll see no such thing as CRAZY design. Canon product line is boring, I mean: conservative. Never in 30 years of being a Canon shooter, I've seen a Canon product that was in any way radical or futuristic.


----------



## Kit. (Aug 8, 2019)

bellorusso said:


> Knowing Canon, we'll see no such thing as CRAZY design. Canon product line is boring, I mean: conservative. Never in 30 years of being a Canon shooter, I've seen a Canon product that was in any way radical or futuristic.


Show me an analog of my TS-E 17 from any other manufacturer.


----------



## Trey T (Aug 8, 2019)

I remember physicists (or claimed to know the subject) on here concluded that these types of lens design, large aperture, just couldn't exist in practice. Hopefully, Canon will prove them wrong.


----------



## Rivermist (Aug 8, 2019)

Kit. said:


> Show me an analog of my TS-E 17 from any other manufacturer.


Second that, plus DO lenses, 11-24, 200 1.8, 135 TS-E, 200-400 w/ 1.4 ext, RF 28-70 f:2....


----------



## Fran Decatta (Aug 8, 2019)

50-80 1.1 seems extremely crazy IMO (probably big and heavy as hell), but a 50-80 1.8 being a lens of less than 900 grams, seems more tangible (I would purchase it for sure)


----------



## Stuart (Aug 8, 2019)

I'd certainly say that this new RF mount is creating a few 'what if' usage scenarios. 

It's stuff like this that creates a certain mystic about a brand; though I do note though that an 8 inch lens is not going to be discrete.


----------



## bhf3737 (Aug 8, 2019)

bellorusso said:


> Knowing Canon, we'll see no such thing as CRAZY design. Canon product line is boring, I mean: conservative. Never in 30 years of being a Canon shooter, I've seen a Canon product that was in any way radical or futuristic.


Is that so? besides those said earlier who else has
MP-E 65mm f2.8 Macro?
EF 8-15mm f4L Fisheye?
Speedlite 470EX-AI?
These don't count as innovative, radical or futuristic?


----------



## [email protected] (Aug 8, 2019)

For all the times I've carped about the spectacular lenses coming out of Canon without correspondingly spectacular RF bodies, this one seems to fit the EOS R quite well. You don't need more than 3 fps in servo, nor more than 30 mp to exploit this sort of monster as a best-ever portrait lens. This is one that makes sense even in the absence of a new pro body.


----------



## keithcooper (Aug 8, 2019)

bhf3737 said:


> Is that so? besides those said earlier who else has
> MP-E 65mm f2.8 Macro?
> EF 8-15mm f4L Fisheye?
> Speedlite 470EX-AI?
> These don't count as innovative, radical or futuristic?


Indeed, my 'work' lenses include the TS-E17, MP-E65, ef8-15

This is why I have an answer when some people ask why I 'still' use Canon cameras ;-)


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 8, 2019)

bellorusso said:


> Never in 30 years of being a Canon shooter, I've seen a Canon product that was in any way radical or futuristic.


30 years and you haven’t seen any transformative products from Canon. I have to say, I personally find your achievement amazing. You’ve been taking photographs for 30 years, and all that time you’ve been doing so while being *completely* *blind*. Truly impressive!


----------



## Trey T (Aug 8, 2019)

Fran Decatta said:


> *50-80 1.1* seems extremely crazy IMO (probably big and heavy as hell), but a 50-80 1.8 being a lens of less than 900 grams, seems more tangible (I would purchase it for sure)


do you know if there's a similar lens exist?


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Aug 8, 2019)

Canon1966 said:


> "Also included in this patent are optical formulas for a RF 50-80mm f/1.2, RF 50-80mm f/1.4, RF 50-80mm f/1.6 and a RF 50-80mm f/1.8."
> 
> *I don't understand the idea of making similar lenses. Just make one 50-80mm f1.2. Marketing I guess...$$$*


Patents are different from making a device. They are for a design formula in the case of lenses, and usually can be applied to additional focal lengths and zoom ratios. 

The claimed advantage of the formula in the patent is to be able to make smaller zoom lenses while having a large aperture. 

The patent also is one of the first I've noticed with surface data for both sides of each lens element, that must imply some new robotic manufacturing equipment that can do very complex lens surfaces. Some of these designs have data for over 40 lens surfaces.

The design also specifies 8 different apertures from f1.8 to f1.13, so assumptions that it would be huge may not be correct.

Read thru the patent. Like Neuro, I doubt that we will ever see such a lens design.


----------



## Viggo (Aug 8, 2019)

Combining my two fastest available primes into a zoom with an even faster aperture into one lens? I can’t wrap my head around how that can be done without needing a wheelbarrow.


----------



## Fran Decatta (Aug 8, 2019)

Trey T said:


> do you know if there's a similar lens exist?


Sincerely, nope. The only thing close enough is the 28-70 F2 wich im thinking in purchase it for weddings, but is really heavy. and may be the 70mm can be a little short sometimes.


----------



## Trey T (Aug 8, 2019)

Fran Decatta said:


> Sincerely, nope. The only thing close enough is the 28-70 F2 wich im thinking in purchase it for weddings, but is really heavy. and may be the 70mm can be a little short sometimes.


A decade ago, during the 5DII era, it's common for people to run-and-gun with the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS, which weighs 3.0lbs and 7.8" long. The lens you're thinking about weighs the same but about 3" shorter, which effectively makes it weigh less (at the hand) than the 70-200 lens.

What is your definition of "heavy"?


----------



## Del Paso (Aug 8, 2019)

keithcooper said:


> Indeed, my 'work' lenses include the TS-E17, MP-E65, ef8-15
> 
> This is why I have an answer when some people ask why I 'still' use Canon cameras ;-)


All these lenses would be considered revolutionary if they had been made by another (guess which) company...


----------



## jolyonralph (Aug 8, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> I’m not sure this one will ever see the light of day.


At f/1.1 it'll see the light of night too


----------



## cellomaster27 (Aug 8, 2019)

Fran Decatta said:


> Sincerely, nope. The only thing close enough is the 28-70 F2 wich im thinking in purchase it for weddings, but is really heavy. and may be the 70mm can be a little short sometimes.



sounds like time to go work out for you! it really isn't that heavy. 

If canon ever does come out with a lens like this (that's a big fat if), then I'd imagine it will look like the sigma 200-500mm f2.8.


----------



## Phil (Aug 8, 2019)

bellorusso said:


> Knowing Canon, we'll see no such thing as CRAZY design. Canon product line is boring, I mean: conservative. Never in 30 years of being a Canon shooter, I've seen a Canon product that was in any way radical or futuristic.


 Eye controlled auto focus and that was about 25 years ago.


----------



## okaro (Aug 8, 2019)

Canon1966 said:


> "Also included in this patent are optical formulas for a RF 50-80mm f/1.2, RF 50-80mm f/1.4, RF 50-80mm f/1.6 and a RF 50-80mm f/1.8."
> 
> *I don't understand the idea of making similar lenses. Just make one 50-80mm f1.2. Marketing I guess...$$$*



It is typical to patent similar ideas to prevent others from using it.


----------



## Fran Decatta (Aug 8, 2019)

Trey T said:


> A decade ago, during the 5DII era, it's common for people to run-and-gun with the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS, which weighs 3.0lbs and 7.8" long. The lens you're thinking about weighs the same but about 3" shorter, which effectively makes it weigh less (at the hand) than the 70-200 lens.
> 
> What is your definition of "heavy"?


yeah, I know that 1 kg isnt "very" heavy. But when you work having two cameras always on with an strap during 12 hours in non stop (working on weddings), you look to wear as less as posible. Also I elevate the camera avobe my head in lots of moments to take elevate pictures (of couse, making use of the tiltflip screen. With a 35 1.4 art you can do that without problem. with big and heavy lenses (more than 1,2 kg, is different. At least in my opinion. And think, isnt just one time, is lots of times 
Of course, this is only my point of view!


----------



## deleteme (Aug 8, 2019)

The f1.1 lens is noted as being 224 mm in length at 85mm. More exciting (or alarming) would be the diameter and weight.


----------



## Fran Decatta (Aug 8, 2019)

cellomaster27 said:


> sounds like time to go work out for you! it really isn't that heavy.
> 
> If canon ever does come out with a lens like this (that's a big fat if), then I'd imagine it will look like the sigma 200-500mm f2.8.


Hahahaha theres no doubt about that i need it  But working 12 hours almost with non stop in weddings, you prefer to wear less weight as posible.Using two bodies and two lenses at the same time with straps, the weight goes up fast.

But as I say, thats onlu my opinion


----------



## cellomaster27 (Aug 8, 2019)

Fran Decatta said:


> Hahahaha theres no doubt about that i need it  But working 12 hours almost with non stop in weddings, you prefer to wear less weight as posible.Using two bodies and two lenses at the same time with straps, the weight goes up fast.
> 
> But as I say, thats onlu my opinion



If you shoot a lot with primes, like I tend to do, then a 28-70mm F2 is amazing - it can knock out at least two lenses if not three general primes. Even if it's heavy, you don't have to switch lenses. Obviously if you own the F2 standard zoom, you're asking for its performance - sharpness is unbelievable wide open. I think once the R body with IBIS comes out, the lenses w/o stabilization will shine even more. 

Concerning straps, what kind do you use? I used to use black rapid but it's kind of annoying as it can swing around. Dual straps I've seen but I think they look cooler than they are practical. Bad for your shoulders and neck. You should look into the ones for the waist.


----------



## juststeve (Aug 8, 2019)

Suspect this might be a video lens, perhaps the initial RF lens for video.


----------



## mclaren777 (Aug 8, 2019)

Just give me a 70-135mm f/2 and I'll be happy.


----------



## David - Sydney (Aug 8, 2019)

bhf3737 said:


> Is that so? besides those said earlier who else has
> MP-E 65mm f2.8 Macro?
> EF 8-15mm f4L Fisheye?
> Speedlite 470EX-AI?
> These don't count as innovative, radical or futuristic?


First f/1.0 lens with autofocus. First with flourine and blue goo coatings
Nikon released the AF-S Fisheye NIKKOR 8-15mm f/3.5-4.5E ED in 2017... only 6 years after Canon.


----------



## M. D. Vaden of Oregon (Aug 8, 2019)

Sharlin said:


> Repeat after me:
> 
> _Patent applications are about possible designs, not products
> Patent applications are about possible designs, not products
> ...



Likewise, feel free to repeat after me:

Products began with patent applications
Products began with patent applications
Products began with patent applications


----------



## Ozarker (Aug 9, 2019)

I have a RF 28-70 f/2L on the way from lens rentals... because I am still three weeks away from purchase and just can't wait. If Canon would issue an RF 70-135mm f/2L... my life would be complete. I'd sell a kidney and left testicle for that one. Maybe $3,500 for a lens like that? (Well, still would want the 85mm f/1.2L)  Honestly, these will be my final purchases... until death do us part.


----------



## dominic_siu (Aug 9, 2019)

Fran Decatta said:


> Sincerely, nope. The only thing close enough is the 28-70 F2 wich im thinking in purchase it for weddings, but is really heavy. and may be the 70mm can be a little short sometimes.


I’m using the RF 28-70, yes it’s a bit heavy but F2 for all the zoom range is valuable for wedding photography especially in low light condition, buy it enjoy it and no regret


----------



## SecureGSM (Aug 9, 2019)

[email protected] said:


> For all the times I've carped about the spectacular lenses coming out of Canon without correspondingly spectacular RF bodies, this one seems to fit the EOS R quite well. You don't need more than 3 fps in servo, nor more than 30 mp to exploit this sort of monster as a best-ever portrait lens. This is one that makes sense even in the absence of a new pro body.


there must be some sort of optical quality compromise there, as with every single zoom lens. sure, it would be likely cheaper to by this lens rather than 50/1.2 +85/1.2. seeing what others were able to achieve with RF 85/1/2 lens, i doubt this zoom would be even close optical quality wise. 
from my perspective, I would rather 85/1.2 or 105/1.4 + 35/1.4 + 50/1.2 instead.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 9, 2019)

M. D. Vaden of Oregon said:


> Likewise, feel free to repeat after me:
> 
> Products began with patent applications
> Products began with patent applications
> Products began with patent applications


Actually, many don’t. Patent application filing to publication is 18 months, so for products with longer development cycles (like cameras and lenses), development work is generally begun before the patent is filed.


----------



## addola (Aug 9, 2019)

There were rumors about some "Look at what we can do" RF lens. If we go by how big the RF28-70 f/2L is, this one would be way heavier.

I would rather see Canon release a fast ultra-wide prime (for astrophotograpers), and/or fast and more affordable portrait lenses (say 85/1.8 or 135/2).


----------



## LSXPhotog (Aug 9, 2019)

I just looked these dimensions up after my friend suggested that it would be the size of a 200mm f/2.0 lens, he was correct...wow.


----------



## Jasonmc89 (Aug 9, 2019)

Dunno why people moan about lens weight so much! Sure, there’s a bit of weight to some of the higher end lenses but if they are too heavy for you, then that’s your problem and not the lenses! 

I do a lot of building work and I’d never complain about my concrete breaker being too heavy. That’s just how heavy it is.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Aug 9, 2019)

Canon1966 said:


> "Also included in this patent are optical formulas for a RF 50-80mm f/1.2, RF 50-80mm f/1.4, RF 50-80mm f/1.6 and a RF 50-80mm f/1.8."
> 
> *I don't understand the idea of making similar lenses. Just make one 50-80mm f1.2. Marketing I guess...$$$*


I think Canon are just patenting their optical design / formula. They look like they have three designs on the table...only one will be selected to go to prototype stage and even then...it's a long shot to a full productionised model. Lots of stuff gets designed and then prototyped...only to be canned later due to considerations such as weight, size, pricing or market capacity.
A long time ago there was a prototype for a 24-135 f2.8 L. It was considered by the pros who were asked to test the fully working prototype to be way too large and heavy to be beneficial. It was larger and heavier than the 70-200 f2.8...

If this lens design ends up being heavier and larger than a 50mm f1.2 and a 85mm f1.2....then there is little justification for this lens. Any sensible photographer would opt for a pair of primes...regardless of how convenient the zoom range is.


----------



## Fran Decatta (Aug 9, 2019)

cellomaster27 said:


> If you shoot a lot with primes, like I tend to do, then a 28-70mm F2 is amazing - it can knock out at least two lenses if not three general primes. Even if it's heavy, you don't have to switch lenses. Obviously if you own the F2 standard zoom, you're asking for its performance - sharpness is unbelievable wide open. I think once the R body with IBIS comes out, the lenses w/o stabilization will shine even more.
> 
> Concerning straps, what kind do you use? I used to use black rapid but it's kind of annoying as it can swing around. Dual straps I've seen but I think they look cooler than they are practical. Bad for your shoulders and neck. You should look into the ones for the waist.



Of course, I already tested this one in a shop. Is a trully awesome lens. But before this, I'll need to sell all my other primes and 6D body to afford this one (isn't speacially cheap) probably Ill miss the 24 1.4 sigma. This extra stop helped a lot of times.

EDIT: I use a straps made in Spain (I'm from Barcelona) They are called byMerro. I've been using them for 4 years and works great. But with only one body, my model of strap becomes less useful


----------



## Fran Decatta (Aug 9, 2019)

dominic_siu said:


> I’m using the RF 28-70, yes it’s a bit heavy but F2 for all the zoom range is valuable for wedding photography especially in low light condition, buy it enjoy it and no regret


Of course, I want to rent it for try it in a wedding before purchase it. I would need to sell three primes and 6D body before afford this monster. I already tested it in a shop and looks great (the 70mm may be a little short, having in mind that normally use a 85mm cropping in lightroom)

But as a All in one, is great.


----------



## justaCanonuser (Aug 9, 2019)

How heavy such an f = 1.1 lens would be? My EF 85 mm f/1.2 II already weighs roughly a kilogram. Not sure if a quite limited 50-80mm zoom range would be attractive for many people, for wedding and social even photography it could be useful. That said, I am pretty sure that such a lens from Canon would be a real creamy bokeh machine.


----------



## justaCanonuser (Aug 9, 2019)

Jasonmc89 said:


> Dunno why people moan about lens weight so much! Sure, there’s a bit of weight to some of the higher end lenses but if they are too heavy for you, then that’s your problem and not the lenses!
> 
> I do a lot of building work and I’d never complain about my concrete breaker being too heavy. That’s just how heavy it is.


And you seem to be used to carry a bigger tele lens frequently, as your nice bird avatar suggests. Birders like us have no problem with carrying a bit more heavy lenses, but I hear and read that often people complain about the weight of surprisingly light and small gear...


----------



## yeahright (Aug 9, 2019)

justaCanonuser said:


> And you seem to be used to carry a bigger tele lens frequently, as your nice bird avatar suggests. Birders like us have no problem with carrying a bit more heavy lenses, but I hear and read that often people complain about the weight of surprisingly light and small gear...


Well, as usual, there are so many variables. For one, size, weight (and sportivity) of people varies by a factor of 3 or 4 or even more. A person weighing 50 kg will usually have more difficulties lugging around a large lens than one weighing 150 kg. It's also a huge difference if you just have to carry your gear to a photography spot where you can set up a tripod to put the large lens on, or if you actually have to carry it around your neck or shoulder for 12+ hours as you might be doing on a wedding or other event. Furthermore, what if you need to take all your gear with you all day in a backpack because there is no spot where you can leave any of your stuff. Even comparatively light gear will be a pain if carried for extended periods of time. I know from experience as an untrained man weighing less than 70 kg that when photographing mobile events such as parades, or hiking and carrying a 5D4 with a set of 16-35, 24-70 and 70-200 f/2.8 for 8 or more hours really isn't very comfortable, even though those lenses are far from being the heaviest.


----------



## mb66energy (Aug 9, 2019)

An outstanding lens (patent) at least in terms of lens size of 22 centimeters for just 50-80 mm focal length.

Maybe interesting for SpaceX for astronauts riding on SpaceX rockets for taking pictures of the dark side of the moon ...


----------



## Jasonmc89 (Aug 9, 2019)

Well I use a 100-400 mkii so not super tele weight but still.. Ive spent time with a guy who has an 800mm and while yes it does have some weight to it, it’s nothing really..


----------



## Ale_F (Aug 9, 2019)

mb66energy said:


> An outstanding lens (patent) at least in terms of lens size of 22 centimeters for just 50-80 mm focal length.
> 
> Maybe interesting for SpaceX for astronauts riding on SpaceX rockets for taking pictures of the dark side of the moon ...


We wait the RF50mm 0.7L


----------



## Ozarker (Aug 9, 2019)

Fran Decatta said:


> Sincerely, nope. The only thing close enough is the 28-70 F2 wich im thinking in purchase it for weddings, but is really heavy. and may be the 70mm can be a little short sometimes.


I just rented the 28-70. Great lens and I will purchase, but believe me, a battery grip I recommend highly.


----------



## Yasko (Aug 9, 2019)

Canon is nuts. They should focus on practical lenses and not on hefty, expensive bulks of glass...


----------



## SecureGSM (Aug 10, 2019)

Yasko said:


> Canon is nuts. They should focus on practical lenses and not on hefty, expensive bulks of glass...


they do.. F2.8 trinity is coming..


----------



## Fran Decatta (Aug 10, 2019)

CanonFanBoy said:


> I just rented the 28-70. Great lens and I will purchase, but believe me, a battery grip I recommend highly.


did you used it on a +10 hours wedding?  Is an awesome lens, thats no doubt about it!


----------



## canonmike (Aug 10, 2019)

CanonFanBoy said:


> I have a RF 28-70 f/2L on the way from lens rentals... because I am still three weeks away from purchase and just can't wait. If Canon would issue an RF 70-135mm f/2L... my life would be complete. I'd sell a kidney and left testicle for that one. Maybe $3,500 for a lens like that? (Well, still would want the 85mm f/1.2L)  Honestly, these will be my final purchases... until death do us part.


Ha! Be careful what you wish for. I'd hate to see a fellow Canon user put in a position that would cause him to sever some of those aforementioned vital parts.


----------



## snoke (Aug 10, 2019)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> The design also specifies 8 different apertures from f1.8 to f1.13, so assumptions that it would be huge may not be correct.



f/1.8 viable? example 4? example 5?


----------



## Ozarker (Aug 10, 2019)

Fran Decatta said:


> did you used it on a +10 hours wedding?  Is an awesome lens, thats no doubt about it!


No weddings for me. Only Rambo photographers can handle Bridezilla. Weddings scare me. I'll be trying it out this weekend, and I have a nude shoot/boudoir shoot Tuesday and then a swimsuit shoot on the 17th. It is, though, one heavy beast and filters are going to be expensive.


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 10, 2019)

Yasko said:


> Canon is nuts. They should focus on practical lenses and not on hefty, expensive bulks of glass...


Yes!

I’d like to see them come out with a 24-105 F4, or a 24-240......


----------



## keithcooper (Aug 10, 2019)

Yasko said:


> Canon is nuts. They should focus on practical lenses and not on hefty, expensive bulks of glass...


They can easily do both.

Read it as what it is, a patent application, not a sales brochure ;-)


----------



## Sporgon (Aug 11, 2019)

keithcooper said:


> Indeed, my 'work' lenses include the TS-E17, MP-E65, ef8-15
> 
> This is why I have an answer when some people ask why I 'still' use Canon cameras ;-)



I bet not one person outside of the Internet has asked you that ! ;-)


----------



## keithcooper (Aug 11, 2019)

Sporgon said:


> I bet not one person outside of the Internet has asked you that ! ;-)


Indeed, mostly on the internet ;-)
However I do a few talks each year for camera clubs and there you find the pre-internet version, who seems to think that I have some deep attachment to Canon and will leap to defend them from insults...

Usually pointing to the TS-E17 or whatever on the front is enough ;-)

My biggest problem at the moment is that I'm writing a book about using tilt/shift lenses and whilst Canon will lend me any TS-E I've not got, and Hasselblad will lend me an H6D and HTS T/S adapter, I can't get much more than the time of day out of Nikon(UK). I'd love it to include some PC-E lenses just for balance - it doesn't really change much of the 'how to use' side of things, but I'd hate for Nikon PC-E users to be put off just because their lenses are listed, but not featured in any of the example photos.


----------



## analoggrotto (Aug 11, 2019)

Can we get a 50mm F1.8? LOL


----------



## justaCanonuser (Aug 13, 2019)

yeahright said:


> It's also a huge difference if you just have to carry your gear to a photography spot where you can set up a tripod to put the large lens on, or if you actually have to carry it around your neck or shoulder for 12+ hours as you might be doing on a wedding or other event. ... I know from experience as an untrained man weighing less than 70 kg that when photographing mobile events such as parades, or hiking and carrying a 5D4 with a set of 16-35, 24-70 and 70-200 f/2.8 for 8 or more hours really isn't very comfortable, even though those lenses are far from being the heaviest.


My wife, a half Chinese half European woman weighing barely more than 50 kg, carries a Sigma 500mm f/4.5 lens + other lenses (including a 300mm f/4 lens) and a camera on our birding trips for hours with no problems. She even shoots this 4 kg tele-camera-combo hand-held, often she doesn't take any mono- or tripod with her. People are always amazed when they see that petite woman using this big lens like a compact camera. She has the opposite of bodybuilder arms btw, she uses a holding technique that she learned in ballet dancing.


----------



## justaCanonuser (Aug 13, 2019)

keithcooper said:


> My biggest problem at the moment is that I'm writing a book about using tilt/shift lenses ...


Do you also cover classic tilt-shift bellow lenses? Novoflex e.g. still makes such bellows that are adaptable to 35mm cameras. I sometimes seriously consider getting such a flexible solution for tilt-shift and extreme macro.


----------



## Maximilian (Aug 13, 2019)

justaCanonuser said:


> ... She has the opposite of bodybuilder arms btw, she uses a holding technique that she learned in ballet dancing.


Cool. I would like to know how that technique works.

Using my FF+100-400 during the day isn't that hard, but everything that could make life easier...


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 13, 2019)

justaCanonuser said:


> My wife, a half Chinese half European woman weighing barely more than 50 kg, carries a Sigma 500mm f/4.5 lens + other lenses (including a 300mm f/4 lens) and a camera on our birding trips for hours with no problems. She even shoots this 4 kg tele-camera-combo hand-held, often she doesn't take any mono- or tripod with her. People are always amazed when they see that petite woman using this big lens like a compact camera. She has the opposite of bodybuilder arms btw, she uses a holding technique that she learned in ballet dancing.


If she can do ballet, then she is way stronger and tougher than most of us guys


----------



## Ozarker (Aug 13, 2019)

Viggo said:


> Combining my two fastest available primes into a zoom with an even faster aperture into one lens? I can’t wrap my head around how that can be done without needing a wheelbarrow.


True! But then Sigma's big green $25,000 monster comes to mind. Rumor has it that it is sometimes bundled with a wheelbarrow or dolly. Chuck Norris, though, carts it around like an old 50mm Takumar. He doesn't need the wheelbarrow and when he holds it, it turns into an f/1.


----------



## Ozarker (Aug 13, 2019)

Yasko said:


> Canon is nuts. They should focus on practical lenses and not on hefty, expensive bulks of glass...


Nah! I love big, fast, heavy glass. Canon knows this and makes them just for me.


----------



## BillB (Aug 13, 2019)

Don Haines said:


> Yes!
> 
> I’d like to see them come out with a 24-105 F4, or a 24-240......


or a 35f 1.8 IS macro, but that is too big for people, and it isn't an L.


----------



## SUNDOG04 (Aug 17, 2019)

OK Canon, we know you have and are capable of making super lenses. So will you ever make a 50mm Rf f1.8 or f2 lens...a lens that could actually be somewhat affordable for the non-professional?


----------



## uri.raz (Aug 18, 2019)

CanonFanBoy said:


> True! But then Sigma's big green $25,000 monster comes to mind. Rumor has it that it is sometimes bundled with a wheelbarrow or dolly. Chuck Norris, though, carts it around like an old 50mm Takumar. He doesn't need the wheelbarrow and when he holds it, it turns into an f/1.



Well I can assure you that the stories you hear with this man if nothing else, has been watered down.

It turns into a 645 lens, 1,200mm-3,000mm f/0.7, which he doesn't cart - gravity doesn't mess with Chuck Norris' photo equipment. This is how the Hubble telescope was put into orbit - it was gifted to Chuck Norris, and immediately floated out of the atmosphere.


----------



## Ozarker (Aug 18, 2019)

uri.raz said:


> Well I can assure you that the stories you hear with this man if nothing else, has been watered down.
> 
> It turns into a 645 lens, 1,200mm-3,000mm f/0.7, which he doesn't cart - gravity doesn't mess with Chuck Norris' photo equipment. This is how the Hubble telescope was put into orbit - it was gifted to Chuck Norris, and immediately floated out of the atmosphere.


Chuck Norris decided to bottle and sell his urine as an energy drink. We know this beverage as Red Bull.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Aug 18, 2019)

SUNDOG04 said:


> OK Canon, we know you have and are capable of making super lenses. So will you ever make a 50mm Rf f1.8 or f2 lens...a lens that could actually be somewhat affordable for the non-professional?


Canon has demonstrated that they want the R system buyers to demand lenses that can do things that the EF lenses can't. A person can pop a 50mm f/1.8 on their R via adapter, so look for them to keep making lots of lenses that do something extra and fewer that compete with EF lenses. Realistically, I'd buy a EF 70-200 for $1500 over a RF 70-200 for $2500 that was basically the same thing. There needs to be a reason to spend that extra money.


----------



## justaCanonuser (Aug 20, 2019)

Maximilian said:


> Cool. I would like to know how that technique works.
> 
> Using my FF+100-400 during the day isn't that hard, but everything that could make life easier...


Sorry for the very delayed reply. She says it's the same technique that allows dancers to keep their arms wide open for a long time without getting tired. You need to move your shoulders down in a certain way, then they work a bit like a sort of ratched...


----------



## Ozarker (Aug 20, 2019)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Canon has demonstrated that they want the R system buyers to demand lenses that can do things that the EF lenses can't. A person can pop a 50mm f/1.8 on their R via adapter, so look for them to keep making lots of lenses that do something extra and fewer that compete with EF lenses. Realistically, I'd buy a EF 70-200 for $1500 over a RF 70-200 for $2500 that was basically the same thing. There needs to be a reason to spend that extra money.


Unfortunately, I bought the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II for $2,499 at the time it was released. I only say unfortunately because I was too silly to wait a while. It is a great lens. What I don't like about the RF version (I don't have it) is that it isn't an internal zoom like the EF. It doesn't make much difference, I guess, but internal zoom is really cool in my opinion. 

Your posts are always great and well thought out.


----------



## Maximilian (Aug 21, 2019)

justaCanonuser said:


> Sorry for the very delayed reply. She says it's the same technique that allows dancers to keep their arms wide open for a long time without getting tired. You need to move your shoulders down in a certain way, then they work a bit like a sort of ratched...


Thanks for that explaination


----------

