Canon Patent Application: Let’s go long

#41
Of these designs, the RF 400-600 is the one catching my eye, though it would have to pair well with a 1.4x converter as I need that for birds. Generally smaller zoom ratios correlate to better optical performance. Of the designs above reaching 600mm, the RF 400-600 has the fewest groups, making that dictum more likely true in this set of designs.

I am perfectly fine with a fixed 600mm f/4, and the wider aperture and limited zoom range appeals to me much more than stretching the low end down to 300mm. With the wildlife I shoot, I am never fumbling for a change in focal length: I'm on a gimbal head either shooting, waiting for the shot to materialize, or resetting to a different shooting position. Being able to drop down to 400mm is okay, but would comprise less than 0.2% of my shots. I've shot with the EF 100-400Lii zoom, too, and almost all shots were at full extension with a shorter lens swapped in for 100mm shots. Less than 0.5% were shot with the zoom set at less than 400mm. And that is how I encourage people to think about lens purchases: by the percentage of shots affected relative to the lens price.

The devil is in the details, of course, as the design that can be consistently built to render superb images is the preferred design in my book, something that we may not know until production of one or more of these designs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0
#42
Wow, I'm good with with a 400-600. Having the 100-300, the 400-600 would be my next purchase. I do indoor/outdoor sports and airshows and ordered the R5II and R1, looking forward to the 100-300 photo/video results on those bodies.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
#43
m4ndr4ke said:
Obviously it's not like suddenly the website is a pile of trash, it's extremely far from that, but it is a change of direction, it's the fact that the contents are not impartial.
Click to expand...
you must be confusing this site with another one.

I don't think we've ever made the claim to be "impartial" and you are certainly cherry picking if you think we don't spend a lot of time and effort criticizing Canon. have you read anything that I've written lately that has the word R100 in it?

We are cautious on our rumors, but on other stuff - every now and then we are completely allowed to go into fanboy mode and why wouldn't we be - the site is all about Canon - it's not about mirrorless or the industry overall. Craig uses Canon gear since the dawn of digital (not sure about film) and I've used Canon since film days.

As a matter of fact, that's why Craig brought me on board - one of my tasks is be hyper-critical about Canon when I see fit, and I have. But there has to be a balance for our readership as well to that.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 5 users
Upvote 0
#44
SonicStudios said:
Wow, I'm good with with a 400-600. Having the 100-300, the 400-600 would be my next purchase. I do indoor/outdoor sports and airshows and ordered the R5II and R1, looking forward to the 100-300 photo/video results on those bodies.
Click to expand...

assuming the quality is there and with a limited zoom range it probably would be - it's basically a 400mm F2.8 and a 600mm F4 rolled up into one.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0
#45
Del Paso said:
And if this 70-300 f/4 accepted an extender.... :love: My future lens (if ever produced!)
Click to expand...

by the looks of the back focus distance - yes.

if you see the back focus distance around ~20mm or less, then no official canon extenders could use it - but if it's much more relaxed aka 30-40mm, then there's a good chance that they would.

Of course Canon could nerf things - but it would be compelling in some cases to get a 140-600mm - especially if you are only working with 24MP which doesn't stress lenses nearly as much.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0
#46
300-600 or 400-600 would be pretty slick. I’d never be willing to part with the requisite cash for either, but I’d add it to the cart at midnight after several whiskeys, engage in an internal, existential debate, and be saved from myself only when my phone exhausts its charge before clicking buy.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: 5 users
Upvote 0
#47
esglord said:
300-600 or 400-600 would be pretty slick. I’d never be willing to part with the requisite cash for either, but I’d add it to the cart at midnight after several whiskeys, engage in an internal, existential debate, and be saved from myself only when my phone exhausts its charge before clicking buy.
Click to expand...

or put it in preorder and watch it breathlessly until the nanosecond before they are ready to commit the order then cancel.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
#48
Del Paso said:
It looks like Canon plan to replace most Big White primes with zooms.
That's a very promising concept IMHO.In fact I am a prime fan, because primes force you to frame and compose more creatively,
Click to expand...
In fact I am a prime fan, because a prime forces you to think in a more creative way about framing and composing an image. When you study photography in a classical way, that's why teachers will force you to use primes for a while to train your skills.

That said, supertele photography is a different world, at least in my personal experience over decades. First, you often cannot move freely around to get the optimum angle of view and distance for a good shot, e.g. when you are sitting hidden in a camouflage tent or you have just a small gap in a thicket to peer through. So a zoom gives here much more flexibility. Plus, given the small angle of view at very long focal lengths the option to zoom is a real help. I think all of you supertele shooters here (birders) exactly know what I mean.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Upvote 0
#51
justaCanonuser said:
In fact I am a prime fan, because a prime forces you to think in a more creative way about framing and composing an image. When you study photography in a classical way, that's why teachers will force you to use primes for a while to train your skills.

That said, supertele photography is a different world, at least in my personal experience over decades. First, you often cannot move freely around to get the optimum angle of view and distance for a good shot, e.g. when you are sitting hidden in a camouflage tent or you have just a small gap in a thicket to peer through. So a zoom gives here much more flexibility. Plus, given the small angle of view at very long focal lengths the option to zoom is a real help. I think all of you supertele shooters here (birders) exactly know what I mean.
Click to expand...
Yes, a zoom with 300mm or 400mm lens would be ideal for bird photography from hides where the distance to the subject is shorter than in the great wide open and where 500mm or 600mm is sometimes too long. The zoom’s shorter focal lengths can also be used for showing the subject in it’s environment.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
#52
justaCanonuser said:
In fact I am a prime fan, because a prime forces you to think in a more creative way about framing and composing an image. When you study photography in a classical way, that's why teachers will force you to use primes for a while to train your skills.

That said, supertele photography is a different world, at least in my personal experience over decades. First, you often cannot move freely around to get the optimum angle of view and distance for a good shot, e.g. when you are sitting hidden in a camouflage tent or you have just a small gap in a thicket to peer through. So a zoom gives here much more flexibility. Plus, given the small angle of view at very long focal lengths the option to zoom is a real help. I think all of you supertele shooters here (birders) exactly know what I mean.
Click to expand...
I was particularly thinking of sports photographers who often need to adapt quickly to changing situations.
A zoom can be very helpful.
Or, when hiking in difficult landscapes or climatic conditions, not having to change lenses is a huge advantage.
In a distant past, I often used my Telyt 560mm. But when I changed into digital, and bought the EF 100-400mm L, I was more than happy with the flexibility it did confer. And with a 1,4 X extender, I still got my 560mm.
Of course, the Telyt with the Apo 1,4X gave me 800mm...
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
#53
Del Paso said:
In a distant past, I often used my Telyt 560mm. But when I changed into digital, and bought the EF 100-400mm L, I was more than happy with the flexibility it did confer. And with a 1,4 X extender, I still got my 560mm.
Of course, the Telyt with the Apo 1,4X gave me 800mm...
Click to expand...
Just because this made my curious: was it a Leitz telyt 560mm? And do you also like to sometimes shoot landscape with tele lenses? I do, and this is indeed another advantage of carrying a tele zoom in the backpack.
 
Upvote 0
#54
EOS 4 Life said:
Compared to what an RF 500 f/4 would be, the RF 600 f/4 is still extremely heavy.
Click to expand...
That's the question I asked myself when I wrote that post. Since a 500/4 wouldn't be much shorter with standard lenses, and those wouldn't be much smaller to support f=4, I doubt that Canon could create a miracle of a, say, 2 kg lens. The only way to achieve this would be a DO version, and extending the current 400mm f/4 DO would indeed be an interesting option. Then, this would set such a 500mm lens so much apart of the 600mm f/4 that it might make sense in the market. Not sure about the price level, bigger DO lenses may be quite costly to produce.
 
Upvote 0
#55
Richard CR said:
or put it in preorder and watch it breathlessly until the nanosecond before they are ready to commit the order then cancel.
Click to expand...
Ha, i never preorder. I’m more of a want it for a few years and then impulse buy it the second there is a good refurbished sale guy. I stopped mid conversation at a bar with coworker friends a couple months ago to order the 50 f/1.2L and I then looked up a minute later and was like, hey what are we talking about now?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
#56
esglord said:
300-600 or 400-600 would be pretty slick. I’d never be willing to part with the requisite cash for either, but I’d add it to the cart at midnight after several whiskeys, engage in an internal, existential debate, and be saved from myself only when my phone exhausts its charge before clicking buy.
Click to expand...
LOL! I really feel sick when I buy expensive photo gear in the days after, too, but luckily most of my more expensive decisions were finally rewarding. So, if you can afford it, do it. Life is too short to hesitate ;)
 
Upvote 0
#58
esglord said:
Yeah, there is definitely always the “what have I done?” feeling. Steady resale values are important for calming the panic
Click to expand...
That's true. I currently experienced again that 3rd party lenses, even in nearly mint state, lose much more value than original Canon glass (if it is L glass, of course). So that's another reason to put more money into the gear game.
 
Upvote 0
#59
justaCanonuser said:
That's true. I currently experienced again that 3rd party lenses, even in nearly mint state, lose much more value than original Canon glass (if it is L glass, of course). So that's another reason to put more money into the gear game.
Click to expand...
Yeah, at these point I think Canon offers most anything I’d want anyway even though there are other great lens offerings
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
#60
justaCanonuser said:
Just because this made my curious: was it a Leitz telyt 560mm? And do you also like to sometimes shoot landscape with tele lenses? I do, and this is indeed another advantage of carrying a tele zoom in the backpack.
Click to expand...
It was (is) indeed the fast focusing Telyt 560mm. I carried it disassembled in a home-modified Lowepro Magnum, and, whenever needed, quickly reassembled it.
Or, in US National Parks,I kept it fully assembled and mounted on a body. on the backseat of my car.
But I used it exclusively for wildlife. Due to its optical 3 lens formula, only the center offered a high degree of sharpness. So, for landscapes, not really usable.
Yet, for wildlife in those AF-less times, focusing was very fast, with the front lens-group sliding on rails.
Sharpness wise, Canon's big whites play in a different league but are also from a different epoch!
Nowadays, my wife not being really patient, I more or less quit photographing wildlife, and use my teles almost exclusively for landscapes and macros. ( :cry: )
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Richard CR
Patent Application: Super Telephoto Primes
Replies
26
Views
2K
neuroanatomist
neuroanatomist
Richard CR
Patent Application: Canon RF Power Zooms
Replies
24
Views
2K
David - Sydney
D
Richard CR
Canon Patent Application: Organic Electronic Shutter
Replies
0
Views
212
Richard CR
Richard CR
Canon Rumors
Canon Patent Application: Telephoto Macro Lenses
Replies
25
Views
2K
scottburgess
S
Richard CR
Canon Patent Application: Actively Cooled Small Cini Camera
Replies
0
Views
223
Richard CR
Richard CR
Top Bottom
Back
Home
Forums
Media
Menu