Canon Officially Announces 4 new RF Lenses

#121
GMCPhotographics said:
anything over 0.85 on the blue lines / dotted lines is going to out resolve a R5 sensor
Click to expand...
Frankly I think even the 50/1.8, even hand-held, even at 1/4-1/8 sec, may be out-resolving the R5 sensor.

The R5 has 227 pixels per mm, but we can't just measure single-pixel-wide white lines and black lines, as such lines may half-illuminate two neighboring pixels and thus resolve to a perfect grey no matter what the actual lens resolution and contrast is. The narrowest a line can be that is certain of leaving fully-illuminated pixels is 2 pixels wide, and MTF resolution curves are graphed for line PAIRS. So that means the limit of easy testability is 227/2/2=57 lp/mm.

So that's what I tested in my hand-holdability tests, published in the forum here (search for 50mm SHOOTOUT), and indeed I was able to get very high contrast at 57 lp/mm even hand-held at 1/2-1/15 sec.

And that's a lens people in this forum practically $#!+ on.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0
#123
m4ndr4ke said:
I gave you an engineering reason before (heat), that apparently you ignored.
Click to expand...
I stated, “If there was a compelling engineering reason…” I didn’t ignore heat, I brought it up first and addressed it. Plenty of lenses from Canon and other manufacturers intended for use outdoors are painted black.

m4ndr4ke said:
My old EF 70-200mm was repaired because of this (I got it second hand). CPS, at that time, told me that I should never store my gear in the car, as the temperatures inside could reach 60 to 70° C, when exposed to the sun, and that that would be enough to deform the little guides running on the helicoids.
So I guess the answer is “a lot lower than you would expect”.
Click to expand...
That’s obviously a very different scenario. But thanks for supporting my point in that that’s a white lens with a ‘heat shield’ paint job. How well did the heat shield work for you? (That was facetious, as I said…different scenario.)

You should definitely get yourself one of these doohickeys and use it every time you go out in the sun with a black camera or lens.

1730371807742.png

Canon is probably missing a bet here, they should sell a branded one!

Oh hey, maybe heat protection is why they paint some entry level cameras white? Maybe only noobs are dumb enough to use their gear outside on a sunny day, and the smart folks who understand the compelling engineering reasons that lenses should be painted white just stay inside when the sun comes out.
 
Upvote 0
#124
It\'s really terrible that Canon is not able to decide for a proper design for the tripod collar. Sometimes they have removable foot, sometimes not, sometimes the whole collar is removable, sometimes only the foot, it\'s totally random.
And on this 70-200, not only the collar is not removable but there is this huge screw sticking out of the lens that is going to be annoying on the field. That is probably the worst design I\'ve seen, not even mentionning the fact they could add Arca grooves on collars, it\'s the best system and it wouldn\'t bother those who don\'t use it. The first EF70-200 in history had a better tripod collar than this.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
#125
swkitt said:
It\'s really terrible that Canon is not able to decide for a proper design for the tripod collar. Sometimes they have removable foot, sometimes not, sometimes the whole collar is removable, sometimes only the foot, it\'s totally random.
Click to expand...
No, it’s not random. I’m sure it was discussed thoroughly within Canon and there’s a rationale for the different styles.

Note that I’m not saying that rationale actually makes sense to me or anyone else outside of Canon, I’m just saying it’s a large corporation and there was a process.

swkitt said:
And on this 70-200, not only the collar is not removable but there is this huge screw sticking out of the lens that is going to be annoying on the field. That is probably the worst design I\'ve seen,
Click to expand...
Not exactly a screw, more of an ankle for the removable foot. It’s the same design as the 24-105/2.8. You can rotate the ankle to the top of the lens when you have the foot removed, it’s not a big deal, though I would prefer a different design with a completely removable tripod ring (in fact, I would like the tripod ring on my 100-300/2.8 to also be removable).

swkitt said:
…not even mentionning the fact they could add Arca grooves on collars, it\'s the best system and it wouldn\'t bother those who don\'t use it.
Click to expand...
Don’t hold your breath. I’m sure there are reasons for this as well, and some of those do make sense (for example, it would add thickness to the existing foot designs, and in the case of a hybrid lens like this, Arca Swiss is not the standard plate on the video side).

FWIW, RRS makes a very nice replacement foot for the 24-105/2.8, and since this new lens has the same design, the foot will work with it as well.
 
Upvote 0
#126
neuroanatomist said:
That’s obviously a very different scenario. But thanks for supporting my point in that that’s a white lens with a ‘heat shield’ paint job. How well did the heat shield work for you? (That was facetious, as I said…different scenario.)
Click to expand...
Read again.
I never said the white lens was exposed to the sun -> the car was.

If a lens (whatever its colour) can get its PTFE parts deformed inside a parked car, how much will a black telephoto lens heat up when exposed directly to the sun?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
#127
SwissFrank said:
Frankly I think even the 50/1.8, even hand-held, even at 1/4-1/8 sec, may be out-resolving the R5 sensor.

The R5 has 227 pixels per mm, but we can't just measure single-pixel-wide white lines and black lines, as such lines may half-illuminate two neighboring pixels and thus resolve to a perfect grey no matter what the actual lens resolution and contrast is. The narrowest a line can be that is certain of leaving fully-illuminated pixels is 2 pixels wide, and MTF resolution curves are graphed for line PAIRS. So that means the limit of easy testability is 227/2/2=57 lp/mm.

So that's what I tested in my hand-holdability tests, published in the forum here (search for 50mm SHOOTOUT), and indeed I was able to get very high contrast at 57 lp/mm even hand-held at 1/2-1/15 sec.

And that's a lens people in this forum practically $#!+ on.
Click to expand...
Very interesting comments SwissFrank. For my assumptions, I was assuming Image Stabilisation / IBIS or a tripod. I highlight how relative each photographer's view of sharpness is.

I find that in high contrast / directional light situations that lower resolving lenses seem to yeild sharper results and in low contrast lighting, it can be hard to determine as much detail. My R6ii, which I am much more familiar with than the R5, I find that lenses that have a MFT around the .55 look a bit soft wide open. Around the .68-.70 region then I get sharp results. Over .75 and I can say they are pin sharp.
My Ef 135mm f2.0 L is and EF 85mm f1.2 II L are good examples of this. My 135L is very sharp wide open. My 85L...less so...it's only it's contrast and slim DOF that make images look sharper then they really are.

I think the humble RF 50mm f1.8 is an often mis-understood and mis-judged lens. I have seen comments and opinions expressed which were certainly true of the old EF variant but also applied to the RF version. The RF version is a totally differant optical forumula and much sharper too. the older EF lens was, in my opinion, the sharpest 50mm from Canon. The EF 50mm f1.2L was a better all round lens except it's optical sharpness. My first copy was a joke optically, however my 2nd photographer's copy seemed generally a lot sharper than mine. But neither were 135L sharp. Getting the EF 50L to accurately focus in low light was nearly impossible, where as my old EF 24-70L could lock on and track in the same lighting situation.
 
Upvote 0
#128
m4ndr4ke said:
... You don’t have to heat a material up to its melting point to be able to bend it, right? ...
Click to expand...
That's clear. But OTOH you are allowed to heat up your Teflon-coated non-stick pan up to 180 or 200°C without the fear that the coating comes down or will deform.
But I think that topic is settled with the words from the support, that lenses shouldn't be heated up over 60°C - whatever part breaks then.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
#129
m4ndr4ke said:
If a lens (whatever its colour) can get its PTFE parts deformed inside a parked car, how much will a black telephoto lens heat up when exposed directly to the sun?
Click to expand...
I can fully support that! And don't forget to take camera bodies into account, too.
A friend had to send in his R7 after a safari, because it was too long used in direct sunshine (not inside a car with AC). The main board had to be replaced.
Luckily, used mostly EF lenses at that time and had his old DSLR with him as spare.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
#130
neuroanatomist said:
I stated, “If there was a compelling engineering reason…” I didn’t ignore heat, I brought it up first and addressed it. Plenty of lenses from Canon and other manufacturers intended for use outdoors are painted black.


That’s obviously a very different scenario. But thanks for supporting my point in that that’s a white lens with a ‘heat shield’ paint job. How well did the heat shield work for you? (That was facetious, as I said…different scenario.)

You should definitely get yourself one of these doohickeys and use it every time you go out in the sun with a black camera or lens.

View attachment 220716

Canon is probably missing a bet here, they should sell a branded one!

Oh hey, maybe heat protection is why they paint some entry level cameras white? Maybe only noobs are dumb enough to use their gear outside on a sunny day, and the smart folks who understand the compelling engineering reasons that lenses should be painted white just stay inside when the sun comes out.
Click to expand...
You seem to be setting up a false dichotomy that it’s either a “compelling” engineering reason or marketing, nothing in between. It can very well be that there is a measurable advantage to the white paint without it being an absolute necessity.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0
#131
m4ndr4ke said:
Read again.
I never said the white lens was exposed to the sun -> the car was.
Click to expand...
I think you need to read again, slowly and carefully. I said: "That’s obviously a very different scenario. ... (That was facetious, as I said…different scenario.)"

m4ndr4ke said:
If a lens (whatever its colour) can get its PTFE parts deformed inside a parked car, how much will a black telephoto lens heat up when exposed directly to the sun?
Click to expand...
Are you saying that black lenses don't work in the sun because the heat damages them? I guess Fro doesn't Know Photo because he's holding that expensive black lens in the sun and that lens is clearly about to melt. Not.

Fro Don't Know.png

I'm really not sure why you're perseverating on this. As I keep saying, black lenses are used in the sun all the time. What part of that don't you understand? I'm not arguing that a white lens won't be slightly cooler when used in direct sun than a black lens, I'm saying the slightly higher temperature of the black lens is not a problem for the function of that lens. If it was, all lenses would be painted white, and so would all cameras. They're not. It's really that simple.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
#132
neuroanatomist said:
Is there, though? Are you sure? The rationale for white paint was the higher thermal sensitivity of fluorite lens elements. Canon does not explicitly say that this new lens has them. There are lots of black lenses, so what in this lens requires thermal shielding? Nikon makes a 70-200/2.8 with fluorite elements, and it’s black.

Starting with the 70-300L (the first white lens without fluorite), IMO the white paint has been a marketing ploy. Other manufacturers’ use of fluorite in black lenses is consistent with that idea.
Click to expand...
I agree, however Canon have been doing this a lot longer than 2008 with the 70-300L...the first was in fact the original EF 70-200mm f2.8 L (non IS), way back in 1995. That was white / heat shield but only had UD lens elements and no Flourite elements. It's THIS lens that set the datum by which all over later 70-200/2.8's were judged against. The later IS versions didn't flourite elements either, they were not included until the legendary mkII version.
With non Flourite primes...it goes back even further. The mighty EF 200mm f1.8 L only had UD optics, which is 1988. The venerable EF 400mm f5.6 L was also Flourite free.
So I think it's reasonable to conclude your assesment that Canon have never considered the heat shield White to be a requirement of Flourite elements is very and supported by canon's release behaviour all through their EF lens history.
Canon have relased 37 White EF L lenses (ignoring TC's). 12 of these did not have Flourite elements.
On the RF mount, there have been 10 white lenses so far. Only 5 have a Flourite element and 1 is not even an L, the RF 200-800 (non L).
It does seem that canon are being a lot more stingy with their exotic elements in their RF mount lenses
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
#133
GMCPhotographics said:
I agree, however Canon have been doing this a lot longer than 2008 with the 70-300L...the first was in fact the original EF 70-200mm f2.8 L (non IS), way back in 1995. That was white / heat shield but only had UD lens elements and no Flourite elements. It's THIS lens that set the datum by which all over later 70-200/2.8's were judged against. The later IS versions didn't flourite elements either, they were not included until the legendary mkII version.
Click to expand...
Wholegrain flourite?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
#134
GMCPhotographics said:
I agree, however Canon have been doing this a lot longer than 2008 with the 70-300L...the first was in fact the original EF 70-200mm f2.8 L (non IS), way back in 1995.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the correction!

FWIW, the first fluorite lens was from 1969, and in those days the green ring meant fluorite, not DO. Except for the aperture ring, it was black.

FL-F300.png
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
#135
neuroanatomist said:
Are you saying that black lenses don't work in the sun because the heat damages them?
Click to expand...
Perhaps Canon's black lenses don't work in the sun as well as their white lenses. I'm not the engineer behind their development, are you? Maybe you are, you seem to be knowledgeable enough to question the brand's development.

neuroanatomist said:
Fro Don't Know.png't Know.png
Click to expand...
That Canon telephoto lens is looking a little weird, isn't it? Oh right, that's not a Canon lens.
Do you know what parts go inside that lens? I don't, and I'm fine with that, I'm not judging neither saying other brands are less effective because they don't use white.


neuroanatomist said:
I'm really not sure why you're perseverating on this.
Click to expand...
And I don't know what got you started on this.
I know I started by replying to @Maximilian , not to you:ROFLMAO:


GMCPhotographics said:
Canon have been doing this a lot longer than 2008 with the 70-300L...the first was in fact the original EF 70-200mm f2.8 L (non IS), way back in 1995
Click to expand...
Canon says they started doing this on their broadcast lenses, in the 1960's

Source: https://global.canon/en/quality/story/vol02.html
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
Upvote 0
#137
m4ndr4ke said:
Perhaps Canon's black lenses don't work in the sun as well as their white lenses.
Click to expand...
Okidokie.

I suspect that a clever marketing person approached the engineers half a century ago and asked them to devise a reason to paint big lenses a color that would stand out from all the other lenses. Or maybe the original Canon engineers who designed fluorite lenses...and all of Nikon's engineers who design their newer telephoto lenses, are just not very smart.

Canon said the quiet part of the real reason out loud already:
"There's a perception that the big lenses at sporting events should be white. That's what you expect to see," says Mike Burnhill, Professional Imaging Product Specialist at Canon Europe. "Even in sports computer games, the animated photographers around the virtual pitch have white lenses, because that's what you see in real life."
Click to expand...

With this, I'm done: lots of manufacturers, including Canon, make black lenses and they have been used successfully outdoors for decades. If you want to keep believing there's a compelling technical reason for some of those lenses to be painted white, you go right ahead.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
#139
m4ndr4ke said:
Canon says they started doing this on their broadcast lenses, in the 1960's

Source: https://global.canon/en/quality/story/vol02.html
Click to expand...
That link sure does...it then goes onto call the Canon white a colour and not a shade....so i think the author of the article wasn't the brightest of sparks. White is not a colour....it is a reflection of all the colours combined and black is the absence of any colour, grey is a specific shade in between.
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Canon Rumors
Canon officially launches the RF 28-70mm f/2.8 IS STM
Replies
394
Views
34K
Halfmoon
Halfmoon
Canon Rumors
Canon Announces First Lens in Series of Fixed Focal Length RF Hybrid Lenses – RF35mm F1.4L VCM
Replies
245
Views
14K
EOS 4 Life
E
Canon Rumors
Samyang officially launches the AF 12mm f/2 RF-S
Replies
3
Views
822
David - Sydney
D
Canon Rumors
The Canon RF 200-800mm F6.3-9 IS USM may not ship in quantity until August, 2024
Replies
6
Views
1K
YuengLinger
YuengLinger
Canon Rumors
Latest Adobe Camera Raw updates adds Sigma RF 30mm f/1.4 & RF 56mm f/1.4, shipping soon?
Replies
10
Views
2K
koenkooi
koenkooi
Top Bottom
Back
Home
Forums
Media
Menu