nandadevieast wrote:
These lenses will make them get the customers from 1” and m43 systems. In those systems all the wildlife solutions have effective F11 aperture in full frame terms, and then there is fact that its a full frame sensor so ISO button will work better. So suddenly you have that small sensor capability on reach and equivalent light gathering capability plus in a minute you can attach a F1.2 lens if you so please.
Exception to this is 300 Pro and m43 combination which makes for 600 F8.
RX10 IV = F10.8
Light gathering capability = F4 neutralised by ISO capability of full frame sensor. ...Show more →
I'd doubt the 5R sensor will be good enough to match a top MFT sensor at f/4. That’s quite a few stops to make up for.
johnvanr wrote:
I'd doubt the 5R sensor will be good enough to match a top MFT sensor at f/4. That’s quite a few stops to make up for.
Yeah, certainly not if you are planning to do a lot of cropping with the R5 to get more "reach". Then you are back comparing something more like a 17.5 MP APS-C sensor to a 20-24MP m43 sensor. So f/11 isn't going to match what they can get at f/4 with the 300/4 lens.
I shot Olympus 4/3 for years, and it was really hard to get decent subject isolation, even with a lens like the 14-35f2. I went from there to Aps-c and things got better, and from there to FF and things got a lot better again.
I would not want a 600mm f11 lens for the rendering alone. It will never be a good wildlife/birders lens due to insufficient subject isolation. Perhaps a good sports lens for beginners? nandadevieast wrote:
These lenses will make them get the customers from 1” and m43 systems. In those systems all the wildlife solutions have effective F11 aperture in full frame terms, and then there is fact that its a full frame sensor so ISO button will work better. So suddenly you have that small sensor capability on reach and equivalent light gathering capability plus in a minute you can attach a F1.2 lens if you so please.
Exception to this is 300 Pro and m43 combination which makes for 600 F8.
RX10 IV = F10.8
Light gathering capability = F4 neutralised by ISO capability of full frame sensor. ...Show more →
ChrisMak wrote:
I shot Olympus 4/3 for years, and it was really hard to get decent subject isolation, even with a lens like the 14-35f2. I went from there to Aps-c and things got better, and from there to FF and things got a lot better again.
I would not want a 600mm f11 lens for the rendering alone. It will never be a good wildlife/birders lens due to insufficient subject isolation. Perhaps a good sports lens for beginners?
There will still be opportunities to get clean backgrounds even at f/11. Shooting on the ground at water's edge for waterfowl usually won't matter what aperture if you are low enough and far shoreline is far enough. Also if one is patient to allow the bird to perch on an outer limb with distant background then you can get a clean shot at f/11 without issue.
arbitrage wrote:
There will still be opportunities to get clean backgrounds even at f/11. Shooting on the ground at water's edge for waterfowl usually won't matter what aperture if you are low enough and far shoreline is far enough. Also if one is patient to allow the bird to perch on an outer limb with distant background then you can get a clean shot at f/11 without issue.
Amazing magnification and a super shot
But you can hopefully take the 2.0TC off if not needed and/or wanted.
The thing with a 600mm f11 lens, you are trapped at f11. I would never want a f11 lens as my to go lens, but yes, the ability to add a 1.4TC or a 2.0TC is a big advantage even if it may get you to f9-f11
I think she meant to say "detail" in the second sentence.
The Canon R5 is my dream camera. It combines everything I love about the Canon 5DIV and the Canon EOS R into a single, fabulous camera. Beautiful color, amazing deal, face and eye tracking — all of these tools help me to produce striking imagery without having to fixate on my gear.
ChrisMak wrote:
I shot Olympus 4/3 for years, and it was really hard to get decent subject isolation, even with a lens like the 14-35f2. I went from there to Aps-c and things got better, and from there to FF and things got a lot better again.
I would not want a 600mm f11 lens for the rendering alone. It will never be a good wildlife/birders lens due to insufficient subject isolation. Perhaps a good sports lens for beginners?
F/11 @ 600mm is roughly 5.6 at 300mm, or f/2.8 at 150mm, + the narrow fov lets you isolate against a given bg better.
Zenon Char wrote:
Ahh. I didn't know that was already done. I thought after the release announcement shipping is a month or so and the pros got a crack at it.
A few years ago, somebody got a photo of a group of wildlife photographers on safari, and one of them had a camera in his hand with a Canon big white tele mounted. I think there was black tape over the model designation on the camera body or something similar, and people asked him later if the camera was a 5D Mark IV. IIRC, he gave a winking “no comment” reply or something. This was before the 5D4 announcement, and I may not be remembering every detail correctly. But the gist is correct — it basically confirmed what a lot of people had suspected — that field tests happen long before new cameras are released or even officially announced.
ChrisMak wrote:
Amazing magnification and a super shot
But you can hopefully take the 2.0TC off if not needed and/or wanted.
The thing with a 600mm f11 lens, you are trapped at f11. I would never want a f11 lens as my to go lens, but yes, the ability to add a 1.4TC or a 2.0TC is a big advantage even if it may get you to f9-f11
Yes, I certainly agree that I'd rather have an RF 200-600 f/6.3 like the Sony and have the option when to push it out to 840 f/9 and 1200 f/14 rather then be stuck at 800/11 all the time. I guess the only possible benefit is if I always needed 800 anyways and the 800/11 was a much smaller, lighter and cheaper option. The Sony 2-6 is rather large and heavy but decently priced. I would never pay more for an 800/11 vs what I paid for the 200-600 so Canon better be bringing these two lenses out under $2K USD.
Focussing should not be a problem. I put a Kenco 3xTC on a 100-400mm II and found it focuses well at 1200mm f/16.8 using Liveview with a 5DIV and 90D. Diffraction limitation at f/11 is no big deal with 20-24 Mpx sensor on FF. Going from f/8 to f/11 for good lenses on a 50 Mpx 5DSR lowers MTF50 by about 10-15% according to measurements by opticallimits.
moondigger wrote:
A few years ago, somebody got a photo of a group of wildlife photographers on safari, and one of them had a camera in his hand with a Canon big white tele mounted. I think there was black tape over the model designation on the camera body or something similar, and people asked him later if the camera was a 5D Mark IV. IIRC, he gave a winking “no comment” reply or something. This was before the 5D4 announcement, and I may not be remembering every detail correctly. But the gist is correct — it basically confirmed what a lot of people had suspected — that field tests happen long before new cameras are released or even officially announced....Show more →
Yes it seems fairly common to see some -insert brand here- sponsored photographers release stories/mini-reviews on the full announcement date (before release) and typically those stories took place months earlier. So there are certainly many Canon Explorers of Light shooting the R5 and some of the lenses already...especially since the R5 is already pre-announced so they don't have to keep it a secret.
AmbientMike wrote:
F/11 @ 600mm is roughly 5.6 at 300mm, or f/2.8 at 150mm, + the narrow fov lets you isolate against a given bg better.
So subject isolation shouldn't be a big problem.
I am not sure it works that way, as your subjects are going to be much further away and the surroundings will be much closer relatively than when shooting e.g. a portrait with a 150mm lens. I already find 700mm f8 to be a hard combo to get an attractive separation when shooting birds/wildlife further out.
But for sports, which does seem to be Canon's turf, it might work out well, as the subjects will be much larger in the frame and have lots or at least sufficient free space around them. I am betting these are sports oriented lenses, not so much for wildlife or birding close to dusk or dawn.
There was some interesting info shared by a couple of CR forum posters.
One confirmed what the RF mount-sensor distance is: 20mm so you can subtract that from the patent lengths to find the lens length.
Also from the patent another member got this out of it about the design:
"The lenses will be long. The patent explains why. There is a trade off of length versus number of lens elements needed to correct distortion that happens when you make the lens shorter. The lens is designed to be low cost with relatively few lens elements which reduces weight. Length, not so much.
If the total length of the optical system LO becomes
so short as to exceed a lower limit of the conditional
expression (3), the spherical aberration, the coma aberration,
the on-axis chromatic aberration, and the magnification
chromatic aberration that occur in the positive lens in the
first lens unit Ll become excessively large. To satisfactorily
correct the aberrations, it is necessary to increase the number
of lenses in the first lens unit Ll, which makes it difficult to
achieve sufficiently high optical performance while downsizing
the optical system with light weight."
So these are going to be fairly long lenses...I'm intrigued to see them in the flesh.
cpe1991 wrote:
Focussing should not be a problem. I put a Kenco 3xTC on a 100-400mm II and found it focuses well at 1200mm f/16.8 using Liveview with a 5DIV and 90D. Diffraction limitation at f/11 is no big deal with 20-24 Mpx sensor on FF. Going from f/8 to f/11 for good lenses on a 50 Mpx 5DSR lowers MTF50 by about 10-15% according to measurements by opticallimits.
Maybe focusing is not a problem for completely static subjects, but moving subjects will be a big problem on almost any body. My 80D with 100-400II and 1.4TCIII is slow to acquire focus and unsuitable for most moving subjects (really big BIFs in perfect light moving in the right direction might work though).
ted1000 wrote:
We have one thread complaining Canon's new RF lenses are too fast (RF 2/100L macro rumor) and another thread complaining they are too slow.
Ted
I didn't complain the 2/100 macro is "too fast", just that for macro work f/2 doesn't make any sense.
alundeb wrote:
My take is that the big question is image quality. The patented formula has the DO element first, like the old DO lenses with low contrast. That doesn't bode very well. On the cool side, they will probably have a slick collapsible design and be very lightweight.
I could be interested in an f/11 800mm for moon shots if it is really sharp even with TC added, and reasonably priced (because I have no use for an f/11 long lens in nature/wildlife photography). But yes - old DO design, no L lenses, seems aimed more at relatively low price than at high optical quality. If these lenses are not collapsible, they will be inconvenient to carry despite probably low weight. Puzzling marketing decisions ...
technic wrote:
I didn't complain the 2/100 macro is "too fast", just that for macro work f/2 doesn't make any sense.
I disagree, in many cases control of the background is just as important as the main subject in a close-up photograph. I often use my 85mm tilt/shift lens wide open to maximize the blur of the clutter in flower close-ups while controlling the plane of focus to e.g. bring two flowers into simultaneous focus. I think f/2 is very useful in a lens designed for close-up photography.
ChrisMak wrote:
I am not sure it works that way, as your subjects are going to be much further away and the surroundings will be much closer relatively than when shooting e.g. a portrait with a 150mm lens. I already find 700mm f8 to be a hard combo to get an attractive separation when shooting birds/wildlife further out.
But for sports, which does seem to be Canon's turf, it might work out well, as the subjects will be much larger in the frame and have lots or at least sufficient free space around them. I am betting these are sports oriented lenses, not so much for wildlife or birding close to dusk or dawn....Show more →
600mm at f/11, 300/5.6, and 150/2.8 all require the same minimum diameter front element of about 54.5mm. Obviously if you don't like 700mm at f/8, you're not going to like 600 at f/11, but I tested 85/1.4 vs 200/2.8. Pretty similar front element/aperture diameter.
I liked the 200mm better, IIRC, because the narrow field allows you to get a certain bg more easily, for instance oof green instead of being able to see the shape of a tree. Also it's spread out more. I really saw thus comparing 50mm macro vs 180, although I can't recall if I equalized the apertures. But I generally prefer the longer 180.
600mm f/11 is about 54.5mm vs 100/2 being 50mm. Plus the longer FL , so you should be able to eliminate a bg much more easily using 600/11.
