Patent Application: The Zoom You’ve Dreamt About: 70-150mm F2.0

#101
JMatt said:
And the mere mortals are being duped into paying a grand for an f/11 lens.
Click to expand...
The RF600/800 f11 are niche lenses for those who can't pay the big dollars for big whites. They don't have a red ring but can be good in good light and accept TCs as well.
Mirrorless enabled focusing past the max f8 for DLSRs and better high ISO performance opened up longer focal lengths for a new generation of shooters. They provide a gateway for those who may invest in wider aperture lenses in the future... maybe to the recent RF200-800mm or red ringed options.

"Duped" - I don't think so. Canon continues delivers unique lenses for different market segments even if you wouldn't buy them.
Assuming that Canon accurately did their market research then they should sell well. If they don't, then Canon is the one that was duped not the buyers.

Bryan's list of pros is longer than the cons :)
https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-RF-800mm-F11-IS-STM-Lens.aspx
https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-RF-200-800mm-F6-3-9-IS-USM-Lens.aspx
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
#102
David - Sydney said:
Mirrorless enabled focusing past the max f8 for DLSRs and better high ISO performance opened up longer focal lengths for a new generation of shooters. They provide a gateway for those who may invest in wider aperture lenses in the future... maybe to the recent RF200-800mm or red ringed options.
Click to expand...
I hear you. To be fair, high ISO performance and the ability to auto focus beyond f/8 are features of the sensor and associated hardware. They have no impact on the quality of image the lens projects onto the sensor.

One can buy a Sigma 150-600 f/6.3, which they package with a 1.4x tc and have an 840mm f/9. I'd love to see the photo charts comparing the image quality if that lens, or the Tamron equivalent, against the 800mm f/11. Maybe I'd be amazed. But then it'd still be a fixed focal length lens.

But as always, to each their own. My apologies if "duped" was an insensitive word choice.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0
#103
JMatt said:
One can buy a Sigma 150-600 f/6.3, which they package with a 1.4x tc and have an 840mm f/9. I'd love to see the photo charts comparing the image quality if that lens, or the Tamron equivalent, against the 800mm f/11. Maybe I'd be amazed. But then it'd still be a fixed focal length lens.

But as always, to each their own. My apologies if "duped" was an insensitive word choice.
Click to expand...
Here's a comparison of the Canon 800/11 vs. the Tamron with the 1.4x, the Canon 800/11 is substantially better, even more so away from the center.
www.the-digital-picture.com

Canon RF 800mm F11 IS STM Lens Image Quality

View the image quality delivered by the Canon RF 800mm F11 IS STM Lens using ISO 12233 Resolution Chart lab test results. Compare the image quality of this lens with other lenses.
www.the-digital-picture.com www.the-digital-picture.com

To each their own, indeed. With the subjects that I shoot in that focal range (birds), a fixed focal length is fine and zooming out is not necessary for me. Here's the Canon 800/11 compared to the what I use for 840mm.
www.the-digital-picture.com

Canon EF 600mm f/4L IS II USM Lens Image Quality

View the image quality delivered by the Canon EF 600mm f/4L IS II USM Lens using ISO 12233 Resolution Chart lab test results. Compare the image quality of this lens with other lenses.
www.the-digital-picture.com www.the-digital-picture.com
 
Upvote 0
#106
JMatt said:
One can buy a Sigma 150-600 f/6.3, which they package with a 1.4x tc and have an 840mm f/9. I'd love to see the photo charts comparing the image quality if that lens, or the Tamron equivalent, against the 800mm f/11. Maybe I'd be amazed. But then it'd still be a fixed focal length lens.
Click to expand...
Bryan also has comparison charts.
Look closer at the rf200-800 review from TDP.. The lens is 2/3 stop brighter but pretty close to the rf800/11 sharpness in a very wide focal range.
F9 from about 630-800mm.

Canon has given us a range of expensive primes, mid priced rf100-500, the rf200-800 and the rf600/800 f11 primes at lower price points.
Where a rf200-500/5.6 would fit in is a good question but we have a lot to chose from.
 
Upvote 1
#108
GMCPhotographics said:
Soz....but that's an assumption and not a fact. The RF 400mm f2.8 LIS doesn't have any weight reduction compared to the EF mkIII version.
MOST RF primes lenses are actually heavier than their EF counterparts. Some of the zooms are lighter but not all.
Compare the RF 100mm LIS Macro to the EF version. The EF version is smaller and lighter.
Check out the RF 24-70mm f2.8 LIS to the EF 24-70mm f2.8 L II. The EF lens is smaller and over 100g lighter.
Click to expand...
True... maybe I generalized too much on the lens... but I think overall RF package, adding the body and lens adaptor, then, RF body and lens should be lighter I think? But at least it is more compact....
 
Upvote 0
#109
Halfmoon said:
True... maybe I generalized too much on the lens... but I think overall RF package, adding the body and lens adaptor, then, RF body and lens should be lighter I think? But at least it is more compact....
Click to expand...
There are very few RF lenses that are similar in function but smaller and lighter than their similar EF lenses. even when accounting fo a EF to R adapter. There are a few wide angles. RF 10-20mm vs EF 11-24mm (although some could argue that these are not similar. The RF 70-200 lenses are all lighter, but only smaller because they retract. The RF 24-105L is a tad lighter and smaller than the EF mkII , but not the more popular EF mkI.
The new RF24mm f1.4 L is a lot lighter than the EF mkII version. but ther RF 35mm f1.4 L isn't much lighter than the EF mk II. The UWA's might be a tad lighter and smaller. That's about it. You could argue that the RF 100-500L is smalelr and lighter than the EF 100-400IIL, but it's not a direct comparision lens.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0
#110
David - Sydney said:
"Duped" - I don't think so. Canon continues delivers unique lenses for different market segments even if you wouldn't buy them.
Assuming that Canon accurately did their market research then they should sell well. If they don't, then Canon is the one that was duped not the buyers.
Click to expand...

And Canon continues to prevent 3rd party lens manufacturers (Tamron, Sigma) from releasing lenses that would compete with them that would put pressure on Canon's lenses. Sure, Canon is in it to make money, but compared to the past, consumer wallets are being raped.
 
  • Wow
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0
#111
GMCPhotographics said:
There are very few RF lenses that are similar in function but smaller and lighter than their similar EF lenses. even when accounting fo a EF to R adapter. There are a few wide angles. RF 10-20mm vs EF 11-24mm (although some could argue that these are not similar. The RF 70-200 lenses are all lighter, but only smaller because they retract. The RF 24-105L is a tad lighter and smaller than the EF mkII , but not the more popular EF mkI.
The new RF24mm f1.4 L is a lot lighter than the EF mkII version. but ther RF 35mm f1.4 L isn't much lighter than the EF mk II. The UWA's might be a tad lighter and smaller. That's about it. You could argue that the RF 100-500L is smalelr and lighter than the EF 100-400IIL, but it's not a direct comparision lens.
Click to expand...
Those big circles of glass that everyone fawns over need to be of a certain size to deliver the required aperture and there's a lot of material in each element that contributes to the weight of each lens. Unless a new design has fewer optical elements (or newer optical stuff that weighs less), a new lens not going to be particularly lighter.
 
Upvote 0
#112
David_B said:
And Canon continues to prevent 3rd party lens manufacturers (Tamron, Sigma) from releasing lenses that would compete with them that would put pressure on Canon's lenses. Sure, Canon is in it to make money, but compared to the past, consumer wallets are being raped.
Click to expand...
1) Do we know that Canon has prevented Sigma/Tamron from making FF lenses for RF? It does seem likely, but seems and is don’t always align.

2) Sigma and Tamron make lenses for other mounts, do they have offerings that compete with lenses like the RF 15-30, 100-400 and 16/2.8?

3) Is Canon ripping off consumers with their RF 28-105/2.8, which has weather sealing and L-level optical performance and costs $1100? Last I checked, the similar Sigma lens sells for $1500. Who’s getting overcharged there?
 
Upvote 0
#113
neuroanatomist said:
There's also this thing called inflation, and that is not a generational thing. Everything new requires a fatter wallet than the equivalent thing a generation ago. For example, the EF 70-200/4L non-IS was $650 when it launched in 1999. In today's dollars, that's $1230. The EF 70-200/4L IS launched in 2006 at $1200, which would be $1850 today. Compare those to the RF 70-200/4 IS, which beats both old lenses on IQ and launched at $1500.
Click to expand...

Yeah, inflation is where the price of things rises more than the size of pay packets, resulting in things that were affordable 10 years ago not being affordable today. That's Canon's problem to ensure that new products are still affordable by the people who are prospective buyers.

And you forgot to include the EF 24-70/4L (which delivered superior results to the 24-105s), but hey, nobody's perfect.
 
Upvote 0
#114
David_B said:
That's Canon's problem to ensure that new products are still affordable by the people who are prospective buyers.
Click to expand...
They’re still dominating the market and showing a good profit. Check and check.

David_B said:
And you forgot to include the EF 24-70/4L (which delivered superior results to the 24-105s)
Click to expand...
I was listing lenses costing <$1K as ‘affordable’. Are you suggesting that the 24-70/4 fits into that category?

This is from the announcement:
The EF 24-70mm f/4L IS USM lens is supplied with a lens pouch and reversible lens hood. It is expected to be available in December for an approximate retail price of $1,499.00.
Click to expand...

But hey, thanks for so aptly demonstrating your point:
David_B said:
but hey, nobody's perfect.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
#115
David_B said:
And Canon continues to prevent 3rd party lens manufacturers (Tamron, Sigma) from releasing lenses that would compete with them that would put pressure on Canon's lenses. Sure, Canon is in it to make money, but compared to the past, consumer wallets are being raped.
Click to expand...
Harsh language that is hard to correlate with something as innocent as camera gear.
Canon (or any other OEM) doesn't force you to buy anything. Canon has opened the R mount for select 3rd party APS-C lenses that would be guaranteed to work with the combined IBIS/lens AF. That couldn't be the case for EF 3rd party lenses.

Canon couldn't stop any OEM releasing a new EF lens using the EF protocols... just as they couldn't do in the past.
The OEMs have been patient to negotiate a deal but we are yet to see 3rd party FF lenses yet. If you can't be patient then another system may be a better option for you.

Nothing is stopping you from buying second hand EF lenses either. There is a huge range of options available and at a good price point.
 
Upvote 0
#116
David_B said:
Yeah, inflation is where the price of things rises more than the size of pay packets, resulting in things that were affordable 10 years ago not being affordable today. That's Canon's problem to ensure that new products are still affordable by the people who are prospective buyers.
Click to expand...
If the list of short supply items is a good reference (and seems to be growing) then Canon isn't making any errors.
Canon's biggest problem at the moment is making enough stuff for people to buy (at any price).
That said, Canon do have a good set of lower level priced bodies and lenses for a lot of people with features light years ahead of 10 years ago.

I get what you say that inflation has risen more than pay packets for most people.
It is unfortunate that the burden on taming inflation is hurting the people that most unable to afford stuff (renters or mortgage holders, those with lower disposable income, those with multiple dependents, etc).
 
Upvote 0
#118
David_B said:
This I have been keeping an eye on. EF lenses (2nd hand) are seeing serious price drops in various places. If you bought your EF lens as an "investment" and haven't sold it already, it'll likely be a loss making "investment."
Click to expand...
Selling my EF L lenses over time has been about 40-50% of the new price but mostly I bought them at a discount from the list price or got them second in the first place so not a huge cost difference. No big white purchases though :)

"Investment" is a good question... Maybe a option when I get retrenched from my day job.
Global insurance coverage is 2.7% of replacement cost as my recent premium renewal cost me.
 
Upvote 0
#119
David - Sydney said:
"Investment" is a good question...
Click to expand...
Anecdotal examples notwithstanding, hopefully no one out there is seriously ‘investing’ in photo gear in the sense of expecting to profit from it. It’s true what they say about fools and their money.

Personally, I’m net positive on the relatively few lenses that I bought used (which I have done when truly uncertain if I wanted a lens, and my instincts were good since of the 7 or so times I’ve done that I kept only the MP-E 65 but effectively got a better-than-free rental of up to two years).

But considering overall purchases, comprising mostly new gear, like you I’m probably at ~40-50% recovery of what I consider sunk costs for all practical purposes.
 
Upvote 0
#120
David_B said:
Those big circles of glass that everyone fawns over need to be of a certain size to deliver the required aperture and there's a lot of material in each element that contributes to the weight of each lens. Unless a new design has fewer optical elements (or newer optical stuff that weighs less), a new lens not going to be particularly lighter.
Click to expand...
Some RF lenses are EF lenses that were retrofitted. The mighty RF 600/f4 and RF400/2.8 were both EF lenses that Canon retrofitted to RF.
The RF 15-35mm f2.8 is a curious lens. Comparing the RF 14-35/f4, RF 15-35/2.8 and the EF 16-35/2.8III, it can be hypothesised that the RF15-35/2.8 may well have been an unreleased EF design that was retrofitted to the RF mount. The block chart certainly looks like there’s a big gap between the rear element and the sensor, akin to an EF lens.
The MFT charts also support this theory, optically it’s not much better that the ef lens. Optically, it’s well eclipsed by the RF 14-35mm f4. Which has a rear element butted right up to the sensor and far better MFT charts.
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Richard CR
Canon RF 30-600mm Super Zoom appears in Patent Application
Replies
42
Views
2K
neuroanatomist
neuroanatomist
Richard CR
Patent Application: Kit Zooms for both RF-S and RF
Replies
1
Views
241
Aldherrian
A
Canon Rumors
Canon Patent Application: Canon RF 14-20mm F2.0
Replies
1
Views
519
AJ
A
Canon Rumors
Canon Patent Application: Inner Zoom Video Lenses with Power Zoom
Replies
2
Views
291
Tirmite
T
Canon Rumors
Canon Patent Application: Canon RF 28-70mm F2.8
Replies
15
Views
997
Ian K
Ian K
Top Bottom
Back
Home
Forums
Media
Menu